PDA

View Full Version : Ranged Attacks (Trebuchets/Catapults)


Feweh
12-12-2008, 11:12 PM
I have a question, in most games people will set up artillery outside of a base and simply mass protect it and destroy your city.


Now lets say you don't have any trebuchets yourself when defending a city/castle, what can you dont against a attacking army to kill the trebuchets/catapults.

What is stopping them from slowly moving the catapults up and just covering the catapults.

Infact whats stopping them from just destroying one wall and running in that wall. (Do walls just disappear when destroyed...?)

Anyways i think my question is pretty straight forward, im just saying if you dont have any catapults on the wall or anything how the hell do you defend yourself from their ranged artillery?

Jean=A=Luc
12-13-2008, 04:05 AM
Trebs fire slowly and spend the stone resource for ammo. But I have no idea if that's enough to prevent the enemy from slowly grinding you down.

There's always the heroic suicidal cavalry charge. :)

The Witch King of Angmar
12-13-2008, 09:29 AM
That's about the only I can think of as well. The defender should be able to get catapults though.

Puppeteer
12-13-2008, 11:43 AM
http://www.dawnoffantasy.com/media/screen20.html

Joseph Visscher
12-13-2008, 12:08 PM
UNOFFICIAL POST, THINGS MAY CHANGE.

When Walls are destroyed they will have way to much rubble to get through with your army, exception for the gate, if the gatehouse get destroyed it will allow access into your stronghold, instead of destroying walls, I rather set up siege tower advances to latch onto the walls and let your foot bound soldiers access onto the walls.

A counter to Siege is Cavalry, although if they are inside your stronghold, you will need to open a gate to let them out to ambush the army siege to try and wipe out his long range siege equipment, lucky most strongholds have back gates. ;)

In the final version of the game, all thrown projectiles should have simulated ballistics: Arrows, Catapults, Trebuchets etc won't always hit their target 100% of the time, quite rare actually, You wont see projectiles curving in the air to hit their target like you see in bfme2.

Edit* Yes all projectiles will have a ballistic trajectory in the Y/Pitch Axis, but will not purposely deviate in Z/Yaw Axis to hit the targeted victim. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

The Witch King of Angmar
12-13-2008, 12:18 PM
That sounds great to me.

fyro11
12-13-2008, 01:13 PM
Trebs and catas, I assume, will curve?

Also, while we're on-topic, I assume you guys will have other new siege weaponry (for the other factions) to bring to the drawing board?

Feweh
12-13-2008, 03:49 PM
Ok, exactly what i wanted to hear :)

Jean=A=Luc
12-13-2008, 04:45 PM
Trebs and catas, I assume, will curve?


That's not the kind of curving Joseph was talking about. All projectiles will have a ballistic trajectory, what he meant was that they won't suddenly change direction mid air just to hit the target. In short there'll be misses.

Joseph Visscher
12-13-2008, 06:24 PM
Edit* Yes all projectiles will have a ballistic trajectory in the Y/Pitch Axis, but will not purposely deviate in Z/Yaw Axis to hit the targeted victim. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

The Witch King of Angmar
12-13-2008, 07:04 PM
Will factors like height help the accuracy of them or anything like that?

Thanks

Darvin
12-13-2008, 09:12 PM
Just out of curiosity, if there is an obstacle (say, a wall, structure, or cliff) in the catapult's trajectory, will the obstacle block the shot and spare whatever the intended target was?

Feweh
12-13-2008, 10:25 PM
Just out of curiosity, if there is an obstacle (say, a wall, structure, or cliff) in the catapult's trajectory, will the obstacle block the shot and spare whatever the intended target was?


Yes thats what i wanted to know aswell.

Konstantin Fomenko
12-14-2008, 04:50 PM
The shot will get blocked. Our ranged combat system is quite realistic – since it`s gravity run and not target run system.

For example - you can move your units into the forest to save them from incoming ranged attacks - as the trees will block majority of incoming arrows. Your cavalry is great against archers not cause of some 10X damage modifiers, but since if used correctly arrows won’t be able to hit your cavalry - since mounted units move away from the original position fast enough.

Jean=A=Luc
12-14-2008, 06:43 PM
Your cavalry is great against archers not cause of some 10X damage modifiers, but since if used correctly arrows won’t be able to hit your cavalry - since mounted units move away from the original position fast enough.

Archers should be able to fire at a lower angle to hit faster targets, moving cavalry shouldn't be (nearly) immune to missile fire.

Konstantin Fomenko
12-14-2008, 08:35 PM
Archers should be able to fire at a lower angle to hit faster targets, moving cavalry shouldn't be (nearly) immune to missile fire.

The angle at which projectile is released depends on how far the target is. So from a short distance arrows would fly at a much lower angle. And well - cavalry always was a counter for ranged units - it works the same in DoF.

But – it`s not all that full-proof. A moment before cavalry would reach archers – archers can fire a volley of arrows which will be pretty deadly and destroy the front row of charging horseman - of-course archers are screwed after. But that`s just a good incentive to position pikemen in front of the archers.
Also if a group of cavalry is just standing put – and not inside a forest, they are a really easy target for archers – since cavalry units are quite large.

Esculas the Mighty
12-14-2008, 09:12 PM
yay i love realistic stuff like this

Feweh
12-14-2008, 10:42 PM
Sounds to good to be true really :D

Darvin
12-14-2008, 11:01 PM
Also if a group of cavalry is just standing put – and not inside a forest, they are a really easy target for archers – since cavalry units are quite large.

To me, that just screams "this unit type requires baby-sitting". Hopefully I'll be wrong here, because I certainly agree it's much better to have mechanical counters such as these rather than the usual mathematical stuff.

Jean=A=Luc
12-15-2008, 05:48 AM
To me, that just screams "this unit type requires baby-sitting". Hopefully I'll be wrong here, because I certainly agree it's much better to have mechanical counters such as these rather than the usual mathematical stuff.

Yeah but face it, f you simply leave a group of units to sit idle and do nothing while they're being slaughtered from range you deserve to lose them. In any case the DoF's ballistic dynamics sound good to me.

Puppeteer
12-15-2008, 11:20 AM
But – it`s not all that full-proof. A moment before cavalry would reach archers – archers can fire a volley of arrows which will be pretty deadly and destroy the front row of charging horseman - of-course archers are screwed after.
Will the second row of cavalry fall over the first?

Andy Joslin
12-15-2008, 11:46 AM
Bodies having a collision radius is going a bit too far, I think. Would make managing a battle hellish...

Joseph Visscher
12-15-2008, 11:47 AM
Will the second row of cavalry fall over the first?

Dead bodies do not have collision, you can still loot them for resources though.
We can not have collision in dead bodies for gameplay reasons, what if you have 4 huge dead ogres in the gatehouse and nobody can get past? pretty much any bottleneck in the game would become an impassible area leaving frustration to the player(s).


In real life, some of the Dressage of horses originated from the medevil times as training for horses to get over and through obstacles like dead bodies and sharp objects like swords and wooden spikes or anything really, something like a Piaffe but very high up and moving fast.

wou129
12-15-2008, 11:51 AM
But that`s just a good incentive to position pikemen in front of the archers.


woudent the archers in this case hit there one troops
like in the totalwar series i found theat prity realistic
(sorry fore my bad englich)

Joseph Visscher
12-15-2008, 11:55 AM
woudent the archers in this case hit there one troops
like in the totalwar series i found theat prity realistic
(sorry fore my bad englich)

I am not sure about friendly fire, Kon will have to answer that, But right now, there isn't friendly fire.

Feweh
12-15-2008, 06:27 PM
Seen games use friendly fire with archers..

Usually it doesnt work out to well..

Generation
12-15-2008, 07:14 PM
i think u guys should make it realistic enough and have friendly fire!

Esculas the Mighty
12-15-2008, 08:53 PM
i think u guys should make it realistic enough and have friendly fire!

they would need a system like total war and i don't think the bows in dof reach far enough for them to even be used often outside siege battles if there was friendly fire

MrBlack103
12-15-2008, 09:12 PM
Your cavalry is great against archers
Uhhmm... ever heard of the Battle of Agincourt (I hope I spelled that correctly)? Those French cavalry got massacred by the English longbowmen.


woudent the archers in this case hit there one troops

Not if they were in proper formation and the pikemen were kneeling (the proper position to be in when wielding a pike against a cavalry charge).

Esculas the Mighty
12-15-2008, 09:15 PM
Uhhmm... ever heard of the Battle of Agincourt (I hope I spelled that correctly)? Those French cavalry got massacred by the English longbowmen.



Not if they were in proper formation and the pikemen were kneeling (the proper position to be in when wielding a pike against a cavalry charge).

longbowmen pwn all

Andy Joslin
12-15-2008, 10:04 PM
*clears throat*

Ahem...

Gameplay > Realism (to an extent)

Esculas the Mighty
12-15-2008, 11:41 PM
1 day a game so real will eb made your gonna command your citizen to mine gold and your citizen will say

''are you crazy!? im on break''

Feweh
12-15-2008, 11:51 PM
1 day a game so real will eb made your gonna command your citizen to mine gold and your citizen will say

''are you crazy!? im on break''

That'll be a game i wont buy!

wou129
12-16-2008, 05:55 AM
but it wil be funny

back on topic

Puppeteer
12-16-2008, 10:37 AM
Uhhmm... ever heard of the Battle of Agincourt (I hope I spelled that correctly)? Those French cavalry got massacred by the English longbowmen.
The advantage that cavalry have over archers are their speed. Agincourt was a typical example of when not to employ the French to organise tactics. Uphill Charge + Mud = archers' victory.

nickson104
12-17-2008, 12:25 PM
The advantage that cavalry have over archers are their speed. Agincourt was a typical example of when not to employ the French to organise tactics. Uphill Charge + Mud = archers' victory.

Woot. :p

Also the skills of the longbowmen and welsh longbowmen (patriotism :))

Jean=A=Luc
12-17-2008, 12:28 PM
I'm sorry guys but http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/myth-of-the-longbow/

Joseph Visscher
12-17-2008, 06:22 PM
I'm sorry guys but http://wapenshaw.wordpress.com/2007/06/02/myth-of-the-longbow/


"dismounted knights"
(don't have time to read all of that btw)

means there on foot, if you are dismounted and have no horse and you have extremely heavy armor slowing you down, yea a bunch of long-bowmen will completely own you.

If you do have an equally skilled and numbered amount of archers and Mounted Calvary fighting odds are greatly against the archers depending on the environment. (archers are not on a stone tower, more like in a field or in the open)

MrBlack103
12-17-2008, 06:37 PM
What are you trying to say here? Are you supporting my ideas (that longbows pwn cavalry) or theirs (that they only sometimes do)?

kronlc
12-17-2008, 11:12 PM
What are you trying to say here? Are you supporting my ideas (that longbows pwn cavalry) or theirs (that they only sometimes do)?

Only sometimes... It all depends if the longbow men have
men at arms in formation supporting them or not' you will probably find that all infantry are hideously vulnerable to calvary when not in formation or are
scattered. it was only until the English devised the bodkin tipped arrow
and were able to penetrate the 2 inch plate mail that heavy knights got around in that archers started really having an effect on calvary.

Theres many examples of the effectiveness of archers just google longbowmen....

Now ..lets say that these coves arnt longbow men and are just your regular composite bow shooter. Then I would say archers would be on the recieving end not the calvary because those tips unless at the extremeties of close range will maybe penetrate but usually not.

Imanie im a minanimal didn yous know?

Jean=A=Luc
12-18-2008, 04:05 AM
It's really not that long, it just looks that way because of the hundreds of comments below. Anyway, this is the most relevant part I think:
The myth of the longbow rests upon the holy trinity. Not that Holy Trinity. It is the holy trinity of Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt.“ It must be said that the battle of Crecy was won in great measure to the longbow working in conjunction with dismounted men-at-arms. This was the classic infantry versus cavalry engagement. Poitiers was not.

At Poitiers the English fought from an enclosed position difficult for cavalry to fight through. The French dismounted and attacked on foot. They were finally defeated by a small unit of mounted English men-at-arms who outflanked the French. There is the account of archers firing on a French mounted force but they had to be reposition because their firing was ineffective. Other than this event, there is no indication the longbows effected the battle at all. Then we have the classic attack by French cavalry at Agincourt to open the battle. Once the cavalry van was defeated there is no indication that longbow fire contributed at all in defeating the enemy. Some sources say the archers dropped their bows and arrows to join in the fray. Others say the archers had run out of arrows and then joined the fray. Either description highlights the ineffectiveness of the longbow. In the event that both bow and arrows were dropped, such a thing would only have happened because that archers saw the ineffectiveness of their fire. If the archers had run out of arrows, it would have been a clear indication that the archery fire was unable to influence the course of the foot battle.

Viewing all three battles a pattern clearly emerges. Bow fire is effective against mounted attacks but much less so against dismounted attacks. Our author’s comments that by slavishly following the example the English men-at-arms, the French, by dismounting, were failing to acknowledge the real threat of the longbow does not bear out. The longbow’s failure was in meeting the threat of the dismounted attack. When viewed in this manner, the longbow was not the uber weapon that modern English speaking historian make it out to be.

Puppeteer
12-18-2008, 10:52 AM
Bow fire is effective against mounted attacks but much less so against dismounted attacks.
Being the summary of this arguement, you'd expect it to be relevant and supported by the post above. Which it's not.

In the event that both bow and arrows were dropped, such a thing would only have happened because that archers saw the ineffectiveness of their fire.
Or they run out of arrows! Henry V's army was fatigued and ill from a rather rewardless campaign, IIRC. The fact that they ran out of arrows is no evidence to support that the fire was ineffective. If the fire was ineffective, surely they would have discontinued their fire way before they ran out of arrows. What would have been the point of continuing ineffectively firing, when 'joining into the fray' may have been more suitable? This point reaches a conclusion which is based on loose, narrow-minded evidence.
If the archers had run out of arrows, it would have been a clear indication that the archery fire was unable to influence the course of the foot battle.
See above. I also doubt the reliability of this article, since the author posts a brief introduction which to me screams "wannabe-misanthrope". The fact that he uses but does not reference a small and until-recently unheard of scattering of sources to testify against the bounty of other sources contradicting it also make me believe otherwise. I also disagree with his synopsis regarding the social divide of the battalion. Such a generalistion does not help his cause.

It would be folly to think that the English won merely as a result of the longbow. Without it though, their casualties would not have been as low.

Joseph Visscher
12-18-2008, 11:45 AM
After reading that, this article is completely bias in my opinion, his logic if he has any, was lacking greatly, and facts where bias and bent to his augment, just think about it.
A person on a horse can go a lot faster than a person on the ground.
A person on the horse can hold more weight such as thicker armor.
A person on the ground needs to be able to move around as fast as he can, this limits the amount of armor he can wear.
A man-at-arms on the ground is slower than mounted knights therefore needs to attack straight on in a charging manor towards the archers, while the mounted units can move adjacent and horizontal to the archers, flanking them, encircling them.

Using a bow, is it easier to hit a slow target with less armor coming straight towards you; or is it easier to hit a fast moving target with heavy armor moving adjacent to your location to flank you and encircle you?

MrBlack103
12-18-2008, 07:01 PM
True, but longbowmen's advantage is that they were able to easily, and rapidly deliver volleys toward a distant area rather than a target. So, whoever was commanding them could order them to deliver a large volley toward, say, the space the main force of cavalry is about to reach? If timed correctly, you've got yourself a direct hit.

Puppeteer
12-19-2008, 11:25 AM
A good archer could fire every 5 seconds, according to some old archery instructors of mine. During the era of the musket, longbows were better but only surpassed by their extensive period of training...

Mrdash
12-19-2008, 01:10 PM
Don't forget the strength needed to draw a longbow...phewy go try it sometime.

Puppeteer
12-19-2008, 04:50 PM
I have, it's crazy

MrBlack103
12-19-2008, 06:49 PM
I made my own bow once. Not a very good one, but it worked. It took quite a bit of strength to fully draw it and it only shot 10m or so. Imagining something that can fire at least 50m... *shudders*

Mrdash
12-19-2008, 10:28 PM
And I had always thought the archers in games and movies seemed like the weeklings =/ They were still uber cool though =D

Feweh
12-20-2008, 09:47 AM
And I had always thought the archers in games and movies seemed like the weeklings =/ They were still uber cool though =D

Because in real life if you get hit by a arrow you probably arent going to keep moving.

In games it seems it takes like 20 arrows to take people down. (Oblivion)

If you didnt die from the initial hit you'd probably get a infection or some crazy doctor who wants to amputate your entire body to get the arrow out.

Mrdash
12-20-2008, 02:05 PM
Lolol no kidding. =s

Puppeteer
12-20-2008, 03:09 PM
The infection would be somewhat longterm. It would be slow and frustrating to simulate that in an RTS.

kronlc
12-25-2008, 03:24 AM
A good archer could fire every 5 seconds, according to some old archery instructors of mine. During the era of the musket, longbows were better but only surpassed by their extensive period of training... Good point, The mastery of archery took years to accomplish. Every one must remember when one became a archer that was his full time profession, his training usually started at the age of 8 'at one point in English history it was manditory to take archery lessons as a youth archers might not have been the most expensively outfitted unit on the medi evil battle field, but shurly they were the most skilled .Look up the battle of Azincourt, A tired hungry and outnumbered English army fend of wave after wave of French calvary assaults with mainly tired and underfed men at arms and longbowmen' I believe this battle would have resulted in a loss for the English if they did not have the longbowmen or damp ground to there advantage.Its also a fact that the English longbowmen at Azincourt had very low amounts of arrows at the battle thus them putting down there bows drawing short weapons and helping there comrades butcher unhorsed French nobility.

Mrdash
12-25-2008, 01:33 PM
There we go Kronic. =D

Puppeteer
12-25-2008, 02:01 PM
Minimal spelling errors? It must be Christmas.

nickson104
12-28-2008, 04:36 AM
Minimal spelling errors? It must be Christmas.

*sniggers*
Yes many points well made :) Im just going to add that it wasnt until many years later that guns took over the place of bows in the majority due to the vast amounts of time needed to train an archer compared to the tiny anount needed to train a gunman... after all point and pull isn't anywhere near as difficult as calculating the angle, velocity, windspeed and direction and then having to actually make the shot...

MrBlack103
12-28-2008, 05:23 PM
absolutely correct. However, keep in mind that they had to be taught to reload the gun properly:D

nickson104
01-05-2009, 12:42 PM
absolutely correct. However, keep in mind that they had to be taught to reload the gun properly:D

So you pull back this part here... you take take the little shiny thing outta you pocket.... and stab it in your eye!!!!

Draco
01-07-2009, 04:58 AM
In games it seems it takes like 20 arrows to take people down. (Oblivion)

Actually in oblivion I managed to kill most monsters in one hit, sneak attack is awesome.

nickson104
01-11-2009, 05:36 PM
Actually in oblivion I managed to kill most monsters in one hit, sneak attack is awesome.

And at least thats better than Fable.... It took a split second longer to target the head and get an instant kill..... soo overpowered...

Puppeteer
01-12-2009, 08:49 AM
Yeah but Fable is designed like that. On Oblivion, you put it on Hard and it can take a while, due to the constantly levelling monsters.
ANYWAY, ...

Kell Aset
03-27-2009, 06:20 PM
Units will gain exp but what about siege weapons and those trebuchets/catapults on castle walls? if they survive attack of course.

Cobra
03-31-2009, 04:18 PM
And I had always thought the archers in games and movies seemed like the weeklings =/
This is one of my favorite things about Mount&Blade: Power Draw is based off the Strength skill, not Agility like in Fable and Oblivion. If you want to use the big bows, you'd better have the strength to draw them.

Grizzlez
03-31-2009, 04:45 PM
Will trebuchets and catapults be damaged by archers-always hated in RTS how a load of archers can kill a wooden catapult? OR will there be soldiers assigned to the catapult that can die and then need to be replaced? Imo, only other seige weapons should be able to destroy catapults-except of course for giant monsters that have the strength to do some damage.

nickson104
03-31-2009, 05:34 PM
Will trebuchets and catapults be damaged by archers-always hated in RTS how a load of archers can kill a wooden catapult? OR will there be soldiers assigned to the catapult that can die and then need to be replaced? Imo, only other seige weapons should be able to destroy catapults-except of course for giant monsters that have the strength to do some damage.

Or the arrows would do some damage, for example to the mechanics and the ropes of them but would then require fixing after sustainin X amount of damage....

Ginko
04-01-2009, 07:03 AM
lol dont think this game would go into so many details... but simple: kill people operating the catapults, the catapult is useless... that how most game do it

Puppeteer
04-01-2009, 11:24 AM
It should be super detailed... if arrows land and stick into places which require a moving mechanism, eg. a load of arrows in front of the drawing arm, when firing the catapult should explode.
</satire>

adamater
04-01-2009, 03:27 PM
Catapults?! Awsome!
will the different races have different versions of these war machines?

Andy Joslin
04-01-2009, 03:54 PM
Yes, they will.

MrBlack103
04-02-2009, 02:29 AM
From what I've seen, orcs get standard catapults, men get trebuchets and elves get ballistas. Each race also gets a range of "siege-tower" type units.

nickson104
04-02-2009, 11:24 AM
From what I've seen, orcs get standard catapults, men get trebuchets and elves get ballistas. Each race also gets a range of "siege-tower" type units.

and the tree of war is somewhere between siege tower and basic demolisher... :p it is mountable for units and can tear away walls and such easily... reminds me of the mumakil in LOTR really, except the garrisoned units will be able to exit it onto a wall? or have i got that part of my facts wrong? :p

Joseph Visscher
04-02-2009, 04:29 PM
and the tree of war is somewhere between siege tower and basic demolisher... :p it is mountable for units and can tear away walls and such easily... reminds me of the mumakil in LOTR really, except the garrisoned units will be able to exit it onto a wall? or have i got that part of my facts wrong? :p

Right now, the tree of war (pending name change) is way to slow to do anything really, its a frikken tree that is used just like a seige tower to latch onto walls and let elves slaughter their enemies on their own walls or to knock down gates.
Things may change though, i'd really like to see a tree of war kicking enemies making them go flying everywhere.
But generally, I believe trees of war in DOF are quite peaceful vegetation.

Phylast
04-03-2009, 01:38 AM
Right now, the tree of war (pending name change) is way to slow to do anything really, its a frikken tree that is used just like a seige tower to latch onto walls and let elves slaughter their enemies on their own walls or to knock down gates.
Things may change though, i'd really like to see a tree of war kicking enemies making them go flying everywhere.
But generally, I believe trees of war in DOF are quite peaceful vegetation.

The entire Orc race would be something like a race Hannibal Lectre in the tree world. They scorch the Earth that they inhabit. Also, can you imagine entire structures made out of humans? I believe trees see orc structures that way. It's enough to get the sap boiling in those trees if you ask me.

Maybe the tree of war can option to place archers onto the branches of the tree of war providing a level attack of arrow fire along with their own cover from the tree of war itself.

Gigz
04-24-2009, 10:59 AM
quick question about the wall being destroyed , U said early i don't know if this had change that there would be too much rubble for army's to pass yet one of the feature of this game is that units climb, swim , etc... , is there a possibility u will also add this feature to get trough the destroyed walls at the cost of a penalty , other than moving slow trough it ^^ I leave the balance to the experts but u get the idea ^^

szebus
04-24-2009, 02:30 PM
... can you imagine entire structures made out of humans? I believe trees see orc structures that way ...

Wow... You are right and it is a nice comparison, but don't watch any more horror movies pls. :)

Cobra
04-24-2009, 07:43 PM
But humans build things out of wood too, right? And the same with elves. I guess most of the buildings are made of stone, though. But wouldn't that horrify trolls?

Mrdash
04-24-2009, 08:49 PM
Depends on what kind of troll lol XD

Esculas the Mighty
04-24-2009, 09:54 PM
The troll is made of the stone not the stone made of the troll.

szebus
04-25-2009, 03:36 AM
poor stone, it must be a terrifying thing to se those trolls :p

OrcSlayer
04-25-2009, 06:14 AM
The tree of war should have an ability it gets through experience that a number of trees in the area temporarorly turn into mini trees of war that cant shmash gates down but are faster and can fight other units and when lachted onto walls to be able to spread tendrils through it to crack it up

Tynesider
04-26-2009, 12:34 PM
UNOFFICIAL POST, THINGS MAY CHANGE.

When Walls are destroyed they will have way to much rubble to get through with your army, exception for the gate, if the gatehouse get destroyed it will allow access into your stronghold, instead of destroying walls, I rather set up siege tower advances to latch onto the walls and let your foot bound soldiers access onto the walls.

I'm probably knit picking here but i do'nt understand why seige engines can't be used in a "total war" fashion to create a strategic opening in order to flank the enemy as opposed to a battle of attricion at the gate

fyro11
04-26-2009, 05:18 PM
I'm probably knit picking here but i do'nt understand why seige engines can't be used in a "total war" fashion to create a strategic opening in order to flank the enemy as opposed to a battle of attricion at the gate
Could you detail what the Total War method is a little more?

Mrdash
04-26-2009, 11:37 PM
But one huge battle at the front looks so much cooler. XD

Konstantin Fomenko
04-27-2009, 10:17 AM
I'm probably knit picking here but i do'nt understand why seige engines can't be used in a "total war" fashion to create a strategic opening in order to flank the enemy as opposed to a battle of attricion at the gate

We want to avoid the pitfall of almost all RTS siege games where Siege comes down to 2 minutes of Catapult fire, taking down the walls - and then just pushing all your units through.

Using Rams, Ladders, Siege Tower is much more fun and challenging. With option of destroying the gate with rams, or getting units inside the walls to fight their way through to the gate controls on the other side.

Ranged siege is still very useful in taking down wall-mounted defenses (and there are plenty of these), killing masses of enemy troops on the walls, and taking down walls to limit defenders mobility (one critical wall-peace down might trap a good number of infantry units on top of walls, allowing your archers to harmlessly take them down after.

Besides, if you look at the use of Ranged siege weapons during sieges, ranged siege weapons took months, if not sometimes years to take down a wall.

Tynesider
04-27-2009, 11:55 AM
Could you detail what the Total War method is a little more?

Sorry If i was vague, What i meant was if you take a load of siege weapons in the game "total war" you would knock several holes in the walls for troops to enter and so avoid a blockage at the gate where one or two good enemy units can hold up many eg you flank the enemy.

I appreciate what your saying in terms of gameplay obviously as a game player i selfishly think more in terms of realism rather than the cost of that realism.

Joseph Visscher
04-28-2009, 03:31 PM
Sorry If i was vague, What i meant was if you take a load of siege weapons in the game "total war" you would knock several holes in the walls for troops to enter and so avoid a blockage at the gate where one or two good enemy units can hold up many eg you flank the enemy.

I appreciate what your saying in terms of gameplay obviously as a game player i selfishly think more in terms of realism rather than the cost of that realism.

You can still flank your enemy, heck in the Human Region "The Wold" you can attack the stronghold from any angle, it is completely open to assault from any sides of the walls, you want to attack the Front Gate, Back Gate and attach Siege Towers in between them on the East side letting a massive Melee army on the walls, well... You can do that if you really are that evil.

LiTos456
04-28-2009, 05:41 PM
This is starting to make me wanna go play M&B... i recently got into it.
I wonder what the siege towers will look like when they're to the wall. Like.. how units will come out of it and kill the ones on the wall, how they'll come down... I really would like the see the 'push' process of getting into the stronghold step by step and watch it all.

Andy Joslin
04-28-2009, 07:34 PM
If you get in the beta, it won't be long until you can see...;)

LiTos456
04-28-2009, 07:36 PM
Of course I'll get in the beta.
Don't underestimate me!

Joseph Visscher
04-28-2009, 09:10 PM
Of course I'll get in the beta.
Don't underestimate me!


Members to Include:
The Witch King of Angmar
Puppeteer
Feweh
Jean=A=Luc
fyro11
Mrdash
Tynesider
...
Members to exclude:
LiTos456
...
...






Just Kidding.

Esculas the Mighty
04-28-2009, 09:24 PM
Of course I'll get in the beta.
Don't underestimate me!

i feel your pain :D

YAY!!!

LiTos456
04-28-2009, 10:03 PM
I have no pain
I'll get in the beta one way or the third

qdraxter
02-27-2011, 01:31 PM
dont knowv