-
We have to make castle battles more realistic,involving fire arrows,trenches,moats and blocked entrances.Also we have to have losses occurring amongst the investing army too,as armies surrounding a bastion also suffered losses from disease.This would involve about 5% of the investing force dying from disease,and would mean sitting out a siege might cost you hundreds of men,thereby making assaults more enticing.
My final points in relation to sieges involve the issue of allowing unlimited munition for missile troops,as a castle would`ve held huge amounts of arrows and musket balls.Also you should be able to fire from a castle in the rain with muskets without a slower reload rate,as they`d be under some cover.
king.
-
Trenches, moats and especially fire attack are all simply too complex for the current STW engine to handle without excessive modification. With 60-120 man units they just are not viable, so setting the castle on a hill approximates them. Closed entrances might just be workable, but that'd require a whole specialized unit (battering ram) for anti-fortification work only.
Real medieval armies constantly suffered from attrition due to disease, desertion, skirmishes etc., quite regardless of whether or not they were besieging something or not. STW ignores this for the sake of simplicity, probably assuming the daimyô will go through the trouble of replacing these losses before they become a problem for the army's combat effectiveness. Besieged units cannot do this.
The musket/arrow point would be workable, though.
------------------
"One cannot accomplish things simply with cleverness. One must take a broad view. It will not do to make rash judgments concerning good and evil. However, one should not be sluggish. It is said that one is not truly a samurai if he does not make his decisions quickly and break right through to completion".
- Yamamoto Tsunetomo: Hagakure
-
wouldnt it be kewl if you could build your own castles in provinces?
and what about towers which can hold archers
or just shoot by itself...this would make the game more realistic.
------------------
NI
-
I definitly think there should be something like your disease idea so that there is more of an incentive to initiate a castle attack and I like the idea of a shoooting tower. Maybe you would have to get a unit to the base of it inside the castle and set it alight to stop it? The trouble with unlimited ammo is that the odds are fairly heavily in favour of the defenders anyway and it would take a very long time to run out of musket balls anyway.
------------------
Fight first, ask questions later.
-
Hmm.. for my ideas on besiegement etc.. go here.
You should be able to pick it out..
Don't mean to be snobby, but I don't want to go and write them all again, shortened and out of context, when I can just provide this link.
Matt
[This message has been edited by Khan7 (edited 10-13-2001).]
-
But these all seem good idea's for the crusader's game where castles battles should play a bigger role.
I think, i will try the inthinkable and actually start a thread there about this...
-
the point of most castle seiges is that it's just easier to wait/starve out the beseiged rather than fight it out. the only real reason to assault would be in sitations where time is an important factor.
STW encourages this with their current method of castle assaults. You won't attack unless you need to, given that it's so anticlimactic. thge other thing is that at least EA included this feature in the game (despite its limited appeal and flexibility), when they probably could have just used regular maps with a pixel-castle in the background for regular battles and most people wouldn't have minded.
