Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[umiman]

Maybe if CA gave us cheats again they'll let you type in say "WARRIORBOOBS" and you'll spawn an amazon legion consisting of only women, with the catch being they're a highly trained, fully equipped, modern military unit from our time.

[timferius]

Someone remind me to preorder this when I get payed. Very much looking forward to it!

[Sharp]

I think they are solving the problem of bridge battles, which are notoriously easy to win, by getting rid of bridge battles, units can cross rivers without needing bridges or boats so I doubt bridge battles will be there.

It's a bit sad but bridge battles are pretty broken so not having them is a much cleaner solution.

[krisslanza]

Maybe if CA gave us cheats again they'll let you type in say "WARRIORBOOBS" and you'll spawn an amazon legion consisting of only women, with the catch being they're a highly trained, fully equipped, modern military unit from our time.

You had me going for a second, then I laughed. Good one.

[Digital Hellhound]

Catching units while they are slowed down trying to cross a river is much more fun than butchering them at some bridge, anyhow. Never could bother with bridge battles, always kind of dull.

[loose nut]

If they just made it so that 1) the other side of the bridge is well within arrow range and 2) missile units could stop in the middle of the bridge in formation and chuck javelins, instead of the bridge itself being a no-man's zone, and, well 3) units could march down the bridge in formation instead of in a rout-me mob, that would make bridge battles a lot more reasonable. (I don't know how Shogun 2 handles these.) Also that the AI would be less willing to attack at a bridge because of course it is a highly disadvantageous situation no matter how realistic you make it. Ultimately, you're just making a slightly wider bottleneck.

[krisslanza]

If they just made it so that 1) the other side of the bridge is well within arrow range and 2) missile units could stop in the middle of the bridge in formation and chuck javelins, instead of the bridge itself being a no-man's zone, and, well 3) units could march down the bridge in formation instead of in a rout-me mob, that would make bridge battles a lot more reasonable. (I don't know how Shogun 2 handles these.) Also that the AI would be less willing to attack at a bridge because of course it is a highly disadvantageous situation no matter how realistic you make it. Ultimately, you're just making a slightly wider bottleneck.

From what I recall in Shogun 2, bridges only showed up in siege battles. They were also a bit wider. But mainly they were outside the castle, and generally in a siege, the defender isn't wanting to come out...

Now in FOTS, bridges were still deadly. If the defenders had CANNONS... you could decimate troops by firing at them when they bunch up there.

[Sharp]

Oh man, one thing I didn't like at all in Rome 1 was not able to use siege weapons if you had stone city walls. Loads of towns I didn't upgrade the walls so it was just wooden palisade so onagers can actually fire from behind the walls at enemies. It would be so great to have the option to have siege weapons on the wall with the caveat that they can't move so attackers can counter them by just attacking from another side.

[loose nut]

Also that the enemy's siege towers get upgraded along with your walls, so if you max out your walls your troops that happen to be on the walls wind up getting strafed by giant wooden mecha

[Sharp]

Also that the enemy's siege towers get upgraded along with your walls, so if you max out your walls your troops that happen to be on the walls wind up getting strafed by giant wooden mecha

oh god yes, the final level siege tower I would just love as a normal unit for regular battles, I was horrified when defending against that in a siege skirmish battle and seeing it for the first time just ruin everyone on the walls.

[Sirus]

Oh man, one thing I didn't like at all in Rome 1 was not able to use siege weapons if you had stone city walls. Loads of towns I didn't upgrade the walls so it was just wooden palisade so onagers can actually fire from behind the walls at enemies. It would be so great to have the option to have siege weapons on the wall with the caveat that they can't move so attackers can counter them by just attacking from another side.

Oh god, this. It's like CA forgot that siege weapons could be used defensively as well as offensively.

[umiman]

They didn't forget. Plenty of defensive siege weapons / towers (towers are which what you guys are describing to a T) in Medieval 1, 2, Empire, Napoleon, Shogun, and FotS.

Rome 1 was really bloody old guys.

[Sharp]

They didn't forget. Plenty of defensive siege weapons / towers (towers are which what you guys are describing to a T) in Medieval 1, 2, Empire, Napoleon, Shogun, and FotS.

Rome 1 was really bloody old guys.

You couldn't mount your siege weapons on the walls, can't speak for Shogun/FotS but I don't remember it in Rome, Medieval, Empire or Napolean. I know you can have the high level wall upgrades which have siege weapons, and lots of cannons in Empire but your army siege units couldn't go on walls which doesn't make much sense, there are lots of cases of catapults and other siege weapons on walls and I wouldn't think it unreasonable that when being attacked by an enemy that you put your siege weapons on the wall, it's not impossible to think they could haul them up. though they would have limited mobility when on a wall.

Tbh the AI in Siege battles (in all Total Wars) were ridiculously bad both defending and attacking so hopefully that gets improved.

[umiman]

You couldn't mount them, but you could build the towers and such. Which... you know... is kinda how it would have to have been.

Hrm... what's the best way to explain this.

Think of it this way. Imagine the lord of a castle. He just built a wall for the cheapest cost. It's a basic wall that as wall-y as can be. No special options, it has some fortifications and that's it. In Total War terms, this is what you're doing when you buy the regular walls. Then he poses the question to his Royal Architect... "hey nerdface, I want to put my sweet ballista that I collected on my campaign on my sweet new walls yo. Make it happen, douchenozzle." To do this, the Royal Architect has to bill the Royal Coffers again for a wall expansion to house enough room to put the ballistas, as well as make arrangements for easy transport of ammunition, etc. So this is what you pay for when you buy the towers. In this case the Royal Architect also bought an entire new set of ballista as well because he's collecting bribes from private contractors.

IRL you wouldn't have been able to just randomly mount catapults or cannons without building infrastructure to house them. That is of course what the in-game systems were designed to simulate. These things don't come out of thin air. In fact I'd say the Total War system was unrealistic not because you couldn't integrate the siege engines into your walls at whim... but because you couldn't TAKE OUT the siege engines you built into your fortresses.

[Sharp]

IRL you wouldn't have been able to just randomly mount catapults or cannons without building infrastructure to house them.

Of course you can, there are actual cases of siege engines being hauled up on walls for defence, can't be 100% certain in veracity but then you can't really be sure in many things in ancient history. The Siege of Syracause is an example of onagers and ballista being mounted on the city walls.

If there is space on city walls then it is possible for siege weapons to be hauled up onto the walls, obviously a purpose built turret would be better but if you have the weapons but not the time then hauling an existing engine up is certainly feasible and can be done very quickly. Obviously it depends on the wall and for the time period I don't think there are any surviving walls to see how thick and well constructed they were, however in the walls portrayed in the game they certainly are thick and wide enough to support siege weapons.