PDA

View Full Version : Disease


zach12wqasxz
02-16-2010, 10:42 AM
i was wondering if maybe in an expansion of the game or a patch or update or something if u guys could incorporate a sort of disease warfare

like if u have a small army and your trying to take a heavily defended castle why not use some dead cows, toss em in ur catapults and throw them over the walls and spread disease and havoc in there city? unless the other player could burn the cow bodies ( or any animal really ) there city would slowly become infested with disease.
i do beleive this strategy was used in a lot of lengthy seiges in real life. also its been incorporated into other games like strongold pretty succesfully. i think that if DOF players could use disease as a weapon instead of just swords it would be a sweet addition to the game

any other opinions? criticism?

blackfang
02-16-2010, 03:11 PM
diseases would be awesome, however it should be possible to burn/bury them all. Tough sometime the oil and earth gotta take to an end... Or the manpower needed to move it so... Its a good idea:D

DarkMaster
02-16-2010, 03:24 PM
I think one of the devs said that the orcs can already do this. I could be wrong, though.

Kire
02-16-2010, 03:26 PM
And if they die of that disease they rise as zombeys !!=)

nickson104
02-16-2010, 04:44 PM
I think one of the devs said that the orcs can already do this. I could be wrong, though.

Im not too sure if it was the devs, but I DO remember such a topic coming up before, and i think it was that you could launch cattle at the enemy, of course this wouldnt have the same effect as throwing a big lump of rock, i think buildings would experience little change whereas infantry would have the collision damage and the damage-over-time...

Negthareas
02-16-2010, 08:28 PM
Yes, but disease was always a long-term siege factor. As demonstrated with the siege weapons, the last thing we want is a long term siege. However, if disease worked fast, why waste troops? Every siege would become a black plague trap unless there were very strict limitations.

zach12wqasxz
02-16-2010, 08:29 PM
Im not too sure if it was the devs, but I DO remember such a topic coming up before, and i think it was that you could launch cattle at the enemy, of course this wouldnt have the same effect as throwing a big lump of rock, i think buildings would experience little change whereas infantry would have the collision damage and the damage-over-time...

i used the search bar looking for that exact thing cuz i couldnt remember if this had been discussed before or not, i treid and failed, thus another example of its uselessness. and a boulder and a cow weigh about the same so i htink the damage to a wood biulding would be about the same, but walls the cow would just bounce right off lol
and ya burning the bodies, or burying them ect. this would be a good strategy to distract ur enemies manpower into fighting disease then siege there caslte, much content and strategy to be added

Darathor
02-16-2010, 09:02 PM
Could be cool but seems too weird to incorporate into a fantasy setting, then there's the problem of implementing it. While possibly quite fun and interesting, as well as unique, as it would be, I don't think it would make the cut as new features in an expansion or sequel, mostly due to the uniqueness of it, especially in a medieval type fantasy game.

SvN
02-17-2010, 02:27 AM
Could be cool but seems too weird to incorporate into a fantasy setting.

I see nothing weird with this strategy. Poisoning water by throwing dead animals in wells and launching dead rotting bodies over city walls is a strategy that really has existed. The people under siege could do nothing but burn them, and burning a body requires alot of oil wich is expensive for a city with limited supplies. Altough it's hard to imagine a siege battle with cows instead of stones raining down on the castle:)

Negthareas
02-17-2010, 12:29 PM
I jus tdon't see how it could be properly implemented.

zach12wqasxz
02-17-2010, 12:47 PM
I jus tdon't see how it could be properly implemented.

i dont think it would be hard at all, like if u posion water a % of the troops would get sick, if u threw dead bodies/animals over walls they could have a "blast radious" where any troops within it had like a 90 % chance of getting sick

welshie
02-17-2010, 02:09 PM
i think you can already do this. not sure about the disease thing tho and the causes but u can defo use deaded cows to effect moral

ash12181987
02-17-2010, 06:50 PM
I'm not too big a fan of it myself. I mean, the point of germ warfare is to kill Alot of people... closed up in a city with the black plague was effective for killing off a garrison, but at the same time it shoots all strategy in the foot. You've basically gotta' do it, and run; otherwise your now infected.

Disease soaked towels killed many many people... but again: not a whole lot of strategy here, we're just killing a whole crap load of people and backing off while it happens.

Most of the times it's done in games though, it's a just a minor annoyance. See: Stronghold 2. I mean, you get a diseased cow? Walk the heck around it's bloated corpse, and your fine.

Balancing what it would really do, with what isn't overkill or balance shattering is the real issue. Maybe... infection can happen, it can run throughout the castle to effect the units abilities to fight? Like, when you've got a cold and feel like death, not wanting to get out of bed? Do that in 40 lbs of armor now. But, make it so both sides can get it, either by handling the dead thingy launched over the wall, or by a diseased dude running out and taking a wee in the invading armies grain shed... so you really have to decide: "this is something that will make this much easier... or it could backfire and screw me over."

Also, cows hitting walls: Mythbusters did this with unfrozen store chickens... same result I'd imagine.

Negthareas
02-17-2010, 09:10 PM
Actually, that makes sense. Have the disease affect the besieged as well as the siegers. That way there is a definite trade off. The besieged will die faster [ or since I do not like that idea, loose more moral or a percentage of their units] than the attackers. A good idea - but it needs to be developed.

If it does not affect the sieger, than all strategy will go down the tubes and sieges will become a waiting game where the defender always loses.

GPS51
02-18-2010, 01:24 AM
How about losing troops from the battlion but not being able to lose the last guy to disease?

nickson104
02-18-2010, 08:32 AM
How about losing troops from the battlion but not being able to lose the last guy to disease?

Super-awesome genetically superior dude? :p

Also i think that if this tactic were to be used, it must last a long time so that it will get in the way of the attackers, it will make them think twice about using the tactic... And there must be a limit on it too, otherwise the siegers will hit the entire castle with disease and wait it out for the defenders to die, then waltz in and claim the castle for themselves...

Also we must remember that using said cows uses up the livestock travelling with the army, perhaps you would have to group the cows into the army just for the purpose of using them as ammunition XD :p
The cows must come from somewhere, especially as all other ammunition is deducted from your resources (stone is used by catapults and such)

zach12wqasxz
02-18-2010, 12:10 PM
Super-awesome genetically superior dude? :p

Also i think that if this tactic were to be used, it must last a long time so that it will get in the way of the attackers, it will make them think twice about using the tactic... And there must be a limit on it too, otherwise the siegers will hit the entire castle with disease and wait it out for the defenders to die, then waltz in and claim the castle for themselves...

Also we must remember that using said cows uses up the livestock travelling with the army, perhaps you would have to group the cows into the army just for the purpose of using them as ammunition XD :p
The cows must come from somewhere, especially as all other ammunition is deducted from your resources (stone is used by catapults and such)

wich is also a major drawback, i think having to use your food supplies and a risk of killing your own army would balance this all out

Darathor
02-18-2010, 07:07 PM
I see nothing weird with this strategy. Poisoning water by throwing dead animals in wells and launching dead rotting bodies over city walls is a strategy that really has existed. The people under siege could do nothing but burn them, and burning a body requires alot of oil wich is expensive for a city with limited supplies. Altough it's hard to imagine a siege battle with cows instead of stones raining down on the castle:)

Well certainly you could do that, I think you can shoot diseased cattle from trebuchets already in this game. But I believe he was talking more about diseases in a different way. I think he wasn't talking about anything like that, more like wide-spread diseases that aren't thrown from catapults.:)

And I said fantasy not medieval. I find it weird to find all this disease talk in a game with magic and elves and orcs.

Kire
02-18-2010, 08:18 PM
Why would you burn cow if you can just throw it back ?=P And yes ... why would you use disease if you can burn them with doom magic?=) At least more fun.

blackfang
02-19-2010, 08:47 AM
diseases are demoralizing i mean would you be walking casually if you knew there was a disease spreading around the town that weakens and kills people... i think not, also a disease should not mean the end of the people, just weakening them a Little if you get what i mean:p

wills370
02-19-2010, 10:00 AM
I think the idea is great although it would have a hard time been balanced. Thoose who play orcs will have lots of troops to defer to burning the corpses etc and stopping the spread of disease. So will remain alrgly unaffected by the system. Been dirty creatures themselves used to plunder and death i guess they wouldent have that large a moral affect either.

On the other extreme though a sieged town of elves. Who find the voilence and stench demoralising would be demoraled at a higher rate . This combined with the elite unit ethos where a much lower pop cap is in play as units are more effective killing machines and not fodder means. That they would hve to take a larger portion of there defence to deal with this as a result of the numbers needed. This leads naturally to a great imbalance if disease was put into use. As if elves did not bring the manpower away quickly from the front lines they would all die of desease anyway.

This would only really work if everyone had the same pop cap and balances. E.g. Human where they have sufficent man power to hold a defence and defer units to work aswell as having some moral affect agaisnt them etc.

This is just my analysis anyway of what would happen in the fighting system at current from what i understand from it. One option would be to add a remove disease ability to the elves where they naturally cure alot faster then other races so they shall not be as effected by it. The orcs will balance themselves with the fodder taking on the task and the humans can have a corpse cart or somthing as a unit which could be an attachment and make them more efficent in the colecting/disposing of desease. So that the balnace remains greater in tune with one another and no desease is to overpowered when used. Also the elves could have a nature spell which claims the body's to earth before they have a chance to spread desease in a given area.

blackfang
02-19-2010, 03:17 PM
how about making the elven diseases more leathal, the humans got somekinda medium, and the orcs just use the cows without any small pox or something attached:D

zach12wqasxz
02-19-2010, 03:46 PM
I think the idea is great although it would have a hard time been balanced. Thoose who play orcs will have lots of troops to defer to burning the corpses etc and stopping the spread of disease. So will remain alrgly unaffected by the system. Been dirty creatures themselves used to plunder and death i guess they wouldent have that large a moral affect either.

On the other extreme though a sieged town of elves. Who find the voilence and stench demoralising would be demoraled at a higher rate . This combined with the elite unit ethos where a much lower pop cap is in play as units are more effective killing machines and not fodder means. That they would hve to take a larger portion of there defence to deal with this as a result of the numbers needed. This leads naturally to a great imbalance if disease was put into use. As if elves did not bring the manpower away quickly from the front lines they would all die of desease anyway.

This would only really work if everyone had the same pop cap and balances. E.g. Human where they have sufficent man power to hold a defence and defer units to work aswell as having some moral affect agaisnt them etc.

This is just my analysis anyway of what would happen in the fighting system at current from what i understand from it. One option would be to add a remove disease ability to the elves where they naturally cure alot faster then other races so they shall not be as effected by it. The orcs will balance themselves with the fodder taking on the task and the humans can have a corpse cart or somthing as a unit which could be an attachment and make them more efficent in the colecting/disposing of desease. So that the balnace remains greater in tune with one another and no desease is to overpowered when used. Also the elves could have a nature spell which claims the body's to earth before they have a chance to spread desease in a given area.

i really like the idea of a human corpse cart unit. like they can pick up diseased animals and bodeis real fast and go burn them. that or u can use them to get ur enemies dead and swiftly loot there corpses of weapons and armor. and theres lots of ways u could balance this all out, like the natural resistance from the orcs cuz there already used to disease and filth makes sense, and the elven earth spell to rid them of disease also makes sense, and the humans with average disease resistance and average pop cap with the corpse cart unit could balance it all out pretty well

Kire
02-19-2010, 04:47 PM
Just throwing some dead animals over the walls cant make a disease. And second if they would be the ones to start disease than it would take also some time .... With your logic each time your hunter kills an animal it would start a disease tho =P. But if you think that animal at catapults is also rotten cuz it is some days old than the catapult users/attackers would get infected first anyway. I dont think ppl at this age have the power to manipulate disease .. but poisons are different story.
I still support just morale reduction .... (at orcs is doable =).

Negthareas
02-20-2010, 12:29 PM
Let's make one thing clear:

Disease warfare in the medival timeperiod were the result of actual diseases. Many times, the besiegers were so devestated by the sickness that they had to call off the siege. As a last act, they would do things to spread the disease to the besieged - if you can't rule them, you might as well kill them - attitude.

An example of this is the Turkish siege that started the spread of the Bubonic Plague in Europe.

zach12wqasxz
02-20-2010, 12:49 PM
Let's make one thing clear:

Disease warfare in the medival timeperiod were the result of actual diseases. Many times, the besiegers were so devestated by the sickness that they had to call off the siege. As a last act, they would do things to spread the disease to the besieged - if you can't rule them, you might as well kill them - attitude.

An example of this is the Turkish siege that started the spread of the Bubonic Plague in Europe.

i thought that was from a mongol invasion, when they sailed to some place and brought diseased infested rats with them? witch is what spread it all over the place?

Negthareas
02-20-2010, 01:00 PM
The turkish siege failed do to the disease that they brought with them [fleas]. They infected the inhabitants of the besieged city by throwing their own dead bodies in via catapult. Then they left. Many of the citizens tried to flee the city [streets filled with corpses]. Merchants fled on ships with rats [that had been bitten by the flees]. The ships landed somewhere else, fleas bite rats, flees spread the disease... etc.

Thechampio2
02-22-2010, 07:44 AM
Humans can get diptheria and make an obscure Oregon Trail references. The elves can get Pinocchio syndrome where their noses and ears get longer and the Orcs can get swine flu where they slowly turn into pigs.

blackfang
02-22-2010, 08:04 AM
... humans can get aids, elves can get aids, orcs can get aids. There is a sickness everyone can live with... Or possibly die with:)

Puppeteer
02-22-2010, 01:12 PM
You can't 'get' AIDS, only develop it. Besides, it's not a disease.
I think disease would become an ignored feature at best, at worst unrealistic.

blackfang
02-22-2010, 01:30 PM
you develop it from HIV and it is given to you by either blood or sex. Anyways disease system will probably never come true anytime soon in a strategy game...

Negthareas
02-22-2010, 09:32 PM
Blackfang's point is good -I don't think disease is something that can practically be used as a weapon at this point [excluding orc cattle catapult thingy]. Maybe for the expansion. sigh. Iam tired.

DarkMaster
02-22-2010, 11:31 PM
I think disease would be good for this game, but you should limit it to decreased worker effectiveness or something similar.

GPS51
02-23-2010, 12:05 AM
Well it would stand to reason that after having half the city trashed it would take a while to rebuild/repair. I would think that would really limit production/efficiency.

snpiccolo
02-23-2011, 04:55 AM
i agree, however i don't think they should make it a very effective form of devastation to the other player, a subtle form of hinder, maybe fatigue, or loss of some troops, nothing to dramatic