Seige Weapons Idea

**Tacitursa** · June 15, 2008, 02:24 PM

Ok heres what ive been thinking about lately.

Instead of building your seige weapons from your castles/cities i think they should be added to the Siege structure window next to Ram,Ladder,Tower and used very much same way.

Cause for instance an army from london isnt going to Push a trebuchet all the way to france to use it on a castle they'll build it once the castle is surrounded and under seige.

**nickname** · June 15, 2008, 02:42 PM

Would be nice and more realistic. But I think there will be something like "it's hardcoded"...
And the wapons should be also recruitable in citys and castels.
How often an Mangoel saved me defending a city

.
And you can't do this with cannons.

**Theseus1234** · June 15, 2008, 02:49 PM

if you did somehow implement that option, then trebuchets would need about as much wood and stuff as a siege tower, so it would take like 65 build points

catapults should also be on that list, if possible, as should ballistas for wooden palisades

**rob-a-dogg** · June 15, 2008, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by theseus1234

if you did somehow implement that option, then trebuchets would need about as much wood and stuff as a siege tower, so it would take like 65 build points

catapults should also be on that list, if possible, as should ballistas for wooden palisades

siege towers blatantly use far more wood than any trebuchet would

**strife1013** · June 15, 2008, 05:14 PM

Good idea but than experience for these items would be pointless though right? And what about if you want to use in the field? Make it creatable in a castle/city and as a option for seige equipment?

Cannons wouldnt be allowed or shouldnt.

**Kolaris8472** · June 16, 2008, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by strife1013

Good idea but than experience for these items would be pointless though right? And what about if you want to use in the field? Make it creatable in a castle/city and as a option for seige equipment?

Cannons wouldnt be allowed or shouldnt.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but experience on siege equipment is already useless. It doesn't increase accuracy or the attack of their equipment, and I don't think you're planning on charging the crew itself into battle any time soon.

**gurachn** · June 15, 2008, 08:17 PM

Historically, other than cannon (and I believe ballista), large field artillery, like trebs and such, were constructed on site.
It would make sense that they should be part of the seige menu.

But is this even a possibility given the game engine?
If not, its a waste of time to discuss it.

**Tiwaz** · June 16, 2008, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by gurachn

Historically, other than cannon (and I believe ballista), large field artillery, like trebs and such, were constructed on site.
It would make sense that they should be part of the seige menu.

But is this even a possibility given the game engine?
If not, its a waste of time to discuss it.

But then again, they were also stuff which generally required someone who actually knew what he did to build and use them.

Trebuchet use was form of art in some ways.

So our recruited siege crews represent this knowledge. Of course it could be seen as slightly silly that they build their gear for field battle... But I forgive that detail since I love watching fiery death rain upon the enemy on the field.

**gurachn** · June 16, 2008, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

But then again, they were also stuff which generally required someone who actually knew what he did to build and use them.

Trebuchet use was form of art in some ways.

So our recruited siege crews represent this knowledge...

Yes, point taken. You would definitely require at least a decent set of plans to build a workable treb.

On the other hand, I think that you would need some decent plans/knowledge to build a seige tower that actually worked, and those are built on site. If we accept that an average army has the skills to handle one, I would say that the other isn't such a stretch.

However, the point is moot if the seige gear is hard coded.

**Caesar Clivus** · June 15, 2008, 09:58 PM

Not possible. Like many things, it's hardcoded

**Brewskii** · June 15, 2008, 10:26 PM

what exactly does "hardcoded" mean?

**Caesar Clivus** · June 15, 2008, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by brewskii

what exactly does "hardcoded" mean?

Something that can't be changed by modders.

**gurachn** · June 16, 2008, 04:12 AM

It just occurred to me that the ideal situation would be to have a unit/agent called something like "Field engineer"
This guy would enable you to build trebs and towers. Maybe even necessary for forts and watchtowers?

Just a thought.

**PeteSKTemplar** · June 16, 2008, 04:30 AM

So at least I would suggest that "the crew" would be hired in town (in reality player would buy regular equipment like catapult or trebuchet) but that crew wouldnt mean penalty for army movement for they werent pushing that equipment with them but building it before the wall of besieged city. So instead of penalty movement for having siege weapon in army one turn would be required to get ready that tool(s) when besieging, not attacking straight in the same turn when reaching the walls. Question is whether its possible to require one turn when using siege equipment. I guess to eliminate that penalty movement should be possible. Only problem would be field battles but even i reality when two armies met sudenly there was no time to build that equipment. Just army will loose some slot(s) for those engineers.

**moosey** · June 16, 2008, 08:48 AM

i like the field engineer idea, might be weird implementing but it would be cool if you needed them to build forts and watchtowers.

You could have a whole length of extra ancillaries or units to do the supporting roles like having a quartermaster or armourers to maintain the armies weapons and armour (that or over time they start rusting or something if away from a settlement, an army with a cook cann be well fed and hence have an edge over armies that dont and come to the field with empty stomachs...

opened a bit of a pandoras box here, most of it is probably whimsical and will only work in my head... lol

**gurachn** · June 16, 2008, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by moosey

i like the field engineer idea, might be weird implementing but it would be cool if you needed them to build forts and watchtowers.

You could have a whole length of extra ancillaries or units to do the supporting roles like having a quartermaster or armourers to maintain the armies weapons and armour (that or over time they start rusting or something if away from a settlement, an army with a cook cann be well fed and hence have an edge over armies that dont and come to the field with empty stomachs...

opened a bit of a pandoras box here, most of it is probably whimsical and will only work in my head... lol

I think you might be adding a bit much here. Could be interesting but I think that it might make things a bit cumbersome.

On the subject of the siege engineer. I suspect that in real life they probably had a guy who had some experience. He drafted labour from the soldiers in the army (some of whom may have been carpenters, masons, smiths back home) to do the actual sawing and hauling. In addition to knowing how to build the towers/trebs/etc, he probably knew how to use them.
If any of you saw that Nova special where they built those two trebs in Scotland, (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostemp...et/builds.html) they had a couple of guys with plans, a bunch of laborers, and in a reasonable length of time (and without any experience) they were flinging big rocks through simulated castle walls.
The more I think of it, the idea of a "Field engineer" agent makes perfect sense.

Too bad it doesn't look like it will be possible to implement!