Catapults on city walls? Archers on the tops of towers?
Thought you guys would find this thread interesting...
Amazing possibilities for EBII
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=166329
Printable View
Catapults on city walls? Archers on the tops of towers?
Thought you guys would find this thread interesting...
Amazing possibilities for EBII
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=166329
I will not play EBII if those features were not included! :laugh4:
Something that actually gives the defenders an advantage???!! surely not...
Love the look of it, barring the fact that we are unlikely to have 'castles' as such, it would make the few fortresses in the bronze age world formiddable indeed :2thumbsup:
Then we would just have to work out a way to make the enemy actually attack the forts (if human defender) rather than just starving them out as usually happens in my experience.
bring it on...
The AI in DLV attacks forts...If you make permanent ones on the campaign map.... It will only take them if it thinks it knows it can win.
A funny side effect. It improves AI pathfinding so turn times are shorter:2thumbsup:
The caveat is they are having trouble getting the AI to sally out when besieged if outnumbered... It just lets you starve them to death...
One answer could be to have additional troops spawn in the forts every ten turns or so...
There is no reason the forts have to be ahistorical... With those tools you could make any type of forts you want... Even old school Gaulish/ Britons raised earth forts...
That is so awesome that I need to sit down.
EDIT: Is already sitting down.
Does that mean the machine-guns can be removed from empty towers?
I don't think so....but we can have bazookas in ours!
One solution to the AI problems may be a 'garrison script' much as used by DLV and a few other Med II mods. When a NPC city is attacked a garrison is created, with composition dependant upon the owner of the city and its size. This definitely slows down expansionist states quite rapidly. I don't feel personally that troops spawning in all forts on a time based limit would be a good idea (except for the rebels who I feel would benefit from this!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtiaan72
One caveat is that, assuming it repels the assault, the 'spawned' garrison is usually then used to attack an enemy city which then spawns a garrison that is used to attack an enemy city that spawns a garrison... and so on ad infinitum... :dizzy2:
We are basically saying the same thing in different ways... The script would spawn new troops at a certain periodic rate. One that has to be play balanced. If you put that in the AI will sally out sometimes when it thinks it can win.
The other thing that DLV has is a siege "cost" script. It cost a lot of money to lay siege to a city. So if it's going to cost you an arm and a leg every turn you extend your siege you are more likely to assault it.
It's really just thinking of ways to fight on the neato battlegrounds from the campaign map..
You want to fight siege battles where you assault and when they sally.... What's that saying "Variety is the spice of......something." :inquisitive:
Why would you want to encourage assaults, when they were a rare and desparate move in this period? Most sieges were won through surrender or treachery, not assault. The RTW engine is highly ahistorical and flawed in this respect.
Hmm...
Yes, perhaps this is best left as it is. I have always found it somewhat strange that a besieging enemy always tries to assault my cities.
really, the whole idea of a siege is to force the enemy into surrendering, storming only if needed.
In RTW, and in M2TW, the AI might besiege a city with huge walls, and a greater number of defenders than he has, but he still constructs one or two siege rams, and assault, time and time again. I know occations when I, with a garrison force of, say, a Family Member, 3-4 infatry units, and 2-3 archers, have held a city for god knows how many years, with the enemy attempting to assault it every other turn.'
If he had just maintained the siege, my forces might not have ben strong enough to beat him, had I sallied out, and thus he would have wone the city with a tenth of the casualties.
A few of the innovations in DLV are very good in that respect. It needs to cost money, lots of money, to prosecute a war and that should be reflected imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtiaan72
Other things such as increased cost for spies and agents in enemy/neutral territory and so on.
While the actual troop stats may be more simplistic, EBII should really shine with all the new options available for the campaign itself, particularly improved diplomacy. Really looking forward to it!
Edit: I can't remember the last time I was actually assaulted in RTW or MTWII. Usually they just besige me and that is it. Now I just sally forth as soon as attacked in order to spare some of my troops from starvation. Very boring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perturabo
Exactly... You could still starve them out but it would cost you. It should be an added expense to starve them out ( That's realistic). As the player you have to decide which way to go based on your circumstances.
Its only when the player assaults AI forts, not when AI assault AI...if not that would be crazy indeed ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Perturabo
:dizzy2:
It most certainly is used when AI faction attacks AI faction (note: rebels settlements under attack do not initiate the script). And this is good, as it gives factions the opportunity to survive attacks that would otherwise kill them in the first 10 years of the game. Particularly aggressive AI factions find their actions slowed considererably. In DLV Venice, Milan and HRE are of particular note in that respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaCrAzYmOfO
If you want confirmation, start a game of DLV and watch as an AI faction attacks another AI factions main cities. As they attack, the stack in the beseiged city may consist of, say, 4 units, however as soon as the attacker lays seige the unit stack will fill with predefined units.
The problem I mentioned is real, however probably not as bas as I made out. Generally I feel it is a great idea and would like the EB team to at least consider it.
Although the garrison script idea sounds good, I don't think it would be much fun (or very historical) to have to face 20 unit garrison stacks in every city.
No, you are correct. The script can be modified to allow it to work in some towns and not others, and also to produce varying amounts of troops. Thus some small border towns may produce no troops, a well established 'large town' that is still of little strategic importance may produce 4-5 units.. .while the capital and strategic locations may produce full stacks of varying quality troops. It can all be adjusted to suit AI progress, some degree of realism and slow down blitz like expansion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodrico Stak