Disease

[zach12wqasxz]

Originally Posted by Negthareas

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]

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]

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]

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]

How about losing troops from the battlion but not being able to lose the last guy to disease?

[nickson104]

Originally Posted by GPS51

How about losing troops from the battlion but not being able to lose the last guy to disease?

Super-awesome genetically superior dude?

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
The cows must come from somewhere, especially as all other ammunition is deducted from your resources (stone is used by catapults and such)

[zach12wqasxz]

Originally Posted by nickson104

Super-awesome genetically superior dude?

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
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]

Originally Posted by SvN

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]

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]

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