saping = lame ?

You look at these Epic, huge walls .. and all it takes is some men to dig a little tunnel to make them collapse ?

What is the point of catapults , rams, ladders and siege towers when tunnels are doing the job without the risk of loosing a unit ?

I wish Walls would be much tougher in RTW.
Right now all I do is dig a tunnel with a cheap skirmisher unit , wait for teh wall to come down and thats it. I have yet to see a tunnel fail because of the AI attacking the sappers.


Something is wrong there IMO.

~:cheers:

H.

You'll find a pretty good discussion of sieges, sapping and ideas for improvements here. And yes, epic walls do feel like a complete waste of time. The only reason to upgrade to large stone walls is to get the iron gates, which seem to give the enemy a tad more trouble (and are gratifyingly elephant-proof).

On a related thing: I don't know how big ancient town walls really were, but right now, they seem to me to be ridiculously high! I mean, of course, its exciting to assault a huge fortress with intimidatin walls (or defend it ~:cool: ), but the way it looks right now, it seems just silly.

And controlling the camera about them is difficult, too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aedil

On a related thing: I don't know how big ancient town walls really were, but right now, they seem to me to be ridiculously high! I mean, of course, its exciting to assault a huge fortress with intimidatin walls (or defend it ~:cool: ), but the way it looks right now, it seems just silly.

And controlling the camera about them is difficult, too...

---

I agree about controlling the camera around them is harder than it should be but the walls are about right as they are. In fact if we were looking historically they should probably be a little wider - but it's not a big deal. At this time in history the walls were getting narrower because of better building methods. However those middle-eastern cultures usually still used dried bricks of clay to build their walls wheras many of the more industrious and richer countries could afford stone fortifications coupled with mortar and skilled engineers to piece them together. Those without access to such building materials would build their walls much thicker; according to Herodutus the walls of Babylon were 24 m (80 ft) thick. ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colovion

I agree about controlling the camera around them is harder than it should be but the walls are about right as they are. In fact if we were looking historically they should probably be a little wider - but it's not a big deal. At this time in history the walls were getting narrower because of better building methods. However those middle-eastern cultures usually still used dried bricks of clay to build their walls wheras many of the more industrious and richer countries could afford stone fortifications coupled with mortar and skilled engineers to piece them together. Those without access to such building materials would build their walls much thicker; according to Herodutus the walls of Babylon were 24 m (80 ft) thick. ~:eek:

---

I just cannot imagine how you dig under one of those really wide and high walls to make them collapse (!). That must be a mighty tunnel indeed. From a game balance point of view I stopped using them in my campaign.

Thanks for the pointer towards teh coloseeum thread.

Agreed on the camera angle. Its painfull at times.

On another note... I keep reading peoples AAR on fully stacked garrisons...in my games the AI never manages to keep big armies to guard a city. Instead they wander around in group of 3 units. Thats one of the reasons I find it double cheap that its so easy to sap a hole in a wall. I dont loose men that way. All I need to do is press the tripl speed button or get a coffee while they dig. Epic city assaults ? I wish.


~:cheers:

H.

The sappers really do need to take much longer to sap the walls. I saw some large stone walls be sapped last night in about the same amount of time as it took for small stone walls to come down. I think there should also be like a 10% chance that the tunnel collapses on the sappers and makes the remaining ones rout away from the battle, making you have to resap the tunnel - probably make this more probable with larger walls because of the heavier weight etc...

Actually sapping makes sence and works in the way it, theoretically, would have. One of the (small) drawbacks of sapping is the build points needed for a sap point, and they are generally within range of the towers so you do have some losses from tower fire.

it does seem a little unrealistick however,

the principle oif sapping is that you dig a tunnel under the wall, then light a really hot fire in the tunnel to collapse it and bring the wall above down with it. So how come the unit doing the sapping can stay underground while collapsing the tunnel? Surely they would get crushed?

Maybe the unit should have to exit the tunnel before it collapses, and does say 50% damage to the wall, the has to re-dig the tunnel from scratch to get the rest of the wall down.

Just my two pence

Here, for once, I agree with the critics.

Even MTW had defensive "rings." As RTW is now, you're in if you take down one wall.

There's no provision for counter-sapping: Tunnels dug by defenders and fights, often with shovels, underground.

Moats were invented to prevent sapping, also. The moats or nearby rivers would flood the tunnels.

I don't even haul catapults around with the major armies.They're too slow. I can invade, besiege, sap and take an inland town in less time than it takes to march there and storm it with siege weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson

Here, for once, I agree with the critics.

Even MTW had defensive "rings." As RTW is now, you're in if you take down one wall.

There's no provision for counter-sapping: Tunnels dug by defenders and fights, often with shovels, underground.

Moats were invented to prevent sapping, also. The moats or nearby rivers would flood the tunnels.

I don't even haul catapults around with the major armies.They're too slow. I can invade, besiege, sap and take an inland town in less time than it takes to march there and storm it with siege weapons.

---

Yes, if you play with sapping, there is not point hauling that onager around.
Some sort of counter sapping could balance this problem.

Moats and rivers... that reminds me, - anybody notice that many if not all cities are lacking the river or coastline they should have on the battle map ?

~:cheers:

H.

I don't think those walls would fall apart in real life due to a tunnel. I recall that those walls was normally down at least 2 meters, which means that you need to be hell of a digger and there would be a huge amount of sand and dirt bagged up where you dig. Romans was pretty good builders.... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal_Barkar

Yes, if you play with sapping, there is not point hauling that onager around.
Some sort of counter sapping could balance this problem.

Moats and rivers... that reminds me, - anybody notice that many if not all cities are lacking the river or coastline they should have on the battle map ?

~:cheers:

H.

---

I was under the impression that cities were generic, rather than having a unique map (which would take much more work, what with multiple city sizes and all...). Still, there could be generic "Cities with River and/or port".
And a special Moat building would be cool. The way the siege screen is organized seems to indicate that more than one defense building was originally planned...

Whilst it's true that sapping is unrealistically fast in the battle map, it was a genuine historic strategy. I guess the problem is the disparity in timescales between the strategic and battle maps. On the campaign map, each turn of a siege is six months. That's plenty of time to dig a tunnel under the walls and fire it. But that doesn't translate well onto the battle map.

I guess saps could be implemented in the campaign part of a siege, giving a chance of weakening or breaching walls before the battle - but then that wouldn't be as "exciting". It would be a fair bit more realistic, though. Having said that, how many real-world sieges were actually finished with saps, siege towers, rams and ladders? I've got no idea...

The trick to sapping is the right depth of the tunnel. You want it so that when your timber supports are burned and the tunnel collapses you get the widest area of effect on the soil above. When soil fills the tunnel it doesn't drop straight in but draws from the sides as well so that a 2 meter wide tunnel might slump a 3-4 meter wide area. And it wouldn't take much of a slump to bring down a section, there was no rebar back then so the weight of the wall itself suddenly without support would push down and out.

Sapping should take place during the strategic phase with a % chance of failure. It would be cool to get notified by your engineers that they're ready to blow the hole and then you'd light the fuse in the tactical assault.

Another problem with breached walls is that your able to run cav right through it. Even inf would have to pick their way through the rubble, I can't see elephants or chariots doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DojoRat

The trick to sapping is the right depth of the tunnel. You want it so that when your timber supports are burned and the tunnel collapses you get the widest area of effect on the soil above. When soil fills the tunnel it doesn't drop straight in but draws from the sides as well so that a 2 meter wide tunnel might slump a 3-4 meter wide area. And it wouldn't take much of a slump to bring down a section, there was no rebar back then so the weight of the wall itself suddenly without support would push down and out.

Sapping should take place during the strategic phase with a % chance of failure. It would be cool to get notified by your engineers that they're ready to blow the hole and then you'd light the fuse in the tactical assault.

Another problem with breached walls is that your able to run cav right through it. Even inf would have to pick their way through the rubble, I can't see elephants or chariots doing it.

---

Yeah, that sounds like a possible fix to balance sapping. Even if you manage to make Babylonic walls crumble ... thats a lot of crumble. Make the hole created by sapping smaller, harder to go through and hence easier to defend.


~:cheers:

H

I do not use sap points because it makes seiges too easy and the AI never seems to use them against me.

I much preferred the way sapping was done in Stronghold. There, a sapper would dig out and once he got under the wall, it would lose some height as it sank into the tunnel. Then the sapping point and the guy sapping would vanish.

It would take repeated sapping attempts to lower the wall around the sapping point down to ground level so your forces could storm in. Thus, big walls took longer to sap down than small ones. Sapping was a very very time consuming, yet relatively risk free way, to bring down walls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulstan

It would take repeated sapping attempts to lower the wall around the sapping point down to ground level so your forces could storm in. Thus, big walls took longer to sap down than small ones. Sapping was a very very time consuming, yet relatively risk free way, to bring down walls.

---

just how it should be ~:cheers:

I think it would be more fun if defending units with the ability to sap were allowed to dig counter mines to intercept the attacking sappers. When they meet, there is a seperate battle in the underground tunnel. If the defenders win, they withdraw and collapse the tunnel so the attackers have to begin again, causing them to waste time. If the attackers win, the capture of the countermine will speed up their work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

You'll find a pretty good discussion of sieges, sapping and ideas for improvements here. And yes, epic walls do feel like a complete waste of time. The only reason to upgrade to large stone walls is to get the iron gates, which seem to give the enemy a tad more trouble (and are gratifyingly elephant-proof).

---

Another thing with epic walls is because they are so tall, trying to use your own onagers in defense to take out other catapults and siege towers is a nightmare. I've only tried this in custom battles, but trying to find a good space to put your onagers is the first challenge, then actually getting them to fire over the wall becomes an even bigger one. With normal walls you stand a good chance of hitting incoming towers and sometimes other onagers that are a bit too close, but with epic walls, with sappers and enemy onagers - the enemy are in period. They could at least improve the range of the defensive tower weapons. These Epic walls should be near impregnable, or an absolute nightmare to tackle at least.

Also, regards sapping, some men ought to die during the sapping, and perhaps it should take longer so it's not the first approach you consider using.

Historically, this was combated with counter tunneling. During a siege, a town would put plates or large glasses of water throughout the walls. If they started shaking, they would immediately try a counter tunnel, hoping to break through and kill the tunnelers, then collapse the tunnel. Though I don't know how effective it was. This was during the medieval period as well. So not sure if they did this in Roman times.

Be kinda funny to see plates of water sitting around all around the walls of a city ~D

I think a sap like that bing down an epic wall is unbelievable in real life.However you can counter it easily:an archer unit with flaming arrow on the wall can destroy the sap point very easily.But, the problem is the AI never attack your sap point.

Quote:

---

I think a sap like that bing down an epic wall is unbelievable in real life.However you can counter it easily:an archer unit with flaming arrow on the wall can destroy the sap point very easily.But, the problem is the AI never attack your sap point.

---

Yes, the ai should attack the sap point. The only time i have lost one is when the ai missed my unit and hit the point by accident :)
But this made me witness to a strange bug - if a unit is emerging from a sap point when it is destroyed, the unit will sit around doing nothing. My auxillia just stood there, and i couldn't order them at all......

You should be able to counter-sap!

Sapping is perfectly fine on the battle map. On the battle map it's simply a culmination of months of work, abstracted to look cooler.

The problem is sapping should take much, much longer to 'build' on the campaign map. It's a sieging tactic, and an army doing it should be there a long time unless it's a truly massive army or it's a small city (the Turks got it done pretty quick...with 300,000 men!).

Maybe they should take 3 turns to build regardless of build points. I prefer to use ladders as they are cheap and easy and you can get up on the walls. And usually I outnumber the A.I enough that they ca'nt protect there whole wall.

Funny thing I saw. I had a spy walking by and noticed a besieging army had built a sap point for a wooden wall. Kind of funny considering the human ca'nt do this and whats the point of a sap point for a wooden wall when battering rams will get through quickly