Siege battles need change; how?

[agc28]

As a attacker, is there a way to mod the game files so that my siege army can cast burning oil once I am controlling the gate? I think this is more realistic. This way, it is possible to defend against enemy reinforcements who come late.

In addition, as a defender, is there anything I can do to the game files in order to increase the number of automatic arrows from the towers? Currently, the towers fire too few arrows (two or three arrows at a time, with slow reload) and it is very unrealistic. The approaching enemy should be facing a rain of arrows. I personally think each tower should fire the same number of arrows as one full unit of archers. (However, I don't think there is any need to increase the damage or the rate of fire.)

[Caesar Clivus]

As a attacker, is there a way to mod the game files so that my siege army can cast burning oil once I am controlling the gate? I think this is more realistic. This way, it is possible to defend against enemy reinforcements who come late.

I dont think so.

In addition, as a defender, is there anything I can do to the game files in order to increase the number of automatic arrows from the towers?

You can change those settings in descr_walls.txt but I dont think you can change it to exactly how you want it.

For future reference, general modding questions are best asked in the Mod Workshop (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=272). More modders hang out there than here which means more chance of getting answers to your questions.

[Beowulf1990]

I still want capturable towers à la Rome.
It irks me to no end when a handful of enemies can keep a tower firing from the wall even though i just sent a hundred men through it! How the hell is that realistic?

[SirRobin]

I still want capturable towers à la Rome.
It irks me to no end when a handful of enemies can keep a tower firing from the wall even though i just sent a hundred men through it! How the hell is that realistic?

It's realistic because each tower is not just hollow inside, it is a mini-fortress with each level able to be sealed off, by heavy doors that take a long time to breach, or by retracting ladders, etc. So while you might be able to run through, it will take much more time to clear out the defenders in each tower.

And even if you did manage to take a tower, I don't think that medieval soldiers on a rampage would be able to coordinate that some of them stop charging once they are over the wall and start taking up positions in towers - medieval warfare was probably not that well controlled once the hell of the assault broke loose.

I personally like that towers are not capturable.

[newt]

Complain to CA. See if they care

[SirRobin]

Complain to CA. See if they care

8-ball says 'no'

But on topic, I agree siege battles need complete reworking, and I probably most of the problems are hardcoded.

Also I agree that attackers should face a deadly barrage of missiles (that actually make a difference, not just for show and 10-12 casualties out of a 1000 man army). But towers can realistically not fire as many arrows as a full unit of archers, there are just too few arrow slits. Archers on top of walls should be able to fire more effectively instead. (and tower arrows should be more effective - more accurate and with more punch)

Assaulting walls should be difficult - defenders should get a bigger bonus in my opinion. The attacker should have to make difficult choices:

• Do I use ladders and risk getting shot to pieces on my approach?
  -
• Or spend several turns constructing siege towers (should be more difficult to construct unless having a siege engineer), then face a gruelling massacre on the walls with LOTS of casualties?
  -
• Or should I try taking the gate, which means a bottle-neck fight under boiling oil, but at least on level ground where I don't get the wall assault penalty?
  -
• Or should I spend time and money bringing siege equipment? As the game stands, I never bother with catapults, cannons or anything, as a couple of ladders is all I need to take any castle..

[newt]

8-ball says 'no'

But on topic, I agree siege battles need complete reworking, and I probably most of the problems are hardcoded.

Also I agree that attackers should face a deadly barrage of missiles (that actually make a difference, not just for show and 10-12 casualties out of a 1000 man army). But towers can realistically not fire as many arrows as a full unit of archers, there are just too few arrow slits. Archers on top of walls should be able to fire more effectively instead. (and tower arrows should be more effective - more accurate and with more punch)

Assaulting walls should be difficult - defenders should get a bigger bonus in my opinion. The attacker should have to make difficult choices:

• Do I use ladders and risk getting shot to pieces on my approach?
  -
• Or spend several turns constructing siege towers (should be more difficult to construct unless having a siege engineer), then face a gruelling massacre on the walls with LOTS of casualties?
  -
• Or should I try taking the gate, which means a bottle-neck fight under boiling oil, but at least on level ground where I don't get the wall assault penalty?
  -
• Or should I spend time and money bringing siege equipment? As the game stands, I never bother with catapults, cannons or anything, as a couple of ladders is all I need to take any castle..

I gave towers more accuracy in descr_projectiles.txt. It definitely forces you to spread out your forces more.

[Fakir]

I think the most obvious fix is simply giving crossbowmen the ability to actually fire from walls. In larger cities, my crossbowmen can't fire from the walls! They have to arc-shot over the parapets! It's the single most ridiculous thing of all time. Shameful.

[newt]

I think the most obvious fix is simply giving crossbowmen the ability to actually fire from walls. In larger cities, my crossbowmen can't fire from the walls! They have to arc-shot over the parapets! It's the single most ridiculous thing of all time. Shameful.

http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...amage-in-siege.

[Alavaria]

Yeah, all that description about crossbow militia not being well armored, but it's just as well that they're supposed to defend from behind walls >.>

Not very helpful. Unless you're shooting from one wall to another. L shaped walls can really let crossbowmen shine (or against anyone who's pinned like people stuck on spearmen as they enter though a gatehouse or wall breach.

[agc28]

I changed stuff in the descr_walls.txt file. I only changed numbers. e.g. reload time changed from 3000 to 2000, etc. I didn't touch any text.

now my game crashes at startup. I don't even get to see the menu lol. then I uesd my backup descr_walls.txt file and everything is fine...

[bɑne]

I changed stuff in the descr_walls.txt file. I only changed numbers. e.g. reload time changed from 3000 to 2000, etc. I didn't touch any text.

now my game crashes at startup. I don't even get to see the menu lol. then I uesd my backup descr_walls.txt file and everything is fine...

Guess 1: You didn't use notepad or changed/added whitespace. Guess 2: Accidently used numbers outside of a valid range recognized by the game.

[agc28]

oh. thanks bane. i didn't think whitespace was important..

[bɑne]

oh. thanks bane. i didn't think whitespace was important..

Yeah... it depends on the file. Some are really touchy about that, I guess its used as some sort of divider like the ; in CSV files. As long as you follow rule number one you should be fine (Always make backups).

[krolyn]

One change I've made is to add body_piercing to ballista towers.
In the begginning I was confused: if normal ballistas are body piercing, why isn't the ballista tower?
I changed it and quickly understood why: it makes siege a LOT more difficult. Nevertheless I now play with ballista tower with body piercing since it makes things harder for both the player and the AI and it is more realistic.