Invulnerable rams

[BWithey]

seeing it as gold is a relatively soft metal that maybe wouldn't be a good idea >_>

IN this application it's softness may not be an issue, because gold is also VERY heavy, and it's that inertia that's going to get the job done. It's not like a sword that needs a fine edge, it just needs lots of weight and a direction to swing it.

Alternately? I'm kind of against indestructible rams.

[DatOneGuy]

Isn't bronze better for a ram though?


Not sure how gold will work out with it being malleable in a ram and if that will or will not be a problem, if it isn't then it seems the best for the job as through a quick look up it seems it's kg/cu.m seem to be ridiculously high compared to the others, gold being best, copper second, bronze third, and then iron.

So copper seems it would be best, and ridiculously heavy, perhaps in exchange for being very VERY hard to break it'd be able to move only about 5 tiles?

[SacreDoom]

That's why we want lead in-game... >_>

[Winterbrass]

Hey, if you can't find an area to build a ram in where the ram is safe until it dries, it means that the defenders are doing a good job with the passive defense. Sucks to be you because that is how it should be.

[DatOneGuy]

Hey, if you can't find an area to build a ram in where the ram is safe until it dries, it means that the defenders are doing a good job with the passive defense. Sucks to be you because that is how it should be.

Well if you havin ram problems I feel bad fo' you son...

[Potjeh]

Breaking walls should be trivial if the defender doesn't meet you in battle, the current state of warfare is just sad.

Walling and counterwalling does put a damper in my idea here, after all. Who was it that suggested walls should take time to dry? I think that could be the solution, if walls took longer to dry than rams it wouldn't be possible to cock-block an assault when you can't break the ram till it's dry.

There is of course the problem of the attackers having all the control in setting the time of battle. IMO that wouldn't be that big a problem if you couldn't just spam rams every hour to make sure you'll catch them when they're offline. One way to do that would be to make these attacks cost authority, but then we're back to my siege camp suggestion and people seem to have some kind of irrational hatred for it. If you're still caught when all of your people are offline, sucks to be you, should've recruited folks from different timezones.

[Repercussionist]

Breaking walls should be trivial if the defender doesn't meet you in battle, the current state of warfare is just sad.

If he doesn't meet you in battle, what have you got to worry about anyways? >.< It should be harder to break into a village than to defend one. I'll admit that I would like to more, and more advanced warfare, but I don't think this is the solution we need.

[Winterbrass]

Breaking walls should be trivial if the defender doesn't meet you in battle

Guerilla defense. If you can't deal with it, stay off the field.

If you're still caught when all of your people are offline, sucks to be you, should've recruited folks from different timezones.

That was the dumbest thing that I have ever heard you say and this upsets me. If that's going to be the way of it, why don't some of us just have villages that we timeshare with the Russians and the Koreans? Aside from the fact that we don't want our village levelled by people avenging murder or theft, of course.

[Wolfang]

Dude, even if he hadn't said that, what he said still applies...

[BWithey]

If that's going to be the way of it, why don't some of us just have villages that we timeshare with the Russians and the Koreans? Aside from the fact that we don't want our village levelled by people avenging murder or theft, of course.

I have a very diverse membership, including Russians, Koreans, Germans, Norse, Irish, American, Polish, and likely a couple other I never got around to asking about, and have yet to have any problems with this. They're all honest, hard-working people.