Printable View
Here's a gameplay question: Should archers really run out of arrow while they are in a settlement? Seems to me that out in the field they would run out, but during a siege, I would create as many arrows as possible to make sure they do not run out. At the very least, they should have more than they can carry around with them, it seems. (Especially since they have all their arrows again at the next battle, even if it happens during the same turn).
Markus
If they didn't it wouldnt be fair to the AI. dont believe me? Play Arcade and see.
Lt
Yeah, true. On the other hand, I constantly run into this scenario: I defend a settlement until I run out of arrows. Then I move my archers off the wall and the enemy can't get in because they do not have siege engines yet. Now, I wait for the remaining 3 quarters of the battle while the timer runs down (which can be slow even in the fastest mode). Then, I try to break the siege again, and I start the whole process over.
So it gets a bit boring yet I still have the same advantage as if I never had run out of arrows to begin with. Little gameplay difference, but lots of boredom. In fact, I am writing this message while I wait for the battle timer to run down...
Markus
you can just quit the battle and come back, the ai wont send your units out so you wont lose anyone. much quicker
The problem is that almost every time I do this my complete army disappears. That bug is kind of a turn-off if you ask me...
Markus
you only lose units when your attacking. when your defending a settlement you wont lose anyone
Well, that's the theory. In reality, there seems to be a bug that makes my army vanish in these cases (about 2 out of 3 times I would guess). Leaves the settlement completely empty...
Markus
Sally out of some gate at some point, and make sure everyone is "back home" within the walls before you end the battle. Also make sure you inflict enough casualties that it won't be declared a loss for you somehow.
Also have to remember that the settlement has potentially been under siege for years, and can't get any more arrows since it's well... under siege. So I'd imagine they'd have a pretty limited amount at hand. The attackers on the other hand can easily ship in more ammo. So surely the attackers should have more ammo if anything? :duel:
Perhaps if a unit is withdrawn off the field, it can, after a suitable time period, be returned to battle, with full ammo (not siege equipment though)
I would say that in a siege situation, both armies would be likely to have large stockpiles of arrows. In field battles - I would think that the more civilised armies would have the logistics to bring more equipment to the battle.
Then there's always the thing about picking arrows off the field.
It might tend to over-emphasize the use of archers in battle. If nothing is done to tone down their attack, we could see a further unbalancing of the scale.
I guess it depends on what kinds of resources they have within the settlement and whether or not the right buildings to create new arrows are there. But if they run out, then they should not have arrows in the next battle either.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordKhaine
Kind of a questionof how closely one wants to simulate a real battle, vs. keeping certain gameplay mechanics. I see why they want everyone to start out with the same amount of arrows in each battle, but it does not seem like a real simulation of the siege.
Markus
Are you refering to gladiator? Where the Germans just stood there under heavy fire? The defenders said sure we'll take the low ground. The germans saying sure we'll let you attack us from an entrenched position.Quote:
Kind of a questionof how closely one wants to simulate a real battle, vs. keeping certain gameplay mechanics.
Now think of it the opposite way around your besieging and have a sally against you. Would you just stand there and get senselesly shot up. No you would fallback and say come and get me.
Now just exploit this feature/bug for now as for when the patch comes out I'm almost sure this will be addressed that the A.I. besiegers will stay out of range from the walls on a sally, at least for stonewalls.
It's your game, play it the way you would like but asking for it to be cheasier is just plain senseless IMO.
Sure the first time I saw 1000 Gauls go for a swim was a good laugh, after that it's not funny anymore.
I don't mind the A.I. bumrushing a breach in the wall but when I have archers that dictate otherwise they need to backoff and let me capture the walls.
Now I am assuming you are on easy/easy dificulty right? Since you seem to want evry possible exploit there is.
Oaty, that's a bit unfair. He is merely commenting on the idea that archers would have a very ample supply within their besieged city. (As would slingers, etc.) While I agree with that, giving them infinite supply has many draw backs, such as the idiot AI standing there and taking a beating, or if the archers sally (like I do with horse archers--who can get away with it and cav did this sort of thing historically.) They really wouldn't have infinite arrow supply in a sally. So I accept the continuation of limited supplly as a reasonable gameplay restriction. It could be done in a more complex way of course, but I'm not sure that it would add much to the game for me.
Well I guess I was a bit harsh Red Harvest and my apologies for that post. But since the A.I. can't handle it there is no reason for unlimited ammo anywhere. Even wall towers should be limited, mainly for the A.I.'s sake or tone down thier firing speed
There are other scenarios too. For instance, the enemy might already be over the wall and be rather successful in attacking, but your one troop of archers could keep up the fight if they still had arrows. That seems to be a realistic scenario to me.
I agree that the AI just standing there is pretty dumb.
Markus