Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 57

Thread: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    edmont's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Stock-m, Sweden
    Posts
    384

    Default CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    Closer look on castles revealed that they are somewhat improved version of RTW's ones and no moats and other ... decadent things included.Simplicity itself-some drunken buddies with a log can gain access trough main gates and let the rest of a bunch enter...and if you like smth more complex play some other games Stronghold or whatever,yeah...
    Last edited by edmont; November 01, 2006 at 12:49 PM.
    Make WAR not LOVE.In the GRIM DARK MEDIEVAL there's only WAR !!!

  2. #2
    Salil's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    205

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    ... come again? :hmmm:

  3. #3
    Flogger's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,130

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    I think he's basically saying: "Boo, no moats. Another essential thing left out by CA. This game sucks "

    And I agree. Moats were a huge part of medieval siege warfare. And they really should be in, what with all the new cities and whatnot.
    Stealing TWC's smilies since 2005

  4. #4
    Germanicus75's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Britannia
    Posts
    2,447

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    He says there's no moats around castles...

  5. #5
    edmont's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Stock-m, Sweden
    Posts
    384

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    And CA told that game would be oriented on sieges
    Make WAR not LOVE.In the GRIM DARK MEDIEVAL there's only WAR !!!

  6. #6
    Legione's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    bronx, NY
    Posts
    769

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    hmm I never thought of this, but it's true why are there no moats in M2TW?!?!?





    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    "Every man is his own ancestor, and every man is his own heir. He devises his own future, and he inherits his own past."

  7. #7
    edmont's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Stock-m, Sweden
    Posts
    384

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    I don't know. P.S.Why?
    Make WAR not LOVE.In the GRIM DARK MEDIEVAL there's only WAR !!!

  8. #8

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    probably because they would have had to make special abilities for units to use, such as filling up a moat with branches and dirt, before being able to drive the rams or siege towers over the moat.
    And with the ammout of troops you field in mtw2 you're not gonna have nearly enough to assault even a mid sized castle in this fashion.
    Because as you might guess, the dudes that were filling up the moat were kinda open to ranged attacks from the tops of the walls.
    And this would indeed slow down sieges to a great extend.
    the total war sieges are great, but somewhat unrealistic.
    But i still like em, and cant wait for my first siege in mtw2
    CPU:Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40 GHz (OC to 4.5 GHz)
    CPU Cooler: Cosair H-80
    RAM:16GB Cosair Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz 1,5v
    Motherboard: Intel Desktop DP67BG Extreme Series
    GFX Card: Sapphire Radeon HD 7970, 3GB GDDR5
    Storage:System: OCZ Vertex 2 Series 60GB Sata 3Gb/s ; Game Drive 1: OCZ Agility 3 120GB Sata 6Gb/s ; Game Drive 2: WD3000GLFS 300G10000RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s
    OS
    : Windows 7 Professional, 64-bit.
    Case: Raven RV-03

  9. #9
    God-Emperor of Mankind's Avatar Apperently I protect
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Malmö, Sweden
    Posts
    21,640

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    There were never any moats in MTW1 and people didn't complain then so no reason to do it now.

  10. #10
    edmont's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Stock-m, Sweden
    Posts
    384

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    Quote Originally Posted by TB666
    There were never any moats in MTW1 and people didn't complain then so no reason to do it now.
    But real sieges were taken years because of the things like moats and your strategical choices would grow if you are certain in your castle defences
    Make WAR not LOVE.In the GRIM DARK MEDIEVAL there's only WAR !!!

  11. #11

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    What's a moat?

  12. #12
    Salil's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    205

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    basically a canal around a stronghold

  13. #13

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    Quote Originally Posted by Salil
    basically a canal around a stronghold
    They didn't have those in MTW...

  14. #14
    Biarchus
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Corvallias, Oregon
    Posts
    652

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    I wonder how comon moats were in the period? A moat could not have been some trifel of a thing to biuld, I am no expert but they must have been some thing like 6 or 8 feet deep and more than likely go around the hole fortification. That would take a very long time to compleet not to mention be realy expencive. I think it would be more comon to see a castle biult in an easely defencibale place, like a hill or up against some clifs or some thing of that sort than to see a big trench doug around one.

  15. #15
    Spart's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,411

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    Don't think these would be really possible in Med 2's quick and small siege battles. What next, mine tunnels? Moats are legendary, but dealing with those would take days, or it would be like tunnel-digging in Rome. =D
    But I really hope they've added some spice to sieges, such as multiple walls.
    Member of S.I.N
    Finns to the rescue!

    How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.
    -Søren Kierkegaard

  16. #16

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    You can have 3 rings of walls on a castle now...

  17. #17
    Black Francis's Avatar -IN-NOMINE-XPI-VINCAS-
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Aberystwyth, Wales, UK.
    Posts
    1,532

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    Just imagine that the moats have all been filled in by the attackers... which in many sieges they were to a great degree by the time the final assault came...

    IN-HOC-SIGNO-VINCES

  18. #18
    Hansa's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bergen
    Posts
    1,707

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    I am no expert, but I don't think moates were too common. That being said, to build castles and fortresses on islands was quite common, so you get the moat effect with that aswell. Hadn't thought about the lack of moates in MTW2, would be a nice feature, but the lack of moats is hardly a disaster anyway.
    GEIR HASUND!

    By the way, though my avatar might indicate so, I am not a citizen of Germany, though my ancestry have a branch in this great nation.

  19. #19
    Valhalla89's Avatar Libertus
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    It could be incorperated in my opinion. What you do is, after you have built the third ring of a castle, you could then decide to build the mote (because building before that would prevent any more expansion of the rings). This could be made into a long and expensive undertaking that only the biggest and best castles of the best factions could take the time and money to complete.

    How would you then assult this castle? Simple, when you choose to build your seige equiptment like towers and rams, you simply have to wait x number of turn(s) or so to fill in the mote... in other words it gives the defenders like 2-3 more turns to arrive with another army and attack you from two sides... Then when/if you actually did assult you simply make the ground where the mote was, look like freshly dug earth and maybe make it a little muddy when it rains...

    what do you guys think?

  20. #20
    Azog 150's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    10,112

    Default Re: CA's heard the word MOAT, so why to play without?

    I dont think they should be incorparated in castles as it apears seiges are going to be hard enough already, plus it would be too complicated.

    But I think it would be good if they could impliment them on forts. More realistic and makes seiging and defending forts more interesting and fun. I imagine there could be path finding issues with them as well as them getting a bit tedious. And there would still be seige problems such as filling it in ect
    Under the Patronage of Jom!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •