View Full Version : Has anyone else noticed?
Ok maybe its just me, or maybe im just delusional (spelling?). But I could have sworn that in rtw when you had your units on top of an enemy gate, that gate was taken over and STOPPED firing at your troops, same goes for towers along the wall.
If this is true, why did they not carry this over to m2tw, and if they did...why is it broken? I only ask because several times today have I noticed that my troops going through enemy towers (you know running from tower to tower on top of the wall) did not capture the towers and did not give a "building captured" message like in rtw. I DID get a building captured message when I move troops on top of the gate, but the towers keep firing....
Empirate
01-22-2007, 09:02
This is intentional and has been discussed before.
The only building you can capture are the gates. It makes no sense to capture towers that suddenly start to fire at enemy troops on the inside of the city they're supposed to defend! Also, it makes no sense that towers can fire when there're no troops operating them.
M2:TW solves these inconsistencies in the following way: Only if the defending faction has troops near a tower does this tower fire on enemies. Towers will stop firing once there're no defending troops near them, so yes, you can take over portions of the wall by killing or driving off all defenders, but the towers will only stop working then, not fire on the besieged troops. This also means that you can try to sneak some assault troops in with a set of ladders by attacking an undefended part of the wall: The towers will not fire on you!
IMHO this is the most accurate rendering of real sieges possible within the engine. Actually, siege battles are one of the areas in which I see a huge improvement over R:TW. The AI performs much better in defending as well as attacking, and everything seems much better balanced.
The 'problem', of course, is that in a close fight near the base of a tower, the attackers get killed off rapidly due to heavy covering fire from the tower itself, which they are unable to stop because they have to kill off all the defending units nearby in order to silence it. And sometimes a bunch of attackers have overrun a tower, only to see it magically come back to life when a defending unit approaches. Those towers mount .50 cals and hurt big time. I actually don't have a major problem with this, but I can see why people would be at least a little unhappy.
Empirate
01-22-2007, 09:20
I could never stomach the fact that in Rome, I could take a city defended by a full stack and take MANY less casualties than the defender, all when I brought only a half stack of troops! In Medieval 2, at least you lose some men in the process, and it just generally feels like more of a struggle, instead of a boring, standardized task you just have to perform 48 times to win the game.
Ars Moriendi
01-22-2007, 10:25
Siege warfare has changed for the better in many ways - the OP's "problem" is one of them (more realistic simulation of defender tower crews).
The most obvious sign of improvement for me is the wider variety of methods I employ to take cities. In RTW it was siege towers 1-turn assault every time. I almost never used artillery or saps as it was better to take the walls and use the tower firepower + archers on the walls to shoot the clueless defenders inside. In M2TW, I'm using all the available methods, as each has its advantages : artillery, starvation, autocalc, towers/ladders, bribe.
Von Nanega
01-22-2007, 10:34
Siege warfare has changed for the better in many ways - the OP's "problem" is one of them (more realistic simulation of defender tower crews).
The most obvious sign of improvement for me is the wider variety of methods I employ to take cities. In RTW it was siege towers 1-turn assault every time. I almost never used artillery or saps as it was better to take the walls and use the tower firepower + archers on the walls to shoot the clueless defenders inside. In M2TW, I'm using all the available methods, as each has its advantages : artillery, starvation, autocalc, towers/ladders, bribe.
I never thought about the differance in how I approach a seige battle from RTW and M2TW untill I read the quoted post. But it is true!!! I actually enjoy seige battles, and have done things before to avoid them or to facilitate them because they are more difficult now!
Capturing towers would actually be pointless anyway as they can't shoot inside the city :P
FrauGloer
01-22-2007, 15:14
Capturing towers would actually be pointless anyway as they can't shoot inside the city :P
Actually, some of them seem to be able to fire inside the city, especially those that are near wall corners.
I'm ok with towers not shooting at the defenders, what buggers me is that even if I have troops on the wall close to a tower as well as units at its foot, as soon as a defending unit gets within a 30 foot radius, the tower begins firing again. :dizzy2: I mean, how on earth did they get past my troops to re-man the tower? It is under my control! I strongly dislike the way it is now.
IMO, the defenders should be obliged to have units on the wall close to the tower for it to be able to fire. Once the attacker is in control of the wall, the tower should stay silent until the defender retakes the wall - not until a 5-man unit of exhausted peasants approaches its foot! Also, the fact that towers can machine-gun (that rate of fire is just ridiculous) along the wall at units already on it seems kind of uber, too. Something is amiss if I lose twice as many men to the machine-gun-towers as I do to the actual defenders... Even more so if I have troops on either side of the tower while the defender hasn't... like this:
[T]=Tower M=my troops D=defender w=Wall
wwDDDDDDMMMMMM[T]MMMMwww
Wouldn't the attackers clear that tower of enemy archers?!? :dizzy2:
Gates, on the other hand, should only be opened from the ground, not from on top of the walls. I find it kind of silly that a lone unit on top of the gatehouse can open the gates when there are several defending units just inside. The rather small "trigger area" around gates makes this possible. Ok, it makes sense that the iron grates of castles can be opened from the top, but the wooden gates of cities?!? :inquisitive:
IMO, the defenders should be obliged to have units on the wall close to the tower for it to be able to fire. Once the attacker is in control of the wall, the tower should stay silent until the defender retakes the wall - not until a 5-man unit of exhausted peasants approaches its foot!
Agreed, thats what annoys me.
Yes, if there is a little flag over the tower, it is manned regardless if there is fighting going on around . I tend to bring seige equiptment now. I think it is a great improvement over RTW.
FrauGloer
01-23-2007, 11:01
Yes, if there is a little flag over the tower, it is manned regardless if there is fighting going on around . I tend to bring seige equiptment now. I think it is a great improvement over RTW.
Regardless of my men surrounding the tower? Regardless of my men standing between the defender and the tower? Regardless of my unit just having walked through the tower? Come on, you can't be serious...
The easiest solution IMO would have been to alter RTW's system: In the beginning, all towers belong to the defender (RTW). Only those near defending units on the wall can fire (MTW2). Once an attacking unit has marched through a tower, it belongs to the attacker (RTW), but can't fire (MTW2). To allow it to fire again, a defending unit has to march through it (RTW).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.