PDA

View Full Version : Better seige battles!!


SPARROW94
01-29-2008, 11:15 PM
Your vote!!


WARHAMMER BATTLE MARCH
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee58/Sparrow94/battlemarch.jpg
DAWN OF FANTASY
http://i232.photobucket.com/albums/ee58/Sparrow94/3.jpg

Darvin
01-30-2008, 12:35 AM
You can't make a judgment like that without playing the game.

monsterfurby
01-30-2008, 06:40 AM
What Darvin said. I really don't care about the graphics, only if they are immediately connected to the feeling of a siege battle. For example, a siege battle should rage on the walls, inside the towers, in front of the walls, in the city - simply everywhere. It should look chaotic and require proper preparation. Not as in BFME for example, where it was more like "bunch of units walking into other bunch of units in the middle of a camp slowly draining each other's health bars"...

I say: wait till you see the gameplay.

Edit: PS: The DoF screen does not even show a siege battle..

SPARROW94
01-30-2008, 08:39 AM
Thee leads to the idea of making videos!!!
besiesboth of these RTS games are unreleased

Darvin
01-30-2008, 02:45 PM
Point is, I could put a screenshot from BFME there and people who haven't played would say "wow, that looks like an awesome siege battle". Of course, BFME flopped, and horribly. Looks can be deceiving; it's all about gameplay in the end, and we can't really make a judgment of either game in that regard yet.

Jean=A=Luc
01-30-2008, 04:10 PM
Well, sieges are an important aspect of both games so I expect they'll be pretty well done in either of them. So far DoF seams more interesting because it has "original" siege weapons like plant based siege ladders for Elves that sprout out of the ground and grow upwards towards the ramparts (don't know if this has been changed) or living siege towers/battering rams in the form of Trees of War + it's an RTS with an economy and units building so battles/sieges don't come down to just a single engagement.
When that first fantasy Warhammer game (forgot the exact name) came out I thought it was going to be similar to Total War games and was disappointed with that linear RPG-esque campaign, and this isn't going to change in Battle March or so I've read.

The Witch King of Angmar
01-30-2008, 06:11 PM
Point is, I could put a screenshot from BFME there and people who haven't played would say "wow, that looks like an awesome siege battle". Of course, BFME flopped, and horribly. Looks can be deceiving; it's all about gameplay in the end, and we can't really make a judgment of either game in that regard yet.

Yeah remember how cool those Mountain Giants looked siegin that Dwarven base. Lol what a shame. :(

Konstantin Fomenko
01-30-2008, 08:37 PM
I spent quite a few hours both with BftME and Warhammer sieges. Neither impressed me even a bit. With our approach to siege we tried to avoid all the pit-falls of these games. Games like Stronghold 1, and Rome:TW were our inspiration.

I think we might be allowed to post a siege video soon. Should clear this question.

Jean=A=Luc
01-31-2008, 08:30 AM
Ahh, nothing quite beats the feeling of having pressured a developer into releasing a video. :p

frankein_fish
01-31-2008, 01:00 PM
lol, i agree :D

SPARROW94
01-31-2008, 01:58 PM
ahh finaly a video... also dawn of fantasy seige i battle should be fun... and rome total war was the bomb when i played it

frankein_fish
02-01-2008, 12:32 PM
The total war series and the warhammer series are one of the best RTS ever.
After DoF ofcurse:p

SPARROW94
02-02-2008, 07:41 PM
Pifffffffft

frankein_fish
02-03-2008, 01:02 AM
What? :confused:

Puppeteer
02-03-2008, 06:32 AM
So far DoF seams more interesting because it has "original" siege weapons like plant based siege ladders for Elves that sprout out of the ground and grow upwards towards the ramparts
awesome!
stronghold (and 2) did have good siege battles

iceblast
02-03-2008, 11:16 AM
awesome!
stronghold (and 2) did have good siege battles

nah stronghold had excellent siege battles especially stronghold crusader.

ash12181987
02-03-2008, 01:22 PM
If stronghold 1 was your inspiration for some of the seige battles, I have a question for you (This is back on page one of the thread):

Are our walls going to have varying heights? This may seem strange, but with varying heighs on walls, one can design amazing defensese just with the differeing heights.

The Witch King of Angmar
02-03-2008, 04:25 PM
I think they will all be the same. Maybe a little higher above a gate though.

Puppeteer
02-05-2008, 12:52 PM
I'd like it if you could have the rolling logs mounted on the walls :D they were awesome!

Konstantin Fomenko
02-05-2008, 02:22 PM
We hope to bring Rolling logs and some other very "interesting" wall-mounted defences for Elfs and Orcs.

And about that video - it looks like we won`t be posting a siege video for another 3 weeks. Sorry to get your hopes up guys.

Jean=A=Luc
02-05-2008, 05:40 PM
We hope to bring Rolling logs and some other very "interesting" wall-mounted defences for Elfs and Orcs.

And about that video - it looks like we won`t be posting a siege video for another 3 weeks. Sorry to get your hopes up guys.

Don't worry, waiting 'till summer for DoF hurts so much that I don't feel the pain of having to wait another 3 weeks for the video at all. :D

Jean=A=Luc
02-07-2008, 10:50 AM
Speaking of siege battles,

How effective will ranged siege engines (catapults and such) be at destroying stronghold walls and other such static defenses? I'm asking because in my experience there is a very thin line between useless/ineffective and overpowered siege engines. For example in BfME1, Gondor were often able to nullify the enemy army's siege capacity by using their wall mounted trebuchets while in games like Age of Empires 2 or some of the Total War games a couple of trebuchets practically take away any point in having a fortified position.

Another problem is that weapons like that tend to make all other, more close up, siege weapons (ladders, battering rams, siege towers) obsolete/needless. I once played a match of AoE2 where my friend and I agreed not to use trebuchets, only catapults (arrows can reach them) and rams, it was a very different game, believe me.

One way, imo, to "solve" this is to make the range of "shooting" siege weapons such that they can be reached by the castle defenses but to also make them "not-so-easy-to-destroy" (make 'em resistant to arrows for example) so that they are able to do good damage while not leaving the defenders helpless against it.

Another way would be to impose special pop caps on siege weapons. For example, a player can have 10 ladders, 5 siege towers and 3 catapults. This will "entice" (read, 'leave him without any choice') the player to use all the siege weapons in his arsenal and not just the "easy" ranged ones.

I was speaking in general terms of course, I do realize that not all races will have access to the same siege weapons/wall defenses.

The Witch King of Angmar
02-07-2008, 04:46 PM
I would use that in campaign mode maybe but not online.

SPARROW94
02-07-2008, 06:09 PM
For seige make it so that your main objective is to get to the reach the wall Like medievel total war 2 that was great seige experiance

The Witch King of Angmar
02-07-2008, 06:18 PM
For seige make it so that your main objective is to get to the reach the wall Like medievel total war 2 that was great seige experiance

Good point. That adds more of a realistic feel to sieging.

SPARROW94
02-08-2008, 07:19 AM
Finaly some one who agree's

frankein_fish
02-08-2008, 08:43 AM
Witch king is not the only one to agree, i think all the Total war has great siege battles

Konstantin Fomenko
02-08-2008, 02:17 PM
One thing I didnít like about Total War sieges - their Strongholds were too plain - just a wall, and couple of towers there. And it always came down to assaulting the same part of a wall battle after battle. We hope to keep the same gameplay and epic feeling but add more complexity, for example - I am attaching two screenshot of Human Strongholds. Approach to defense, and assault on these two Strongholds is completely different.


In Dawn of Fantasy simple strategy of building 20 rams, and task them on the gate; or getting whole bunch of Trebuchets to bombard the walls won`t get you very far. We are keeping defenses over-powered in range, while giving assaulting units quite a good bonus assaulting enemy walls.
So the working Strategy is:
-using siege towers and ladders to assault the walls, no way around this. Otherwise defenders will just build all archers and hold the walls.
-Use blockading tactics - as defenders will have limited resources in-come.
-Use heavy armored infantry to shield your archers/trebuchets against defenders ranged attacks
-Take out enemy archers in the towers using infantry - as archers are mostly useless against infantry units on the walls
-Use ranged siege to take out defenderís ranged siege, archers and infantry on walls (instead of attacking the walls)
-Use rams, with the cover of heavy infantry, and archers.

I think if this discussion keeps on going Iíll have to post another screenshot of the siege weapons and explain how things work.

Itching to release that video - I wish I could:( *sigh*

Jean=A=Luc
02-08-2008, 02:55 PM
I think if this discussion keeps on going Iíll have to post another screenshot of the siege weapons and explain how things work.

*Keeps the discussion going* :D

Darvin
02-08-2008, 02:56 PM
I agree with your siege mechanics. It should definitely be more than planting a bunch of catapults in firing range of the enemy base. I love that siege towers/ladders and storming the castle will finally play key importance to taking a castle.

However, I do have one concern. In the event that a player's castle is completely cut off, and their resources are severely impacted, the game may already be over, even though a major siege battle has yet to be fought. These last stands can be some of the most challenging and fun battles, but unfortunately they can be depressing and anti-climatic, since no matter how well or how badly either player performs (within reason), the end result cannot be changed. The player with full map control just has too much of a resource advantage. Any victory for the defender will be made moot because the attacker has such a resource infrastructure as to replace his army virtually immediately, and the defender doesn't have enough infrastructure to capitalize on a victory.

This is really a variant of the "steamroller" or "slippery slope" that is so common in RTS; once a player starts winning, the momentum of their past victories really carries them through to the final victory, even though it's not actually over yet. I think there's a balancing act that few games have even attempted to tackle here; trying to make comebacks viable and possible without taking it too far (think Mario-Cart, where being in first place is like having a kick-me sign on your back. That's a game which has taken comebacks too far, although it's certainly still fun)

The Witch King of Angmar
02-08-2008, 03:44 PM
Nice new screens. I like the custom feel to the castles.

Konstantin Fomenko
02-08-2008, 04:27 PM
To Darwin:

We tried to compensate for these problems in the following way:

-Corpse looting. If the attacking player wastes his units, and hundreds of them die on the walls, or near the wall, defender would get his peasants looting the corpses - and income from that is huuuge.
-Player`s inside the castle would still have access to resources, yes it will be significantly less, but it`ll give defender a chance to survive until his Allies can help, or he can prepare to counter attack.
-Since wood and stone is hard to come-by while under siege, defending player will mostly be able to build infantry/cavalry force. Which in turn will force him to ride out and take the battle outside.


So yeah - there are ways out.

Darvin
02-08-2008, 10:54 PM
The problem I see with corpse looting is that unless the battle took place in one player's base, it's going to be the winner of that battle that gets the benefit of the looting. This may contribute, rather than erode, the slippery slope and make it harder to make a comeback. This has always been my gripe with the feature. The other two points still don't change the fact that the besieged player is at a massive resource disadvantage. Unless your mechanics are very different from any RTS I've played before, a massive resource advantage is usually automatic victory by attrician.

That said, I haven't played DoF, so I can't say if things do work differently here. I'd honestly love to see battles turning around.

Jean=A=Luc
02-09-2008, 07:26 AM
Well, any victory on "no man's land" will give corpse looting privileges to the victorious army (which concerns me a bit too for the reasons Darwin stated) but I expect the defending player will have dibs on any carcases that end up in the shadow his stronghold walls. So, if an attacker is careless he might end up "supplying" the defender with resources. One potential problem I see is if the defender ends up pinned inside the castle unable to loot before the next wave arrives. This depends on whether army camps can train new soldiers (I read ships will be able to do it) or does the attacker have to bring his units all the way from his stronghold.

It might be nice if any such non-stronghold "forward bases" that are able to build units did it at a slower rate than the stronghold which would allow the defender to recover a bit faster (if he has enough resources of course) than the attacker.

But yeah, don't change corpse looting until we've actually played the game. :)

Darvin
02-09-2008, 01:51 PM
As I see it, army camps should require some sort of supply routes so they are vulnerable to counter-harass. I think it's important for DoF to break up the "decisive force" strategy (putting 90% of your units into one group and attacking with it) which has dominated pretty much every RTS ever made and encourage "divide and conquer" strategies which have almost never worked out well in the RTS setting. It would be useless keeping all your troops in one group if their supply routes just get cut off, after all.

Doom
03-12-2008, 08:54 AM
I agree with what Darvin said about adding supplies. But would they need to consume resources such as gold and food? or just be there? what consequences for the troops without supplies? do they lose health, maybe stamina? Something else is maybe allow forward bases to make units normally but you have to send the supplies to make the troops via convoy?:) An incentive for this could be that supply wagons are faster or use less supplies then simply marching an endless line of troops to the defenders stronghold from yours. This would allow the defender or allies to cut off the attackers supply route ending immediate reinforcements and starving the army.