Regarding torch tossing and the new gate hacking system..

[Orthrus]

What if, instead of with their swords and axes and whatnot, units use torches and physically hit the gate with them, maybe doing the same with watchtowers and the like, instead of the... you know...

*unit stares really hard*....... *tower crumbles*

It isn't quite the ridiculousness of tossing torches at a gate to destroy it, nor is it as equally ridiculous as using swords and axes and spear to destroy reinforced gates. This makes less sense then using fire to destroy gates honestly. It's a middle ground, you aren't just throwing a torch from range, but physically setting it on fire. The best of the worst of both worlds, I guess you could say. ( possible hilarious side effects with boiling oil would be most appropriate )

Honestly though, if you didn't bring enough rams, siege equipment, or whatever to get into the city, short of the occupants opening the gates and just blindly letting you walk in, you are not getting into the city. Sorry. Better luck next time, maybe,I don't know I'm just takin' a shot in the dark, come better preparedinstead of rushing the fortified settlement with all your units at once like some organized lemming rebellion, launching your bodies into the gate itself going "derp thisll tots work dudz loL." Although to give the AI credit though, in reality it would probably have better sentence structure and it's grammar and spelling would be adequate if not immaculate, but I digress.

[RGA]

Rome 1 made some people believe that in order to take down reinforced gates, you have to spend 3 months building massive battering ram mounted on wagon that could be set on fire in matter of minutes. They seem never to think of its smaller, portable version like this:



Such battering rams are of course much more dangerous to use, as their users are extremely exposed to anything launched from the wall (though even that is often exaggerated in Hollywood movies).

I agree that using normal weapons to chop open gates is a stupid idea. Spears certainly won't do any good, swords are too expensive for such job and battle axes, designed as light and sharp as possible, are equally ill-suited. But the logic behind is actually sound: armies won't retreat simply because a wooden gate stands in their way. The best solution might be that portable battering rams are available for every units in siege battle without having to build them firsthand. The downside is they have to make new models and animations of their usage, which costs money.

For the time being, I'm contend with the current system. AI rarely use it, even less than myself. When it does occur, I use my imagination to believe that the gate is breached not by fire and sword but by attackers standing there, withstanding casualties to build up a fire before the gate, weaken it and finally batter it down with a large wooden log. Afterall, I have spent my whole childhood recreating Stalingrad with toy soldiers, so the power of imagination must be strong in me.

[nameless]

What if, instead of with their swords and axes and whatnot, units use torches and physically hit the gate with them, maybe doing the same with watchtowers and the like, instead of the... you know...

*unit stares really hard*....... *tower crumbles*

It isn't quite the ridiculousness of tossing torches at a gate to destroy it, nor is it as equally ridiculous as using swords and axes and spear to destroy reinforced gates. This makes less sense then using fire to destroy gates honestly. It's a middle ground, you aren't just throwing a torch from range, but physically setting it on fire. The best of the worst of both worlds, I guess you could say. ( possible hilarious side effects with boiling oil would be most appropriate )

Honestly though, if you didn't bring enough rams, siege equipment, or whatever to get into the city, short of the occupants opening the gates and just blindly letting you walk in, you are not getting into the city. Sorry. Better luck next time, maybe,I don't know I'm just takin' a shot in the dark, come better preparedinstead of rushing the fortified settlement with all your units at once like some organized lemming rebellion, launching your bodies into the gate itself going "derp thisll tots work dudz loL." Although to give the AI credit though, in reality it would probably have better sentence structure and it's grammar and spelling would be adequate if not immaculate, but I digress.

Apparently according to some players who actually played TW since Shogun hacking down walls and gates with swords/spears was actually something that was present in Medieval Total War and clearly NOBODY said anything about it.

[Tora]

Apparently according to some players who actually played TW since Shogun hacking down walls and gates with swords/spears was actually something that was present in Medieval Total War and clearly NOBODY said anything about it.

True that... in fact in Shogun itself, there weren't even any gates at all! (to hack/ram/torch/sabotage/lockpick etc.)

[Valor]

Apparently according to some players who actually played TW since Shogun hacking down walls and gates with swords/spears was actually something that was present in Medieval Total War and clearly NOBODY said anything about it.

Correct. I remember attacking castles' gates with nothing else but melee weapons in MTW. It worked but you had to be patient and ready to suffer heavy casualties from it.

[Humble Warrior]

Such battering rams are of course much more dangerous to use, as their users are extremely exposed to anything launched from the wall (though even that is often exaggerated in Hollywood movies).

I agree that using normal weapons to chop open gates is a stupid idea. Spears certainly won't do any good, swords are too expensive for such job and battle axes, designed as light and sharp as possible, are equally ill-suited. But the logic behind is actually sound: armies won't retreat simply because a wooden gate stands in their way. The best solution might be that portable battering rams are available for every units in siege battle without having to build them firsthand. The downside is they have to make new models and animations of their usage, which costs money.

For the time being, I'm contend with the current system. AI rarely use it, even less than myself. When it does occur, I use my imagination to believe that the gate is breached not by fire and sword but by attackers standing there, withstanding casualties to build up a fire before the gate, weaken it and finally batter it down with a large wooden log. Afterall, I have spent my whole childhood recreating Stalingrad with toy soldiers, so the power of imagination must be strong in me.

I also used my imagination with toy soldiers as a kid and a big imagination. It doesn`t excuse sieges actually taking a step backwards from RTW and MTW2.

Apparently according to some players who actually played TW since Shogun hacking down walls and gates with swords/spears was actually something that was present in Medieval Total War and clearly NOBODY said anything about it.

Look at it in context. MTW was made over 10 years ago. the internet wasn`t quite so easy to access (56k any one). I for one had only just discovered the CA website. MTW was also a first in gaming, no one had seen anything like since Shogun and Shogun siege didn`t exist, so this was to all intents and purposes a HUGE improvement, a step forward. So seriously, that`s an unfair comment right there. It`s a bit like criticising the 1990s for having no smart phones.

If you look at it in context like us older ones who remeber the times, Atilla is still a backwards step rather than a step forward.

[nameless]

Look at it in context. MTW was made over 10 years ago. the internet wasn`t quite so easy to access (56k any one). I for one had only just discovered the CA website. MTW was also a first in gaming, no one had seen anything like since Shogun and Shogun siege didn`t exist, so this was to all intents and purposes a HUGE improvement, a step forward. So seriously, that`s an unfair comment right there. It`s a bit like criticising the 1990s for having no smart phones.

If you look at it in context like us older ones who remeber the times, Atilla is still a backwards step rather than a step forward.

Nope that's a poor argument because the idea is that they want to keep the gameflow going and not to end it arbitrarily. It's also a poor argument because we can all go back to you and other similar posts from other similar people that talked about how "great" MTW was and it was the pinnacle of what CA could achieve.

It doesn't change the fact that it was there to begin with and the fact that nobody bothered talking about it and accepted it shows that the whole thing is being blown out of proportion as usual on this website. it's just like how nobody complained about torches in Shogun 2 yet they complained about it in RTW2.

In fact you're supporting what I've always stated before Attila came out in that it's because of the internet that a few actually minority get extremely vocal which makes it seem worse than it appears when it actually isn't.

[stevehoos]

Nope that's a poor argument because the idea is that they want to keep the gameflow going and not to end it arbitrarily. It's also a poor argument because we can all go back to you and other similar posts from other similar people that talked about how "great" MTW was and it was the pinnacle of what CA could achieve.

It doesn't change the fact that it was there to begin with and the fact that nobody bothered talking about it and accepted it shows that the whole thing is being blown out of proportion as usual on this website. it's just like how nobody complained about torches in Shogun 2 yet they complained about it in RTW2.

In fact you're supporting what I've always stated before Attila came out in that it's because of the internet that a few actually minority get extremely vocal which makes it seem worse than it appears when it actually isn't.

The word "Arbitrary" means: -not planned or chosen for a particular reason-, which is incorrectly used here. The rest of your arguments -marathon sentences- follow a similar theme.

[Humble Warrior]

Nope that's a poor argument because the idea is that they want to keep the gameflow going and not to end it arbitrarily.

So you`re saying that ending a siege because all the siege weapons are gone is an uninformed decision? Seriously?

It`s a damn good decision. What next a magic red button for `I win` at the start of each game? Do you want to play a realistic game based on ancient warfare or not? Or is just as long as the realism level suits you?

It's also a poor argument because we can all go back to you and other similar posts from other similar people that talked about how "great" MTW was and it was the pinnacle of what CA could achieve.

What? MTW was and still is great. I make no denial of that. But by now TW games should become more authentic and realistic with sieges adding more of how sieges actually worked, not going back to a 10 year process. Do you understand now?

And onto RTW and MTW2 which were the natural logical advancements on MTW. The game flowed absolutely fine in RTW and MTW2. People bought and played the game and nobody said, "I hate how the battle stops when my siege engines are destroyed." I assume a little here, but It`s a logical expectation. Even bad Hollywood movies expect a siege to end when all the siege weapons are destroyed and not to go hacking at gates with torches or swords because it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Though no doubt some may have thought it, though it`s a dumb `what who thought in 1990` argument.

But you can go back to the `90s and show me all the people that hated how sieges ended in RTW and MTW2.

It doesn't change the fact that it was there to begin with and the fact that nobody bothered talking about it and accepted it shows that the whole thing is being blown out of proportion as usual on this website. it's just like how nobody complained about torches in Shogun 2 yet they complained about it in RTW2.

You are assuming that nobody talked about it. Again, you`re argument is truly the weak one. I site the points I made earlier. Pay attention to them. Again, MTW was unique except for Shogun which had no sieges to speak of. Why should everyone complain if they`ve never seen better?

In fact you're supporting what I've always stated before Attila came out in that it's because of the internet that a few actually minority get extremely vocal which makes it seem worse than it appears when it actually isn't.

Sophistry and nonsense, for the reasons stated above. Again, seeing you can`t retain facts, the limited internet was the ONLY means to communicate to CA at the time and no one was going to send a letter or telephone them.

Come back when you`ve actually thought of a decent argument against sieges in Atilla being like MTW2 or RTW.

[Causeless]

I also used my imagination with toy soldiers as a kid and a big imagination. It doesn`t excuse sieges actually taking a step backwards from RTW and MTW2.




Look at it in context. MTW was made over 10 years ago. the internet wasn`t quite so easy to access (56k any one). I for one had only just discovered the CA website. MTW was also a first in gaming, no one had seen anything like since Shogun and Shogun siege didn`t exist, so this was to all intents and purposes a HUGE improvement, a step forward. So seriously, that`s an unfair comment right there. It`s a bit like criticising the 1990s for having no smart phones.

If you look at it in context like us older ones who remeber the times, Atilla is still a backwards step rather than a step forward.

Many people view MTW as the best TW game ever made, and don't complain about the gate hacking.

Here's the sad truth, Humble Warrior. As much as you want to believe that hacking gates is OBJECTIVELY a step backwards and some terrible move, it really isn't. It's a game design choice, and game design is timeless - they didn't include it in MTW as some lack of technology, they included it because they felt it was the correct decision. Now they've included it again, because they again feel it's the right decision. A step sideways, perhaps.

I'm sure they could've easily added a check to the AI if they wanted them to retreat when they've lost all siege equipment, but they didn't want to do that.

It's a game mechanic, and in my opinion it isn't really all that bad. It's a costly way of getting through a gate if all else fails.

I don't understand why you are so worked up over what is really quite a minor thing, when in many other ways the Total War series as a whole fails to accurately simulate the true history (and history appears to be your main concern here), and it always has.

[stevehoos]

Many people view MTW as the best TW game ever made, and don't complain about the gate hacking.

Here's the sad truth, Humble Warrior. As much as you want to believe that hacking gates is OBJECTIVELY a step backwards and some terrible move, it really isn't. It's a game design choice, and game design is timeless - they didn't include it in MTW as some lack of technology, they included it because they felt it was the correct decision. Now they've included it again, because they again feel it's the right decision. A step sideways, perhaps.

I'm sure they could've easily added a check to the AI if they wanted them to retreat when they've lost all siege equipment, but they didn't want to do that.

It's a game mechanic, and in my opinion it isn't really all that bad. It's a costly way of getting through a gate if all else fails.

I don't understand why you are so worked up over what is really quite a minor thing, when in many other ways the Total War series as a whole fails to accurately simulate the true history (and history appears to be your main concern here), and it always has.

"Don't complain about gate hacking" LOL, there's a preface to a great argument. The forum pundits defend Gate hacking, it's priceless. What would be "timeless" game design -Rome 2 was so timeless- is going back what worked perfectly fine 10 years ago instead of this stupid nonsense. Would you like to give a synopsis of the design timelessness of field battle capture points? CA felt that was the "correct decision" at one time did they not? That's "the sad truth."

[Causeless]

"Don't complain about gate hacking" LOL, there's a preface to a great argument. The forum pundits defend Gate hacking, it's priceless. What would be "timeless" game design -Rome 2 was so timeless- is going back what worked perfectly fine 10 years ago instead of this stupid nonsense. Would you like to give a synopsis of the design timelessness of field battle capture points? CA felt that was the "correct decision" at one time did they not? That's "the sad truth."

The field battle captures points were a good idea in terms of game design, but a bad idea in terms of historical authenticity. With multiple capture points, the siege battles were more dynamic, instead of just camping the centre.

Why should CA go back to what worked 10 years ago? They want to make new games. If they use the exact same mechanics as an older game, then there is absolutely no point in making the new game, because it's essentially just a clone in all but graphics.

Despite all the constant complaining from many on these forums about the inadequacies of CA's design choices, they are still around. In fact, they are getting far bigger and better than ever before, even despite these so-called "terrible" design decisions they've made. I'd bet that's because the game designers at CA, who've done it professionally for years now, know more about game design (and are more skilled at it) than the majority of the wannabe designers which plague these forums.

[Garensterz]

All ya guys need to read this thread again. "http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...torches!/page7"

armies won't retreat simply because a wooden gate stands in their way

How about a steel gate? Realistically, A general would just simply order a retreat to their camps and just wait for a few days more and build another set of siege equipment. It's just impossible for a General to do that thing especially in that situation(unless that general is messed up). Even soldiers would think twice on doing that.

[veverčák]

The problem with whole sieges in TW is really simple: It is game mechanic (which I do not like, that much). History told us the defenders often try negotiate with attackers and in most cases they agreed upon non violent solution - something, which is impossible in any TW game,

I have played. I really dislike Rome I and BI for all those repetitive sieges and zero field battles, because AI stationary its army inside city. I hate with passion Medieval II and up to today I have grudges against this piece of crap for killing my enthusiasm for games. Sieges become more bearable for me with Empire and Warscape engine. It did not end reign of siege as the most numerous battle type, but made sieges mercifully quick affairs. You do not need to spend 18 months building 2 battering rams and 4 ladders (technically 12, as one unit has 3, if I remember this correctly).

So funnily for me the pinnacle of siege evolution is Rome 2 simple because it brings ratio between siege battles and field battles more favourably for my taste.

[Humble Warrior]

I hate with passion Medieval II and up to today I have grudges against this piece of crap for killing my enthusiasm for games.

wow. A hater of MTW2. That`s you and me never seeing eye to eye then.

One last thing, sieges were the most common sort of battles in history, not land battles. Deal with it.

[Garensterz]

The problem with whole sieges in TW is really simple: It is game mechanic (which I do not like, that much). History told us the defenders often try negotiate with attackers and in most cases they agreed upon non violent solution - something, which is impossible in any TW game,

Not entirely. Of course there are times they will result it as a negotiation, But there were evidences of siege equipment from the past so it means there's such possibilities that breaching settlements like we actually see in the movies or games might happened in that time. Sure it would be fantastic if Rome 2 or Attila will give you a chance to negotiate first before/after you end up in an enemy settlement or after the war. I just I hope the devs would give more depth into diplomacy because it's still lacking imo and also one of the reasons why I still can't play Attila's campaign immensely. That's why I still coming back to EUIV's singleplayer.

Edit: Also, making the game full negotiation will make the game boring. Remember, TW is focused on real time strategy cutting out the siege battles will lack the diversity of the core game and will make the game even more repetitive.

[veverčák]

Not entirely. Of course there are times they will result it as a negotiation, But there were evidences of siege equipment from the past so it means there's such possibilities that breaching settlements like we actually see in the movies or games might happened in that time. Sure it would be fantastic if Rome 2 or Attila will give you a chance to negotiate first before/after you end up in an enemy settlement or after the war. I just I hope the devs would give more depth into diplomacy because it's still lacking imo and also one of the reasons why I still can't play Attila's campaign immensely. That's why I still coming back to EUIV's singleplayer.

Edit: Also, making the game full negotiation will make the game boring. Remember, TW is focused on real time strategy cutting out the siege battles will lack the diversity of the core game and will make the game even more repetitive.

Yes, I fully agree with you Garensterz. I just think Rome 2 come pretty close IMHO with good mix of field and siege battles. I just wish CA build upon this. For example letting armies giving benefits when they are in countryside in way DEI gives penalty to PO for armies in cities and introducing new stance - garrison.

About diplomacy. I do not know, if we really need changes in way of EU/paradox grand strategy games. After all Battlefield series is trying to beet Call of Duty by being more Call of Duty, yet they are constantly failing. No, we need to find our own way, dear Garensterz! What about being able to appoint ambassadors to neighbouring rulers? It could work similar to appointing Governors, but for allied tribes or trading partners? They could influence the court, relations and plot on they own same way the other nobles could in our faction.

[Sheridan]

The problem with whole sieges in TW is really simple: It is game mechanic (which I do not like, that much). History told us the defenders often try negotiate with attackers and in most cases they agreed upon non violent solution - something, which is impossible in any TW game

A surrender mechanic was present in Napoleon TW, and it did just what the name suggests. If the defending side agreed upon surrendering, the army stationed inside was free to leave (more like kicked out actually). That's not just a mechanic close to your suggestion, it's spot on.

[Garensterz]

A surrender mechanic was present in Napoleon TW, and it did just what the name suggests. If the defending side agreed upon surrendering, the army stationed inside was free to leave (more like kicked out actually). That's not just a mechanic close to your suggestion, it's spot on.

I forgot about this one, thanks for bringing that up. There's just so many good features from the past the should have just been recycled to the new games.

[Imperator Artorius]

The problem with whole sieges in TW is really simple: It is game mechanic (which I do not like, that much). History told us the defenders often try negotiate with attackers and in most cases they agreed upon non violent solution - something, which is impossible in any TW game,

I have played. I really dislike Rome I and BI for all those repetitive sieges and zero field battles, because AI stationary its army inside city. I hate with passion Medieval II and up to today I have grudges against this piece of crap for killing my enthusiasm for games. Sieges become more bearable for me with Empire and Warscape engine. It did not end reign of siege as the most numerous battle type, but made sieges mercifully quick affairs. You do not need to spend 18 months building 2 battering rams and 4 ladders (technically 12, as one unit has 3, if I remember this correctly).

So funnily for me the pinnacle of siege evolution is Rome 2 simple because it brings ratio between siege battles and field battles more favourably for my taste.

We must have played different games.It feels like Ive had more field battles per sieges on Medieval 2 than on say Rome II or Attila where reinforcing armies arrive to relieve the siege of a friendly town as, unless you had artillery, it took several turns. This is opposed to Rome II or Attila where the AI or the player just attacks straight away because 3/4s of the settlements don't have walls and so don't require any time to take.