Throwing torches based on history?

[GussieFinkNottle]

I was reading Tacitus' Histories recently (an account of the civil war of 69 AD, also known as 'the year of the four emperors') and came across some passages which may have given CA the idea for the Rome II throwing torches. At the very least they suggest there may have been a grain of history in the much-derided feature.

In the first passage they have an effect not dissimilar to in the game: heavy casualties on the attacker's side. They are used as an offensive force thrown at the defenders of the city of Placentia. It is in the middle of the civil war when the emperor Otho's forces are besieged by one of the armies of the rebel Vitellius. (underlined parts my emphasis)
(from Tacitus, Histories 2.21):
'However, the first day's action was carried out impulsively rather than in a manner that showed the skilled techniques of a veteran army. The enemy, unprotected and careless, approached the walls after a heavy session of eating and drinking. It was during this fighting that a most splendid amphitheatre, located outside the walls, went up in flames. Perhaps it was set on fire by the besiegers while they were hurling torches, slingshots and incendiary missiles at the besieged, or else it was set alight by the blockaded men because they were hurling fire in return [...] In any case, Caecina was repulsed with serious casualties, and the night was spent preparing siege equipment.'
As in Rome II, it is more sensible to wait a while and prepare siege engines.

This method of attack is shown in a bad light, the commander feeling humiliated by his use of poor tactics. So, just like in Rome 2, it is a possible course of action, although not nearly as good as siege equipment. The battle ends in a way familiar to most who have fought off an AI siege in the game:
'The Vitellians retreated and the party's reputation was shattered. Caecina, who was ashamed of his reckless and ill-considered attack, and afraid of looking ridiculous and useless if he stayed put in the same camp, crossed the Po and made for Cremona.'



Later in the war, some relatives and supporters of Vespasian, who has rebelled against the new emperor Vitellius, are under siege on the Capitoline Hill in Rome (the Capitol), and Tacitus explicitly says the attackers throw flaming torches and by this method burn down the gates.
(from Tacitus, Histories 3.71):
'Passing in a swift column the Forum and the temples overlooking the Forum, they charged up the hill opposite until they reached the lowest gates of the Capitoline citadel. There was a series of colonnades built long ago at the side of the slope on the right as you go up. Coming out onto the roof of these, the besieged showered the Vitellians with rocks and roof-tiles. These attackers were armed only with swords, and it seemed tedious to summon catapults and missiles. So they hurled torches into a projecting colonnade and followed the path of the fire. They would have broken through the burnt gates of the capitol, had not Sabinus torn down statues everywhere (the adornment of our ancestors) and built a sort of barrier on the very threshold. They then attacked the Capitol by two different routes...'



Finally when Vespasian's men storm the city of Rome and attack the last Vitellian troops in the Praetorian Guard's fortified camp (the Castra Praetoria), they use torches among other siege techniques to storm it.
(from Tacitus, Histories 3.84):
'The storming of the Praetorian camp involved the heaviest fighting, since it was held by the most determined Vitellians who saw it as their last hope. This spurred on the victors all the more, particularly the ex-praetorians, and they simultaneously deployed all the resources ever designed to storm the most powerful cities - the testudo, artillery, earthworks and firebrands - and shouted out again and again that this operation was the climax of all the toil and danger they had endured in so many battles.'

Does any of this affect what you think of the inclusion of torches in the game, or at least partly explain why CA made this very unpopular decision?
P.S. Since this is a direct discussion of the game as well as the history, I didn't put the thread in the historical discussion section but if a moderator thinks it would be better served there, I don't mind if it is moved.

[Humble Warrior]

Interesting stuff...

However, the reasons CA used torches were for very simple reasons...

1. To cover a broken siege AI.
2. Time constraints.

3. It was the meerest thing someone probably saw from an excerpt like yours which provided a valuable excuse for 1 and 2 - CA are famous for taking the most unlikely, rare thing that might`ve, could`ve, should`ve happened in some`s wet dream writings 3000 years ago and making it the default for everything often without thinking if it`s a good idea to start with, flaming javelins being one example.

[kamikazee786]

hmmm, interesting.

I still dont like the torches though, its a terrible design choice, i could understand it working on dry gates made out of wood in Shogun 2 but for Iron gates to be burnt to the ground with torches is, in my humble opinion, impossible and definitely something which would be quite impractical in a battle situation.

I bet all the gates that tacitus was taking about were all made from wood. The first account was understandable since the amphitheater was a building and incendiary missiles could mean anything from fire arrows to fireballs from catapults.

[Whistler118]

I think most of us knew that torches or burning bales were used in real life to breach woodwalls and gates but its action-ed terribly in the game. You have to remember that things like wind, Rain, water being thrown by the defenders, damp wood all come into effect meaning that the actual effectiveness of lobbing a burning stick what is essentially a tree trunk would have resulted in nothing more than a scorch mark than any serious breach.

Also I think there are about 1million threads about burning sticks which include sources like yours.

[emperor77]

CA has an uncanny ability to seek out the most ridculous one-off weaponry from the depths of history and slap those in the face of their costumers as if they were the norm...

[Modestus]

Torches are a mechanic carried over from Shogun2 that gives a unit an inherent ability to create a gap in a cities defences that normally would require the use of equipment such as a ram, its a simplification of what is required to assault a city.

[GussieFinkNottle]

CA has an uncanny ability to seek out the most ridiculous one-off weaponry from the depths of history and slap those in the face of their consumers as if they were the norm...

Though I agree for many other examples, and my personal opinion is that torches should be removed entirely for gameplay reasons, I think in this instance you are making torches sound more obscure than they really were. Tacitus makes clear they are a normal recourse for armies too lazy to build siege equipment, and even mentions them in the last excerpt as a completely normal, not unusual, part of siege warfare.

[Causeless]

That is actually quite interesting. There are too many armchair historians here - people here are CONSTANTLY saying "There's not a single record of torches being used in a siege!".

[Orkfaeller]

I wouldnt mind torches if they were exclusive to specialists units, like "Barbarian Marauders" or "Roman Siege Engineers" and if could only used on wooden struktures. The way its implemented just doesnt cut it.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Torches are a mechanic carried over from Shogun2 that gives a unit an inherent ability to create a gap in a cities defences that normally would require the use of equipment such as a ram, its a simplification of what is required to assault a city.

Cant..... handle.... the.... common....sense overload. "Splat"

[GussieFinkNottle]

Cant..... handle.... the.... common....sense overload. "Splat"

Even if a feature is carried over, it still has to be historically justified.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Even if a feature is carried over, it still has to be historically justified.

Definitely, like batmangrappling hooks in Empire and Spider armies in Shogun 2. Luckily we could construct siege equipment in Shogun 2 so we could circumvent these features... wait...

[Causeless]

I wouldnt mind torches if they were exclusive to specialists units, like "Barbarian Marauders" or "Roman Siege Engineers" and if could only used on wooden struktures. The way its implemented just doesnt cut it.

That's a great idea! You ought to post that on the official forums, perhaps in the beta patch testing section.

[GoTW Kubee]

Isn't the whole point of building stone walls around your city precisely to make it impossible for attackers to capture it without dedicated siege equipment?

[Humble Warrior]

Isn't the whole point of building stone walls around your city precisely to make it impossible for attackers to capture it without dedicated siege equipment?

No disrespect to the OP as I`m sure it`s all in innocence, but threads like this annoy me slightly because they tend to muddy the issue. They even sometimes give CA an excuse not to make sieges authentic. One of the reasons that CA have actually been working on sieges to get the AI doing them right is because so many people (more than i`ve ever seen) have complained about crap sieges. I was somewhat heartened by this cos I knew CA had to have noticed. It`s the people`s complaints that have given, finally, after 13 patches, a siege AI that is actually achieving what a 10 year old Rome game did easily - WITHOUT TORCHES.

Look back on previous games including MTW2 and torches were not used because in 99% of sieges they were not feasible or even logical. EVERYONE knows that siege engines are required or you starved out the defenders.

I`ll say it again, torches were only used in Rome 2 to cover up a fault and because they got away with it with Shogun 2 (cos nobody really whined). They would have left torches and done nothing if no one had complained here.

It`s just like everything else, sure there might have been the odd woman warrior, the odd flaming spear, the odd flaming pig, the odd flame thrower, but as a rule it was 99% a thing that never happened and 99% of people of the time would never have seen.

It`s pure simple, unadulterated common sense logic.

[Evan MF]

I'm sure CA found a passage in some old Roman diary documenting Caecilius flicking a bee off his arm in the direction of Gaul and so reckoned they had some pertinent evidence for standardised Bee-Onagers.

[Totalheadache]

I'm sure CA found a passage in some old Roman diary documenting Caecilius flicking a bee off his arm in the direction of Gaul and so reckoned they had some pertinent evidence for standardised Bee-Onagers.

haha! Exactly....modestus and humble are spot on as well.

[Sir_Pee_Alot]

Sure they where used but if CA only added as last resort and only able to torch wooden doors. And made it a ability "Torch the doors" so they all got torches in there hands when turned on and not every unit got it. looks mutch more realistic, There are so many ways to make it work but CA only did it because its a easy way out and they knew when RTW II was going to released there where to many bugs with pathfinding and needed a easy way out so they added the SH2 feature.

[DeliCiousTZM]

No disrespect to the OP as I`m sure it`s all in innocence, but threads like this annoy me slightly because they tend to muddy the issue. They even sometimes give CA an excuse not to make sieges authentic. One of the reasons that CA have actually been working on sieges to get the AI doing them right is because so many people (more than i`ve ever seen) have complained about crap sieges. I was somewhat heartened by this cos I knew CA had to have noticed. It`s the people`s complaints that have given, finally, after 13 patches, a siege AI that is actually achieving what a 10 year old Rome game did easily - WITHOUT TORCHES.

Look back on previous games including MTW2 and torches were not used because in 99% of sieges they were not feasible or even logical. EVERYONE knows that siege engines are required or you starved out the defenders.

I`ll say it again, torches were only used in Rome 2 to cover up a fault and because they got away with it with Shogun 2 (cos nobody really whined). They would have left torches and done nothing if no one had complained here.

It`s just like everything else, sure there might have been the odd woman warrior, the odd flaming spear, the odd flaming pig, the odd flame thrower, but as a rule it was 99% a thing that never happened and 99% of people of the time would never have seen.

It`s pure simple, unadulterated common sense logic.

Torches are a mechanic carried over from Shogun2 that gives a unit an inherent ability to create a gap in a cities defences that normally would require the use of equipment such as a ram, its a simplification of what is required to assault a city.

This is pure and simple common sense logic.

What you are saying is opinionated speculative. The assumption that the torches are there to cover up some bad AI conspiracy and not recognizing the origin,necessity is a lowbob view. Without torches there is no way to breach the city gates in the beginning of the campaign. You need ballistae to breach the walls or ram technology to get the siege equipment needed, which also mean you have to hold a longer siege which would in term slow down the gameplay substantially and come with other issues.

Everyone complaining about the torches are coming from the wrong direction. Too simply remove torches without extensive changes to siege equipment and tech trees, will and cannot happen.

It is pure,simple,unadulterated common sense logic.

[Totalheadache]

actually am not 2 fussy if things arent based on history as long as they do something good for the game....torches in my opinion do not...(well bee onagers is again stretching it...but that's a personal choice which u can buy or not...torches were forced on us).