Cannons for forts?

Sorry if it was suggested before...... for some weird reason the serach system doesn't work for me.
If this was suggested before, please just remove it.
Ideas Form
The fort picture, isn't there a small cannon laying out in front of the HQ?
I think it'd be fun to let this little baby work!

Proposal
Add a building called "Cannons" in the fort construction menu.



Current Workaround
None, as far as I know.

Details
Ok, so, I think it's reasonable to add a cannon position on the walls, if it is not suitable at the time period that The West takes place, then it shouldn't be in the picutre in front of the HQ in the first place !
It should requires dynamite, iron rods, and rounds to unlock, and wood and dynamite and more iron rods should be used to build this up, and the construction point should be more than the towers.
levels of building should be 3 for small, 4 for medium, and 5 for large fort.
First level should put a cannon position on one wall, second level two cannon positions on two diffrent walls (one per each), level 5 would put a cannon position on each tower, but this will require like 20 dynamite to unlock.

Cannon position can either be like a NPC defender that gives a 300 damage to a random attacker, or it can simply be a location where the damage of the player stands on it is tripled or doubled.

It seems to make the defenders too unbeatable, but defenders ARE suppose to be stronger, since all battle in histroy proves that defender has an advantage.

However, in a way to balance that, attackers can carry cannons, too.
The cannons of the attackers can be set on the field by the general, and they can't move.
The number of cannons that attacker may bring should also depend on the fort size:
1 cannon for small fort,
2 cannons for medium fort,
and three cannons for large fort.


Abuse Prevention
None, just a new idea.



Visual Aids
Sorry, I am bad at drawing, just think it as an black thing that occupies a single block on the wall (defenders), or the field (attackers).
Summary
Although it kinda seems pointless, but I think the cannon in front of the HQ should be put to some use.
Defenders that unable to gather enough people now can at least have chance in battle,
and after all, cannons make up the war.


Administration
Does this idea meet the Ideas Guidelines & Criteria? Yes/No
Is this idea appear on any of the Previously Suggested Ideas List? Yes/No
(Unless I am too drunk, havn't seem a cannon thread in the sugguested list yet.....

This is my first time coming up with a brainfart, please be lenient.....

I like it.

Fort/citadels have always been associated with big explosions/cannon/siege weapons since way back,would be great to have that feature added in Thewest game.Maybe even introduce a new engineer class to man these cannons.

Add more fun to the mix,yay!

Good idea! Only that you could use horse to move around the cannons. So...
1 cannon needs 2 horses.
Nice idea though.

Cannons and the likes have been suggested numerous times in the past.

Here and Here and Here and Here and Here.

Personally, I'd like to see the addition of cannons or something similar.

Well then. They could at least notice that people want it done and try to work towards it.

Eclipse said:

Cannons and the likes have been suggested numerous times in the past.

Here and Here and Here and Here and Here.

Personally, I'd like to see the addition of cannons or something similar.

Click to expand...

wow, i knew someone else must 've thought us this idea, because that little gun in front of the HQ is too seducive!(wrong word)

but I think my thread has some advantage over others....
1. some of them implied more than needed, like gatling guns..... personally, i think cannons are understandable, but gatling gun is indeed too much.....
2.some have suggested it as a weapon that can be assigned to specific person....
i think that's a little bit over.... a person with a gatling gun? a person hadling a cannon on his own? not realistic....
3. the best one among them said the cannon should come from the barrackes (like a store?), and it must be purchased. I like it soooo much, but i guess it's kinda complicated to the dev.s, my idea is building it like other buildings of fort, and the attackers just automatically acquires it. I believe this saves some work....

anyways, thanks for the comment and support to the cannon!

I think cannons were already suggested before.
Currently the fort bonuses are rediculous, but let's admit that each update changes something so we don't know how will fort fights look in the future. But in version 1.28 it's impossible to steal the big fort if it's fully built. Can't say this for mid and small forts, but...
Everything starts with the most illogical bonuses on walls. Instead of applying +%, you get the fixed number added, so with 0 dodging you actually have dodging on the wall. Just an example. Then this version made workers as an ultimate fort fighters, I don't have time nor this is the place to explain this. Finally, seems that we don't have the correct fort fighting formula and seems that more bonuses to aim and dodging you get from SPs in health than in actual aim and dodging skills.

Anyway, in current system if cannons would be added, because of too big bonuses on walls/towers, those cannons should lower the level of walls/towers and should be available only to attackers. As I don't see that in your idea, but I see only adding even more bonuses to defenders, I say no and I give you 1 star = terrible.

i do agree that this is a good idea, but it could be expanded upon. for example, they did have primitive gatling guns then, and the system does have a gatling gun image, although its intended for one person use.

there would be a shop in the fort that could be built up to allow the construction of better cannons, gatling guns, or other heavy artillery of the time period. then after that, more construction would be required to build the artillery. the amount of spaces available on each wall would depend on wall level (meaning small forts get less weapons), but the most would have to be 2 on the front and back walls, and one on each side wall. i'd say that in order to control the weapons, a high ranking official would need to be positioned on the weapon.

part 2 would have to be finding a way to build the same kinds of weapons to be incorporated in attacks. these would prolly be most useful for taking out towers be damaging the towers, degrading the bonuses they provide, and possibly resulting in damage to those in the tower.
actually, i just had the idea of dynamite. attackers could build dynamite launchers or something, and launch those into the fort.

I was just thinking that the cannon should have 3 people at it. And there combined health is the health of the cannon. When the cannon dies, they die with it.

While it's worth suggesting big idea's like this, don't count on them ever being added.
I'm still waiting on idea's such as poker to be added, way over due !

The general idea is a good one though you really need to go into much more depth and explain it fully, with a start, middle and end.
Like i think it was joker said the fort setup as it stands is shot to pieces adding this really wouldn't help thats why gatling gun was never added to all worlds, so i heard anyways.
This would be alot to program and calulate and because it wouldn't really bring in the troops/bacon I can't see the DEV's going any further with it.
Though like I said try selling it abit better and who knows best of luck with that.

JoxerTM said:

Anyway, in current system if cannons would be added, because of too big bonuses on walls/towers, those cannons should lower the level of walls/towers and should be available only to attackers. As I don't see that in your idea, but I see only adding even more bonuses to defenders, I say no and I give you 1 star = terrible.

Click to expand...

I see the idea of technology such as cannons being available for attackers only probable as unreasonable as you see saloon dueling.

I don't understand how such a thing can even be justified. Lets see, today you attacking a fort and wheel out your cannons and use them. Tomorrow you are defending your fort but suddenly using cannons is not possible ????

I see the use of cannons as being problematic.

First is the damage they would do. If forts had one on each tower they would be devastating to the defenders until they had decreased the wall advantages and by then you could well not have any attackers left.

Second you would have to look at rates of fire, and a permanently placed cannon would probable have a faster rate of fire than a mobile one being moved around from place to place by the attackers.

Third would be the artillery crew itself, and how it would effect not only the defending numbers, but the attacking numbers. Each cannon would probable require a minimum crew of 4 and each cannon and crew would probable take up one towers worth of space both inside and out of the fort.

Fourth it would probable require a new specialized class to operate the cannons..and Artilleryman. Not just anyone can operate a cannon.

Bottom line while cannons might be of the appropriate time period you think it is hard to win a fort now, if cannons were added it would be almost impossible it the system to use them was realistic at all.

Although this has been suggested many times.

My take on adding a gun to a battle is that someone is going to have to man that gun. Would their character bonus' be included with the cannon spot square on the fort/field.

As for attackers carrying it.. I'd say that would be difficult to setup.

Example developers would have to make a square zone on the field for where the cannon would always be usable at

Here is a quick dirty as doc brown says... I apologize for the crudity of this model but I just...



I would see in a future fort battle.. way down the road maybe having cannon zones where as an attacker you would get additional offensive bonuses.

But inside the fort you would have less defensive bonuses around the cannon and more offensive bonuses, similar to the flag zone. Since it is a known area to shoot for in the fort.

But my problem is trying to figure out how an attacker town is to get bonuses on the outside of the fort. Does the fort owner build the cannon bunkers for attackers to use against the fort... or are they created when the defenders build their own cannon... and then it just seems so self defeating for each side.

War is just wrong I tell ya.

Good Feather said:

Although this has been suggested many times.

My take on adding a gun to a battle is that someone is going to have to man that gun. Would their character bonus' be included with the cannon spot square on the fort/field.

As for attackers carrying it.. I'd say that would be difficult to setup.

Example developers would have to make a square zone on the field for where the cannon would always be usable at

Here is a quick dirty as doc brown says... I apologize for the crudity of this model but I just...

I would see in a future fort battle.. way down the road maybe having cannon zones where as an attacker you would get additional offensive bonuses.

But inside the fort you would have less defensive bonuses around the cannon and more offensive bonuses, similar to the flag zone. Since it is a known area to shoot for in the fort.

But my problem is trying to figure out how an attacker town is to get bonuses on the outside of the fort. Does the fort owner build the cannon bunkers for attackers to use against the fort... or are they created when the defenders build their own cannon... and then it just seems so self defeating for each side.

War is just wrong I tell ya.

Click to expand...

Actually I don't see bunkers for the attacker, but for defenders only, otherwise everytime the attackers moved the cannon the bunker would have to be rebuilt.

The defenders bunker however would provide some defensive advantage making forts even harder to take I would think.

Essentially the towers would be converted to sandbag bunkers with recoil skids for the cannon.

The attackers would wheel their cannon around by horse team and drop the tongue down to fire.

Unless you wanted a very convoluted damage system all cannons would use essentially one type of round, say a grapeshot canister which would do damage only with no additional offensive bonus.

Everyone in a specific area..say a 4 square area would take damage in the event of a hit...the center of the hit being figured from the center of the 4 square intersection point.

This would be a very deadly system..think of some of the civil war battles where cannon and grapeshot were used...

Heres my idea

The cannon needs to be bought in a gunsmith,then it is transported to the fort by stage (see http://forum.the-west.net/showthread.php?t=40820)
adding more levels to the gunsmith is required.
Cannon balls would also be bought for say 100 a ball.
It would be a very expensive item, the cannon would cost about $100,000.
Both attackers and defenders can have a cannon.
But if you can't afford it bad luck
Attacking cannons need to be bought every time,if attackers win they can put it in the fort.
Pulse they get all defending cannons.
Max defending cannons 4.
Max attacking cannons 3

All nice little joke please let me know if you hate it!:laugh:

spum said:

Heres my idea

The cannon needs to be bought in a gunsmith,then it is transported to the fort by stage (see http://forum.the-west.net/showthread.php?t=40820)
adding more levels to the gunsmith is required.
Cannon balls would also be bought for say 100 a ball.
It would be a very expensive item, the cannon would cost about $100,000.
Both attackers and defenders can have a cannon.
But if you can't afford it bad luck
Attacking cannons need to be bought every time,if attackers win they can put it in the fort.
Pulse they get all defending cannons.
Max defending cannons 4.
Max attacking cannons 3

All nice little joke please let me know if you hate it!:laugh:

Click to expand...

I understand your trying to pump up your stagecoach idea , but wouldn't they actually be carried on caissons as they historically were?

And if your going to add more levels to the gunsmith why buy them? Wouldn't it create a need for a tremendous amount of iron..hence the need for even more iron mining to acquire it?

I would think it would be bad enough using cannons without the defender having more cannons than the attacker.

And why could the cannons not be destroyed by the defenders just like any other fort supply.

And if the artillery crew were all ko'd in the battle from the damage would that damage not be sufficient to destroy the cannon?

I'm not trying to pump up anything
caissons would be fine

I agree totally with JoxerTM re the imbalance in the build of workers special bonus especially IMO it's a total bummer!

Random thoughts...
May-be if the canons were only enabled once the defenders side reached 100% capacity on the fort.

Then enable the attackers use of canon's from that point,

Prior to battle they choose the position of 1 canon - into a field placement, to counteract the fort special bonus,

Since they are fixed placements, can't go into the fort it's self, then they could just damage the buildings mainly, lowering the special bonus as the battle progresses, and yes make the canon a quotient of the health of the guys manning the canon, allowing a canon placement to be player rotated to maintain it's resiliance.

Complex but add's to the drama of the fort battle.

spum said:

I'm not trying to pump up anything
caissons would be fine

Click to expand...

Quiet with the stagecoach.. your not allowed to hijack other peoples ideas and insert your own idea.

That is spamming.

As for moving of the cannon or buying from elsewhere. I dont see that as feasible. The fort has zones that have to be coded for and that zone would always have to have the same damage.
Example the wall. When built up the wall provides additional defense/offense. So the designated spot on the fort map would include the cannon if the fort owners built it ahead of time. But they wouldn't get to choose the location of the cannon or move it about.

It would be stationary fixed point on the map.

As for attackers I agree I dont see how you could help them out from the fort owners point of view.