Siege Tower firing

[cyberwop]

Hi, I'm playing BI again after several years. When the AI assaults one of my cities with a tower it fires like a machine gun cutting down all my troops on the walls. When I use the towers I can't figure out how to make them shoot. What am I missing? Playing as the Western Romans for the challenge.

Any help is appreciated. Tanks

[Rainbow Dash]

I think you have to press the fire at will button for your towers to shoot.

[cyberwop]

I think you have to press the fire at will button for your towers to shoot.

TY worked like a charm. Limited ammo though. Pick the right moment.

[Visarion]

I think you have to press the fire at will button for your towers to shoot.

interesting....

[Genius of the Restoration]

What level walls are you attacking. I think siege towers only have arrow towers on the bigger walls. Not sure if it's just epic or large as well. Or maybe they all do. Can someone else clarify actually, I haven't done a very good job

[leseras]

Wait wait wait
How come in all my years of playing I never knew siege towers could fire! OMG what have I been missing out on? I just fast forward the first part! UGH STUID STUPID!

[HanatielHawk]

Wait wait wait
How come in all my years of playing I never knew siege towers could fire! OMG what have I been missing out on? I just fast forward the first part! UGH STUID STUPID!

I got that same problem as well, you don't think about it until you're using it or see it posted on the forum. Siege towers indeed fire like a machine gun just like towers fired missiles in ancient reallife.

[leseras]

I got that same problem as well, you don't think about it until you're using it or see it posted on the forum. Siege towers indeed fire like a machine gun just like towers fired missiles in ancient reallife.

Yeah heck they are pretty powerful when used correctly. I started a Scipii campaign to try them out, mainly because the greeks have tall walls already, so I attacked syracruse. Man they put alot of hoplites on the walls. Half of them died. So much for greek superiority.

[zcylen]

I saw that the first time I fought the egyptians.
my walls were ful of hoplites and spartans and I was sure i could hold them.
then, when the tower was getting close a bunch of arrows were fired and killed half of the defendig troops. it was a slaughter
i was as shocked as my troops lol

[Titus Maximius Thongus]

I seriously doubt that siege towers in real life had gatling guns hidden in them. Maybe skynet sent a couple of terminators back in time to kill Julius Caesar or something

[HanatielHawk]

I seriously doubt that siege towers in real life had gatling guns hidden in them. Maybe skynet sent a couple of terminators back in time to kill Julius Caesar or something

No, some siege towers had multiple functions. Some had hidden rams in the towers to break through the gates, while the tower also protected the troops as they battered their way to the walls.
Other siege towers had archers boarded to fire on the enemy who were standing on the walls. Maybe there were towers who had artillery on them but i'm not sure about that, as towers were maybe not that stable enough to support artillery. But i'm sure about it that the tower had more attacking function besides of bringing troops on the walls and protecting the troops.

[Entropy Judge]

No, some siege towers had multiple functions. Some had hidden rams in the towers to break through the gates, while the tower also protected the troops as they battered their way to the walls.
Other siege towers had archers boarded to fire on the enemy who were standing on the walls. Maybe there were towers who had artillery on them but i'm not sure about that, as towers were maybe not that stable enough to support artillery. But i'm sure about it that the tower had more attacking function besides of bringing troops on the walls and protecting the troops.

Some did have small ballistae/scorpions IIRC, and possibly catapults, but nothing really capable of taking out buildings (like in game, they were more for close-support of the attacking troops than anything else). And I seem to recall that there were some towers developed purely as fire-support centers instead of troop-dispensers, but I could be wrong.

[HanatielHawk]

Some did have small ballistae/scorpions IIRC, and possibly catapults, but nothing really capable of taking out buildings (like in game, they were more for close-support of the attacking troops than anything else). And I seem to recall that there were some towers developed purely as fire-support centers instead of troop-dispensers, but I could be wrong.

That could be possible indeed because those towers are just like stone towers with on each floor a set of archers to pepper the enemy with height advantage and the advantage of making enemy archers almost impossible to attack the archers in the towers. Tough it would take very long to create such towers, most of them would be besieging enemy walls only, except if the enemy had their walls standing full of troops.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If such a towers excisted and they would been equiped with catapults or ballista's, they wouldn't been very high because i don't think the tower would hold it, or else the platforms of the towers would collapse because of the weight of those artillery. I don't even think someone would put catapults on siege towers because they are big, heavy, and the recoil of the catapult would let the platform on the tower collapse. Why?

Try to imagine a siege tower with the usage of attacking the walls while a catapult is installed on a platform of the tower.
1- Weight is a problem, no platform could support a large catapult with some troops on it, and the recoil of the catapult would also have been a problem, such as bouncing on a bed. Bouncing too much and it will collapse.
2- Another weight problem: Imagine the platforms ARE strong enough to support troops and a catapult, still the wheels and the botom of the tower will collapse because of the enourmous weight.
3- Defend problem: as the catapult needs a hole in the tower to fire through, and the troops will need to climb up into the tower, the troops can be quickly taken out by enemy archers through that hole.
4- Movement problem: If everything works out well and the tower will not collapse, who will push or pull the tower? I don't think even superman can pull a tower with a catapult and troops, even not a tower with a catapult. It's just to heavy!

[Delta21]

Hanatiel...the reason why such towers weren't built were not close to what you have mentioned.
1. lack of manpower and/or resources would make the construction of such a tower a very very long process
2. Why put a freaking catapult on the top of a tower that will attach itself to the enemy walls anyway? Just build 10 catapults instead of such monstrosity.
3. Defence/logistic/construction problems weren't an issue...it was just impractical. Even if they could build such towers they could only me used for 1 siege and 1 siege only...after that it became useless. There's no need to work months for something that happens in a couple of hours. That's why classic siege towers were much better...they were easier to build and they fulfilled their protective role very well...as much as for ballistas/siege engines installed in those towers..that wasn't as useful/time efficient(unless you went for some epic fortress).

The bad thing about RTW is that it doesn't have any BA battering rams like they used to have.

[HanatielHawk]

Nothing is impossible...it is possible to install catapults in towers or make huge towers but that's plain stupid. They just didn't think of building such ridiculous towers because they did just fine with what they had, so there is no point in imagining "why that tower would fail" if "we don't need that tower" in the first place.
People weren't as advanced back then, but they weren't retarded either.

No look at this quote, I marked the most important sentance.

Some did have small ballistae/scorpions IIRC, and possibly catapults, but nothing really capable of taking out buildings (like in game, they were more for close-support of the attacking troops than anything else). And I seem to recall that there were some towers developed purely as fire-support centers instead of troop-dispensers, but I could be wrong.

People search for more developement, and in that time especially warefare and technological advantages, else they would never developped the siege tower, the onager, the ballistae and the scorpion. You may find it retarded, but if some madman gives the idea of developping a siege tower with a special platform for archers only or ballista's or something, and it works out well, those "retarded people" have reached a new level of warfare. Why should those people never have thought of a catapult in siege towers? When you think just the way it would look, two of the strongest siege equipment combined, it sounds fabulous. Fabulous enough for a "retarded" ancient Egyptian, Greek or Roman to think of building such a structure. But when you think of building it, the plan is useless and a waste of time!

When in times of developement of technology, warfare, politics, economy and filosofy, you imagine and dream about great things, and to realise that you need great stuff, a great amount of money etc. So you're going to think about that.
Besides there are alway's people who like to think of new stuff to make war for your own country much easier.

[leseras]

Or maybe the developers just wanted some super cool weapon.

[Pimp8426]

Whoa, never noticed that either, thanks for the tip. By the way, I'm having some glitch or something where the tower reaches the walls, but troops can't enter. The computer can't enter either when they siege one of my cities

[Delta21]

Siege towers fire missiles on stone walls, large SW and epic SW. The best way to make use of that capability(doesn't matter much for large and Epic, but it sure makes a difference for normal stone walls) is fire a few onager shots at the walls without destroying them(use the rest of the shots to disable the gateway towers) until the protective part of the walls crumbles, then the normal siege tower is more effective when approaching troops...if you still have ammo left stop the soldiers from moving(if you already destroyed any arrow-shooting towers) and let the tower use up all the ammo.

[Delta21]

Nothing is impossible...it is possible to install catapults in towers or make huge towers but that's plain stupid. They just didn't think of building such ridiculous towers because they did just fine with what they had, so there is no point in imagining "why that tower would fail" if "we don't need that tower" in the first place.
People weren't as advanced back then, but they weren't retarded either.

[Plant]

Nothing is impossible...it is possible to install catapults in towers or make huge towers but that's plain stupid. They just didn't think of building such ridiculous towers because they did just fine with what they had, so there is no point in imagining "why that tower would fail" if "we don't need that tower" in the first place.

Nothing is impossible...lol...when speaking of actual reality and not cheesy sports movies, plenty of things are impossible, namely because of reaching the limits of reality.

I can think of plenty of reasons why installing catapults in seigetowers, or making huge towers in general are impossible and HanatielHawk lists some of them. I noticed you haven't actually bothered refuting his claims and instead decided on a bland assertation. Theres is always a limit to a materials strength and to the weight in which it can carry before breaking.

How can you even think nothing is impossible! Simple thought experiments should prove to you that reality has constraints! All buildings currently has height limits, be it wood, brick, stone or ,steel and glass. Don't even get me started on the recoil effects a catapult will cause onto the building it is on top of. Buildings are traditionally weakest when faced with a lateral force, the force in which a catapult will act upon on the building, it is attached to; either that or whenever the catapult fires, it will shoot out through the rear of the seige tower, to the detriment of whoever is at the rear at the time.

Fine with what they had...yeah, because when people down the ages want to conquer another, they are just fine with using whatever they had rather than using new and innovative tactics...hahaha, they are real happy when their invading army disappears whenever they stormed a walled city....as opposed to the real constraints as given by reality and technical skills at the time.

"Nothing is impossible"...don't make me laugh with a naive assertion.