busted diployment phase

**neoiq5719** · May 20, 2010, 12:57 AM

I dont know if this has been addressed before or not but during the deployment phase in which siege engines are involved, the forces cannot be deployed wherever u want. Anyone else has this problem? cos this is not a vanilla bug.

**LegioXIIIGemina** · May 20, 2010, 03:04 AM

I've experienced that bug too,i don't know if it is RS or just RTW.I can deploy my troops but not the siege engines.

**RJA** · May 20, 2010, 05:51 AM

It's because of the new vegetation that the RS team implemented. Don't worry it will be corrected in RS2, they just didn't have the time to correct it for RS1.6 I think. All their free time goes to the development of RS2.

RJA

**Binshuy** · May 20, 2010, 05:53 AM

yay!

**illerkiller** · May 20, 2010, 07:05 AM

If you select a "normal" unit to move together with the siege engine in the deployment phase, you get SOME movement, but still pretty restricted.

**General Brittanicus** · May 20, 2010, 08:23 AM

You should search the forum next time, since this has been asked so many times you will be bound to find it somewhere else.

**Trevarian** · May 20, 2010, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by General Brittanicus

You should search the forum next time, since this has been asked so many times you will be bound to find it somewhere else.

Big deal, try showing a little more respect.

**Drowsy** · May 20, 2010, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Trevarian

Big deal, try showing a little more respect.

He did show 'respect'. His tone doesn't even strike as annoyed. Hes just stating the obvious.

**General Brittanicus** · May 20, 2010, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Drowsy

He did show 'respect'. His tone doesn't even strike as annoyed. Hes just stating the obvious.

Thank you Drowsy

.

**dvk901** · May 20, 2010, 11:09 AM

I hate to pop people's bubble, but this issue will most likely still be an issue in RS2. Hopefully not as bad (I haven't heard as many complaints), but it is still an issue. The problem is that the game won't let you place 'equipment' on a 'forest ground tile'. This wasn't a problem in Vanilla, because forest ground types tended to be 'clumped' into huge areas. However, one of the reasons that RS1.6 and RS2 look so much better environmentally is because this 'clumping' of ground types has been corrected. It makes everything...the ground, grass, placement of trees and shrubs...look far more natural and realistic. So for the benefit of the environment, you sacrifice the ability, sometimes, to move equipment around in the field.

We've made an effort to fix this issue around cities, so that rams and towers don't get stuck in the woods and can't get to the cities, but in the field, you may just have to start the battle and let your guys move the equipment where you want it.

**arcsquad12** · May 20, 2010, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by dvk901

I hate to pop people's bubble, but this issue will most likely still be an issue in RS2. Hopefully not as bad (I haven't heard as many complaints), but it is still an issue. The problem is that the game won't let you place 'equipment' on a 'forest ground tile'. This wasn't a problem in Vanilla, because forest ground types tended to be 'clumped' into huge areas. However, one of the reasons that RS1.6 and RS2 look so much better environmentally is because this 'clumping' of ground types has been corrected. It makes everything...the ground, grass, placement of trees and shrubs...look far more natural and realistic. So for the benefit of the environment, you sacrifice the ability, sometimes, to move equipment around in the field.

We've made an effort to fix this issue around cities, so that rams and towers don't get stuck in the woods and can't get to the cities, but in the field, you may just have to start the battle and let your guys move the equipment where you want it.

So, does this mean that the immovable artillery will still be a problem then?

**intel** · May 20, 2010, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by arcsquad12

So, does this mean that the immovable artillery will still be a problem then?

Only in forested areas. So you can forget about excessive use of siege engines in northern Europe. But hey, it's all about the mediterrean area, isn't it? It shouldn't be much of an issue there- Greece, Italy, Minor Asia aren't as forested, in most cases using siege engines is relatively comfortable

PS. they aren't really useful in a open battle, unless you face them as your enemy. In such case, they can be very annoying and painful

**RJA** · May 21, 2010, 02:22 AM

Au contraire mon ami!

If you are the attacker, and you enemie is only holding their position, a catapult or 2 can rip half the army to shreds. But you have to use fire missiles. 1 hit equals roughly 10 to 20 kills, depending on how accurate you his them. On the other hand I have tried those ballista thingies, and they seem relatively weak to me. If I do take siege equipment with me, it's 1 or 2 catapults. But that is so I can take lightly defended cities in 1 turn. But you are right, when your enemy has catapults, you are bound to lose some of your precious troops. I once hada bridge battle in north Italy against the Gallic hordes and they had 1 catapult. Imagine the damage he has done to my legionnaires.

RJA

**Ybbon** · May 21, 2010, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by RJA

Au contraire mon ami!

If you are the attacker, and you enemie is only holding their position, a catapult or 2 can rip half the army to shreds. But you have to use fire missiles. 1 hit equals roughly 10 to 20 kills, depending on how accurate you his them. On the other hand I have tried those ballista thingies, and they seem relatively weak to me. If I do take siege equipment with me, it's 1 or 2 catapults. But that is so I can take lightly defended cities in 1 turn. But you are right, when your enemy has catapults, you are bound to lose some of your precious troops. I once hada bridge battle in north Italy against the Gallic hordes and they had 1 catapult. Imagine the damage he has done to my legionnaires.

RJA

Oh yeah, I had a similar bridge battle once, nightmare!

I have a siege army and a non-siege army setup, if the army isn't intended to take a settlement then I never have siege equipment. However, if my siege army has to fight an open field battle then I find Onagers are good especially against phalanxes who stay grouped, I only use fire if the Legions are well out the way - fireballs tend to be extremely wayward, great when they hit but I've had them wipe out a cohort or two before now too. Against barbarians who move fast and looser than phalanxes onagers are less helpful, scorpions and ballistas can be good but again, you need to place them so they don't fire into your own troops - they can be pretty devastating against slower moving troops though.

However, I have won a few battles where the odds were against me because I had siege equipment - they are good at reducing the morale of the enemy in a hurry so they may run at an earlier stage.

**Binshuy** · May 21, 2010, 07:32 AM

better close in the gaps quickly then

**intel** · May 21, 2010, 07:49 AM

Not always possible

I had a battle against Syracuse as Rome. Full stack vs my 3/4 of stack, I was defending because I had less troops of worse quality. I placed my cohorts on the hill, hoping that rain of javelins will at least slow AI down. Guess what happened

Syracusan brought a friggin big balista with them (not even the biggest one though) and begun picking off my precious troops with a great accuracy

Had I closed the gap, I'd be gagnbanged by greeks, there was no choice but to stand and watch my Roman polybian cohorts (difficult to recruit and strong) being burned ;?

Things like these happen

Now back to the beta!

**Ybbon** · May 21, 2010, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by intel

Not always possible

I had a battle against Syracuse as Rome. Full stack vs my 3/4 of stack, I was defending because I had less troops of worse quality. I placed my cohorts on the hill, hoping that rain of javelins will at least slow AI down. Guess what happened

Syracusan brought a friggin big balista with them (not even the biggest one though) and begun picking off my precious troops with a great accuracy

Had I closed the gap, I'd be gagnbanged by greeks, there was no choice but to stand and watch my Roman polybian cohorts (difficult to recruit and strong) being burned ;?

Things like these happen

Now back to the beta!

Does the AI protect their ballista's better? I find they tend to lag behind so if I can I will send a troop of cavalry out wide and then attack the ballistas/onagers when they are still catching up to their lines - even losing the cavalry if I have to. If the AI is going to keep their ballistas much closer that may not be possible.

I do find it frustrating when the AI army has better accuracy or some other trait than your own troops that should be equal- it seems unfair but I guess that is one of the penalties of trying to balance the game better so something we have to overcome - I'll try reminding myself of that when I see an army destroyed by the AI "cheating"