Siege issues

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I don't have problem with capturing cities at all, but there are a few annoyances during the sieges:

- Sap points are utterly unrealistic, although they were applied by the Romans, even 200 men couldn't underminde and break a whole section of wall in a few minutes. Suggestion: they should be at least 3 times slower.

- Towers: even the lighter wooden walls have some 'towers' (looking like wooden boxes), firing missiles at the sieging army. The problem is that when you captured the gateway, moreover hold the area of the whole entrance of the city, they keep firing at you. Just who is that nice guy in the box keeps shooting, why can't I kill him, or if there isn't anybody in the box why can't you destroy it? (Besides the fact, that no automatic weapons were used like this in the antiquity.) Suggestions: towers in wooden walls should be destroyable without siege weapons as well (f.e. setting it on fire).

[mattfriend0]

well they are anoying and but you get rid of them with about two stones and yea i would like to know who mans them becuse it is a bit unrealistic

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

well they are anoying and but you get rid of them with about two stones and yea i would like to know who mans them becuse it is a bit unrealistic

I said taking them out without siege weapons.

[Octavius-Augustus]

I utterly agree. It's nothing more than an annyoance, really, but it makes no sense. The sap points seem like your men, once underground, metamorph to some kind of mole-like creatures, capable of digging the soil as if it was butter. The towers, honestly I haven't thought about it, since they don't make that serious casualties, but in the case that wooden wall should be a severely lighter defence than the other levels of fortifications, the 'immortal' (without using onagers) make them a formidable barrier. Don't forget you have no access to the walls (the enemy as well, of course) and you are stuck at assaulting the settlement only through the gates (again lacking siege equipment). Still, I believe these things are hardcoded.. I'm not sure about the speed of tunnel digging, though. IMO it should be increased at least twice.

[Taelok]

I don't have problem with capturing cities at all, but there are a few annoyances during the sieges:

- Sap points are utterly unrealistic, although they were applied by the Romans, even 200 men couldn't underminde and break a whole section of wall in a few minutes. Suggestion: they should be at least 3 times slower.

To be honest, making it slower would serve no purpose other than to annoy the player. I can see where you're coming from, but a lot of people play without timed battles on so waiting 3 times as much for a sap point is pointless. I do agree that a change should be made, though, perhaps the unit that enters the sap point suffers heavy losses?

[Source]

I agree with you Taelok. Although the current sapping time is very unrealistic, but making it any longer will definitely irritate players....especially me. I guess the casualty rate idea is pretty fair.

[Scipio praeditus]

The whole digging the tunnel animation is stupid, that would have been done long before the actual siege commenced.
If anything should be changed it would be that the tunnels should already be present, and the actual sapping (the breaking down of the wall) should last, at least, 4-5 times longer.

[MarcusTullius]

The whole digging the tunnel animation is stupid, that would have been done long before the actual siege commenced.
If anything should be changed it would be that the tunnels should already be present, and the actual sapping (the breaking down of the wall) should last, at least, 4-5 times longer.

Thats a very good idea
If the build times were lengthened (or more build points required) it would seem as if the sapping had taken longer to accomplish and then during the battle it would just be the last few metres that would need to be done.

TBH thats what you could percieve it as now. The work has gone on beforehand and the reason that the soldiers are so quick is because they only have to tunnel a few metres more

[Nellup]

Isn't all of this hard-coded anyway? Making the discussion entirely hypothetical...

Although in regards to the towers, the system M2TW uses is better, where towers only fire is some enemy troops are near them, although you can't capture the towers either.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

The whole digging the tunnel animation is stupid, that would have been done long before the actual siege commenced.
If anything should be changed it would be that the tunnels should already be present, and the actual sapping (the breaking down of the wall) should last, at least, 4-5 times longer.

I agree with the Scipio's idea that there should be finished tunnels when the siege starts.

According to the acknowledged historian, Adrian Galsworthy, the tunnel digging must have taken a long time (at least weeks) because of the joist that kept the tunnel from the collapse. Thus, the mole effect should be completely removed.

When the tunnel was finished they lit some combustible stuff (practically the joist), and hopefully the wall was broken.

I've also read in Galsworthy's book that making "sap points" (mine digging) was a very dangerous sport, as the enemy could undermine your tunnels too by listening to the voices and noises of the tunnel digging. So in this case the defending side could have the opportunity to create counter-sappoints.

The traces of such activity was found in real around the Roman fort of Dura-Europos, that was besieged and captured by the Persians. There was even a melee fight when the tunnels met.

Another possibility for the attacking (sieging) side could be to create pitfalls with pikes to discourage the defenders from rushing out. (This was applied f.e. during the siege of Alesia by Julius Caesar.)

I'd also like to note that well built, thick stone walls could not be demolished not even seriously damaged even by the biggest catapults, again according to Galsworthy.

[Octavius-Augustus]

It's a game, mate. A CA game. Why post this in the RS forum, when the 'issues' you are pointing out are obvious, also hardcoded and if someone could fix that, it would already be done. We all have tons of things we don't like in RTW, but we play it anyway, right? Accept the fact that sieges will be unrealistic, like most things in video games anyway. I personally also feel sieges are one of the most irritating thing in RTW. I still play, though. I like luring the enemy garisson outside the settlement, crushing it, then proceeding to an easy auto-calc siege. Try that if you hate sieges so much.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

It's a game, mate. A CA game. Why post this in the RS forum, when the 'issues' you are pointing out are obvious, also hardcoded and if someone could fix that, it would already be done. We all have tons of things we don't like in RTW, but we play it anyway, right? Accept the fact that sieges will be unrealistic, like most things in video games anyway. I personally also feel sieges are one of the most irritating thing in RTW. I still play, though. I like luring the enemy garisson outside the settlement, crushing it, then proceeding to an easy auto-calc siege. Try that if you hate sieges so much.

1. I don't hate sieges. I love them, that's why I am concerned.

2. I am posting here, because I find this mod the best, and the RS community the most helpful so far.

3. Popping an idea doesn't mean that I am unsatisfied, it means that I'd like to contribute in some way.

4. Video games should be much more realistic.

5. Sorry for raising issues, that are obvious to you, but understand me, as I've been posting here in TWC for only a month (although I play TW for years).