GFX707
02-20-2006, 20:50
In MTW and RTW, if you were faced with a powerful opponent and found yourself stretched far too thin, you could conquer a weak city and then destroy (almost) everything there, and then leave the province to become rebels....or possibly to fall back into the hands of its (now weakened) original owner. This was great, but don't you think with the (re)addition of gunpowder weapons it should be possible to simply destroy a city? Burn it to the ground with the garrison still in it? Bombard it with flaming projectiles until there is nothing left?
Personally I think this would be a great gameplay addition, in the sense that more freedom of decision is great for any strategy game....although I am not sure if there are any historical examples to support this. I would certainly imagine that if there are small wooden "fort" settlements it would be possible to at least burn the "town" part (which would probably be mostly wood) to the ground, in, for example, the early period.
Before the inevitable inundation of "what's the point?" rebuttals I will remind you that this type of tactic would be used where the enemy is too strong, and you do not have enough troops to occupy the town, city, fort....whatever. Historically I suppose you could say that William Wallace did something similar. A "sack" option could consist of something similar on capturing a town, where you would first remove all its valuables and THEN burn it to the ground....but in this case we are talking about never setting foot within its walls but rather just setting the place on fire with artillery and watching it burn to nothing with its garrison untouched.
Anyone?
Personally I think this would be a great gameplay addition, in the sense that more freedom of decision is great for any strategy game....although I am not sure if there are any historical examples to support this. I would certainly imagine that if there are small wooden "fort" settlements it would be possible to at least burn the "town" part (which would probably be mostly wood) to the ground, in, for example, the early period.
Before the inevitable inundation of "what's the point?" rebuttals I will remind you that this type of tactic would be used where the enemy is too strong, and you do not have enough troops to occupy the town, city, fort....whatever. Historically I suppose you could say that William Wallace did something similar. A "sack" option could consist of something similar on capturing a town, where you would first remove all its valuables and THEN burn it to the ground....but in this case we are talking about never setting foot within its walls but rather just setting the place on fire with artillery and watching it burn to nothing with its garrison untouched.
Anyone?