Primitive fortifications peculiarity

[Roark]

I brought a catapult to battle when assaulting a stockade in East Seuxe. During the deployment phase, after selecting my catapult, I noticed that I couldn't get the attack icon to show when hovering the mouse over the stockade gate. I shrugged my shoulders and hit "Begin Battle" anyway. Sure enough, I couldn't shoot the damn thing, because it didn't exist!

What is the point of a "stockade gate", when your troops can just walk right in? I mean, why does a description pop up for it, when it's really just an empty space?

I realise this isn't a terribly important question, but I was just curious...

[antisocialmunky]

The enemy can come from only one direction - the gate- and the enemy can only send so many people though the gate that you can take his army apart piece meal. Engaging at the gate, limits the ability of the enemy to flank you and the enemy ability to bring all the men he could to fight with to bear if there was no bottle neck.

So, a smaller unit of troops could fight a large number of troops and win. Huscarles, Joms, Beserkers, and other high level units especially.

Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.

:wall:

*edit*
... That is just asking to be my sig.

[Patron]

I don't think this should be your sig, because I think it is illogical.

"Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose."

Capturing the enemy or making them surrender is logical in some circumstances, but when it's easier to simply kill them it is illogical to bother depriving them of all options except to lose. In the end winning is about imposing your will on others and making other people lose is only one part of winning.

[antisocialmunky]

Oh Sun Tzu... I think he once said that it was a waste of resources to kill the enemy and that making them surrender or capture them is the a better way of going about things because you're gaining material and man power instead of destroying a potential resource and you can kill them whenever if they get troublesome because they are at your mercy.

But that isn't where I'm coming from anyways. Fighting any battle well from my point of view is always about seizing the initiative. If you can get them to do what you want, your opponent has lost in a literal or abstract way. You may lose, but those battles are either planned or something goes horribly wrong or it's just a rather close fight.

Besides, depriving your opponent of life kinda closes all his options don't you think?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Monkey is right Patron, winning is about depriving your enemy of all options, this causes them to lose. From Sun Tzu:

"Therefore those who win every battle are not really skillful-those who render other's armies helpless without fighting are the best of all."

The aim of strategy is to deprive your enemy of options, ruin his plans, cut off his supply lines. Once he is helpless he can be swept away.

[Mujalumbo]

Similar to Sun Tzu and perhaps more relevant, Maurice's Strategikon advised open conflict as the last possible action to be taken. Sneak attacks, ambushes, and constant raids were more preferrable if the enemy could not be disuaded by non-violent means (bribes, treaties, etc.).

The point is, both strategists saw military strategy as a means of defeating a foe. This is not always the same thing as destroying their armies. Rome vs. Carthage is a perfect example, despite Carthage stomping Rome's ass into the ground time and time again, Rome's will was still to fight.

[bretwalda]

Monkey is right Patron, winning is about depriving your enemy of all options, this causes them to lose. From Sun Tzu:

"Therefore those who win every battle are not really skillful-those who render other's armies helpless without fighting are the best of all."

The aim of strategy is to deprive your enemy of options, ruin his plans, cut off his supply lines. Once he is helpless he can be swept away.

I agree. I give an example on strategy level: I have Constantinaple, Byz has Crimea, Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece. Now I could attack one province at a time and pushing Byz back and finally fighting an epic battle against the Byz Emperor.

Instead I attacked all three provinces with adequate forces. I only fought one battle (the last one: when there was no province to retreat to). I ransomed the Emperor and much of the nobility for 26 thousand florins and they are stuck in Crimea...

Or on tactical level: when I deprive the enemy from its archers and force them to run after me, fight an uphill battle or be pepper to death by arrows...
(or hiding some Ghazis in the woods. or crush some horsearchers between two charging cavary.)

And I give a nice tagline :wink:

"Choose your ground well when defending - pick your army right when attacking..."

[antisocialmunky]

Thanks guys.

On another note on primative fortifications. Is it me or does VI have ALOT more casualties when infantry destroy a wall segment? I've never experienced casualties from wall collapse in MTW. Hell, it's actually a good thing to keep your sappers right next to the wall since fort walls block the 'keep' and the wall archers themselves can't shoot directly down or so I've thought.

[kiwitt]

During the deployment phase, after selecting my catapult, I noticed that I couldn't get the attack icon to show when hovering the mouse over the stockade gate.

I notice this too. Until, I discovered "here in the forums" in the deployment phase what you do is move the weapon closer to the target until the little arrow turns green.

I usually set mine far enough way to avoid the arrow defences, but close enough to hit the walls.

[Roark]

:wall:


Umm... thanks. I do actually understand the basic principles of warfare and the concept of a gate/bottleneck.

My question was more geared towards finding out why the game has pop-up text for what is essentially an empty space. I was wondering whether it was a bug like the "invisible siege engines" in vanilla MTW.

As I said, not important.

[antisocialmunky]

Oh, sorry then. Simply put, the programmers shortcutted in making the primative forts and decided to use the standard fort AI instead of making a special case AI for forts without gates.

By AI, I mean the thing that allows it to be shot at.

[Roark]

OK. Cool. Thanks man.

I have zero understanding of the game's mechanics.