Towers only fire if unit is nearby?

**Razor** · September 10, 2006, 06:44 AM

I've heard that towers will only fire arrown when there's a unit nearby.
Now I really hope that towers can fire WITHOUT having a unit near them. A fortress or castle was meant to be garrisoned by few units while still being a pain in the @$$ for the siegers. I really hope that it doesn't mean that in order to get a tower firing his arrows or whatever needs one unit in the proximoty. I'm sure a tower can fire arrows with just a few men, not a whole unit.
Does that make sense?

**Cheexsta** · September 10, 2006, 07:03 AM

It sounds like it was a reaction to peoples' general distaste of the "machine gun" towers of RTW. I like the idea of having to need units actually manning the towers for them to do stuff, it'll actually encourage the player to try and keep the walls for at least this reason. If you really need the towers in operation, just keep a few severely-understrength units nearby and let them take care of it...

I wonder if siege weapons will be able to be mounted on walls now? That would be cool

**The White Knight** · September 10, 2006, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Cheexsta

It sounds like it was a reaction to peoples' general distaste of the "machine gun" towers of RTW. I like the idea of having to need units actually manning the towers for them to do stuff, it'll actually encourage the player to try and keep the walls for at least this reason. If you really need the towers in operation, just keep a few severely-understrength units nearby and let them take care of it...

I wonder if siege weapons will be able to be mounted on walls now? That would be cool

Nah, I read it wouldn't. Towers would be upgradeable though, so catapult-towers might be in? (Would the Timurids get rocket-towers? Perhaps!

)

**God-Emperor of Mankind** · September 10, 2006, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by The White Knight

Towers would be upgradeable though, so catapult-towers might be in?

Most likely and my lovely culverin towers :tooth:
Also I'm happy that you need units close to the towers in order for them to fire.
It was annoying in RTW where you had to capture the tower in order to get them to stop firing at you.

**Razor** · September 10, 2006, 08:57 AM

I just don't like the idea that a unit needs to be stationary near a tower doing nothing apart from eating out of their noses in order to keep a tower operational.
I'd rather choose for towers garrisoned by a numbers of soldiers taken from the units that are garrisoning the castle/fortress/whatever. like when you select a unit like siege equipment in RTW and then a hand appears when you move over a tower. That's what I like to see.

**Holger Danske** · September 10, 2006, 07:24 AM

Yeah, they had catapult towers in MTW..

**Antagonist** · September 10, 2006, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Razor

I've heard that towers will only fire arrown when there's a unit nearby.
Now I really hope that towers can fire WITHOUT having a unit near them. A fortress or castle was meant to be garrisoned by few units while still being a pain in the @$$ for the siegers. I really hope that it doesn't mean that in order to get a tower firing his arrows or whatever needs one unit in the proximoty. I'm sure a tower can fire arrows with just a few men, not a whole unit.
Does that make sense?

Is that really realistic though? I found it very annoying the way in MTW a massive citadel would still cause massive casualties to besiegers even if it was held only by a single unit of peasants because of all the towers etc. RTW made this better by letting you capture towers on stone walls, but then they somehow began to fire at the enemy (what happens there? Do your soldiers somehow convince the men in the towers to switch sides?) Personally I'm in too minds about this, on the one hand it is likely to make siege defence a lot more awkward and difficult, on the other it is much more realistic IMO, a fortress held by a skeleton garrison should not have hundreds of archers etc. mysteriously present inside the towers who aren't under the players control. It's not exactly clear on how it will work though, we'll have to wait and see I suppose.

Antagonist

**Roman-Warrior** · September 10, 2006, 09:24 AM

Hey that's actually not a bad idea, like to get a siege tower running it would take like 6 men out of a unit or so.

-Wes

**Cyrus the Virus** · September 10, 2006, 01:21 PM

Ahh the ghost archers..Truly a legend

**Obershutze** · September 10, 2006, 01:25 PM

Well I just assumed the people shooting in the towers were men from the city's population. Those not in the army could defend their home that way.

**Korinthos Hoplites** · September 10, 2006, 01:53 PM

^Yeah, and then you reached them and they simply gave up without a fight....LOL

**Obershutze** · September 10, 2006, 01:58 PM

They had ver low moral....

**Roman-Warrior** · September 10, 2006, 03:13 PM

Im curious, why wouldn't they try to block the tower doors dis allowing the enemy to go downstairs or through them. Better yet why not leavign a small opening so the archers could keep firing.

-Wes

**PorT_Lobo** · September 10, 2006, 04:20 PM

Well, i like difficult games........

Having auto fire in Towers only damage AI, because Human easily destroy them b4 and only advance when they are destroyed...... but i guess not everybody thinks like me and like auto fire destroying AI to helping them wining the game...

Garrison Towers to it Fire is a GREAT IDEIA and stop lame autofire destroying half of AI army!! Well done CA.

**Obershutze** · September 10, 2006, 05:07 PM

The more I think about it, the more I think this would just depend on how well this is implemented.

**AlfonsoVIII** · September 10, 2006, 05:31 PM

I thought the tower will only shoot when an enemy unit is around, not a defender.

**Korinthos Hoplites** · September 10, 2006, 05:50 PM

That was on RTW, now both need to be nearby so the tower can shoot (enemies)

**Swe_gamer** · September 11, 2006, 04:53 AM

I think this is a really bad idea and will only lead to more micromanagement. I bet people now will recruit 20 units of peasants just to be able to have a decent defence. The towers were definately overpowered in RTW and in combination with the crap AI where units just stood still under fire the effects were too great. But this? Nah, the tower upgrades should include men to fire the invested ballistics. Don´t see why people have a hard time accepting "ghost towers" as it would be natural to place a few archers in all available towers. And why should a group of peasants all of a sudden be equipped with bows when they enter a tower?

Just make the towers less powerful and improve, in this case, the horrid AI and I would be happy.

**alanschu** · September 11, 2006, 05:01 AM

IIRC, the way MTW did it was once the attacker moved past the section of walls, the towers along those walls were disabled.

I liked it, because I don't think it's a stretch that people would be firing crossbows and helping to defend their homes.

The way RTW did towers was kind of absurd. I mean, you could capture them and make them attack the defenders?

It'd be kind of neat if the culture/nationality of the people played a role. If I just captured a town, I wouldn't expect them to be manning the towers in my defense when their own people came to rescue them. And I wouldn't mind if they started shooting me if they were captured by the liberators. Oh well.