I've been checking out the gameplay video's, screenshots and factionpreviews. and it seems to me that the battles are going to be heavily influenced by the presence of long range, army crushing artillery.
Am i the only one worried here?
Printable View
I've been checking out the gameplay video's, screenshots and factionpreviews. and it seems to me that the battles are going to be heavily influenced by the presence of long range, army crushing artillery.
Am i the only one worried here?
Maybe a little but for things like preview videos, artillery looks pretty spectacular so it's going to be used in order to big up the game a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Djurre
In reality, I hope, in the game artillery would take less of a precedence during the early period of the game with it only really being used in great effect during the end period, say after 1500 perhaps. That's obviously in battles. In siege warfare they would be a necessary asset through all periods of the game though ~;)
I don't have a great knowledge of that sort of weaponry during that period so feel free to correct me if necessary ~:)
In MTW, I'd often have a 'fun' army of 15 units of artillery & a general + a strong army for reinforcements.
Field battles were a tight run thing, with always the possibility of the AI coming charging right at you.
Once artillery was ammoed out, withdraw & bring on the reinforcements to finish off.
Cheap I know & I wouldn't do that anymore :shame:
It doesn't really bother me. Even if artillary is readily available with the new recruiting pools n stuff, which we dno't know yet, then anyone who brings a lot of artillary to war is doing so at the expense of other, more versatile troops. Yes, you need artillary in seiges and perhaps a few pieces in field battles but that's realistic isn't it? Surely artillary spamming would be suicide against an half decent opponent?:no:
Doesn't worry me much, though I find it pretty silly that they have cannon firing explosive shells and trebuchets in field battles. Chiefly what I am concerned about is the apparent lack of sapping, which would be totally ridiculous.
Well, what would be really ridiculous is the molemen-sapping we have in RTW.
I'd prefer turnbased sapping..
I hope for more moddability in siege units - editing the "siege point" value of siege towers etc.
I also worry about using artillery in field battles. Only cannon would work for this, and their role would be mostly that of depraving enemy morale. The killfactor would still be low until the advent of canister shot or bomb shot.
Well in the demo in Pavia the cannons didnt do too much damage, but they had very long range. I wouldnt mind artilerey like this in a battle, an effective but not a decisive wepon.
Seems that CA just couldn't resist the flash/bang of missle units on the battlefield. I wish that Trebuchets and Catapults were resricted to options in the siege build menu. I also wish that the huge cannons would be very ineffective in field battles.
I agree 100%, nobody was dragging trebs around Europe from battle to battle, they built them on-site and were completely immobile. Very disappointing to see them as trained units in the screenshots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
I'm not worried.
I always brought 2-3 trebuchets/onagers/cannons with me in MTW and RTW.
Also seems like cannons in M2TW are less accurate then they were in MTW1 judging by the demo and since they were never a problem in MTW1 or RTW then I'm not worried now either.
As long as artillery pieces don't magically zero in on generals anymore, I'll be happy. (This was a bit of a problem in MTW.) ~:rolleyes:
But that was pretty much the only way to bring them down :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
And did cause one of the best stories I've seen on this forum. A single catapult unit in MTW firing at an enemy general unit, killing him and causing his entire army to run off the battlefield. Wish I had that luck in battles sometimes ~;)
We have only limited information to base our assumptions on, but from the pavia demo battle it seems that cannons at least would not be such an important factor. Though quite accurate, they failed to do any real harm to even tightly packed pikemen, and while the explosions looked great it barly killed more than a couple of soldiers for each round. The morale damage also didn't seem to be much of a problem.
I agree that Onagers and such were much too powerful in RTW, but with the current killing rate of the cannons in pavia, coupled with perhaps more competant AI that wouldn't wait for my cannons to kill him but advance at them, I think that siege weapons will return to the place of "Behind the frontlines support weapon that kills a bit" from thier battle winning results in RTW.
I don't know, one of those cannon shots did away with fifty pikemen...Quote:
Originally Posted by Azog 150
That's impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kourutsu
I have had those guys in a nicely packed formation and get hit by a cannon ball right in the center and it killed 5 guys at most.
Only the core of the explosion kills people and that core is rather small and there is no way 50 guys could have been killed there because it is simply not that big.
Hell even the entire explosion isn't big enough to kill 50 guys.
Something else killed those guys and it was not the cannon.
The problem, though, is that this happened with a certain degree of frequency--far more so than should've been possible. I don't think anyone has been able to explain exactly why, but for some reason artillery units in the original Medieval have a far higher chance to hit enemy generals than they should. (Just about anyone who's assaulted a castle with ballista/catapult towers in MTW can probably testify to this!) The phenomenon is simply too well documented for it to be a coincidence. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by darsalon
Didn't generals stand in the front center of units in MTW? Where the artillery was aimed...Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Yeah. Even then it often seemed like the generals had some sort of homing device in their pocket or something. I still recall one point around the second to fifth turn of a new French campaign when I put my Royal Bodyguards to loose order and went off to kill the pesky enemy ballistas parked atop a hill near the main melee. The damn things managed to pull off around exact one shot before being overrun, and killed exact one man, and that was the damn king...
:wall:
It should also be noted that the problem with general-targeting artillery went both ways--it wasn't just the human player that was the victim. I've fought a number of battles (usually on the defensive) where my green catapult/trebuchet crew miraculously managed to land a rock squarely on top of the enemy commander. In fact, it's happened often enough that I no longer include artillery pieces in my defensive armies. They're so accurate when it comes to killing generals, that I feel like I'm exploiting a loophole in the game if i deliberately use them.
I still use artillery when attacking castles, of course; but I almost never use them in open field battles anymore.
I sometimes use cannons in MTW battles, but I don't target the general with them. Seems to much of an exploit.
The way I would have loved is that when you besiege a settlement and you select "sap" you're taken to the battlefield map where you place the sapping points. Then you have to wait a few turns before your men have created breeches in the wall, and during this your men will take casualties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shigawire
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shigawire
whats wrong with RTW sapping?
1) They dig to fast. Seeing sapping in real time would have taken months.
2) The only way sappers take casualties in RTW is if they're hit by an occasional arrow, however most of the time the sapping points are out of reach of the towers. Sapping in RTW is safe whereas in real life it was not. If they could defenders would sally out to wreck the sapping entrances, but in RTW when the battle starts you'd rarely have enough time to do that (see last point)
And in real life there's of course the danger that the shaft will collapse.
3) You have no way to chose where to sap, and towers cannot be destroyed by sapping at all. Only towers with deep foundations should be safe.
I think the complaint with RTW sapping was that real sapping takes a long time to bring a wall down, like weeks or even months of effort, during which time the enemy might be able to bring in a relief army or ally. In RTW the sap takes no longer than moving a tower up and unloading your men, or knocking down walls with artillery. You're supplied with magic mole men, as someone else said.Quote:
Originally Posted by ProudNerd
If it required a certain number of turns, like building seige engines, it would be more realistic. You'd have to worry about relief armies, the enemy might sally, and so on. Sapping would be a sure way to bring down walls with minimal losses, but you'd have to balance that against the time factor.
I understand the objection, but it never bothered me that much. For one thing, deciding which method to use for breaking (or overtopping) city walls ideally requires a look at the city layout, the direct or indirect routes to the town square, how the enemy is positioning forces, etc. I like making the sap vs. towers vs. artillery decision on the scene, so to speak... and you only get that tactical view of the city after you're committed to the actual battle screen. I feel uncomfortable choosing an attack strategy without seeing the actual objective, other than as an abstract icon on the campaign screen.
This could be even more important with the larger, more complex cities and castles in MT2TW, and the more varied terrain features. There may be (ideally SHOULD be) castles where sapping isn't even an option due to rivers, moats, high cliffs, or other terrain features.
They should have it so that you can "view" the city with a spy, like in BI where you could visit your cities on the battlemap.
That would be cool. You'd have to expend a little effort and risk (sending the spy) to get that view of an enemy city. To make an attack plan though, that "zoom in" view would have to preview where you're allowed to place sap points, ladders or towers, so you could decide the best method.Quote:
Originally Posted by Censor
Well, at this late date I'm sure that sapping is already locked in, however they're doing it. We'll just have to see how they're handling it. I'll bet we get the magic mole men again, because it's the easiest way to program it, and it fits the short attention span of the non-hardcore audience.
Yes you have a fine point there it is somewhat unrealistic but then there the fact that its really the only way to breach epic walls,. Rams ladders and towers are all set on fire and crushed by the ballista towers and you’ll lose all your troops in very short order unless you can sap them. I like the idea if it collapsing it would make you think twice ..unless you just bought peasants or something just to do that! But i think it would be much better if it did take weeks but really I don’t think sapping would take six months to complete which was a turn on rtw obviously. still I agree its unrealisticQuote:
Originally Posted by Zenicetus
I mean the point is somehow just magically there with the hole started and the scaffolding up with no casualties its magically there.
I don’t think this will be such an issue in mtw due to the much larger and tough walls and the fact that there could be more than one will probably make sapping all but obsolete and then there there’s huge artillery to knock them down with.
"like weeks or even months of effort, during which time the enemy might be able to bring in a relief army or ally. In RTW the sap takes no longer than moving a tower up and unloading your men, or knocking down walls with artillery. You're supplied with magic mole men, as someone else said."
Sapping in RTW takes months. You have to wait a turn just to build the sapping points. Sure once you start the battle it takes only a minute to bring down the walls but in terms of results the game does not give you an unrealistic advantage- you wait one turn and then you breach the wall. To me it makes no difference whether the wall is already breached when the battle starts or whether it is breached during the battle at some ridiculous rate. Same difference.
I think in M2:TW, if you plan to take a huge Castle, you will need huge cannons. I think when you are trying to take the castle, you will have to think carefully about how you use your cannons. Blasting a hole in the first wall is all well and good, but you might have to knock down a few towers so your cannons can go through to the next wall unchallenged.
I look forward to Defending Castles in M2:TW. I pray to God that the AI in sieges is better in this game. The RTW AI would certainly never win a siege if they attacked a Castle from M2:TW. I hope to be able to defend Jerusalem with a Small army of Christian Knights and Archers from Thousand of Saracens. Hopefully I would be able to kill alot of them at the first wall before being overrun and retreating to the second wall and killing more and finally to the third wall, where my brave Christians fight to the death in defiance of fate. I would expect to use genius military tactic to do all that, not exploit faults in the siege AI.
i think this has a bit to do with it just being a demo. the artillery in later stages of development i think would be good with a high caliber gun crews. but then again guns back then where smoothbore and not rifled. however i would like to swing a few light guns around for close flank shots that rake a battalion just before its final charge into your ranks if they have bouncing rounds maybe you can take out ranks of men from close range. i just cant wait for the game to come out. i am excited.Quote:
Originally Posted by akodo
One way of limiting the extent of artillery in (sp) battles would be to give artillery a dramatically reduced per-turn campaign map movement than infantry (and of course less again than cavalry). So if you want to bring artillery/siege weapons to a field battle, you're going to have to crawl across Europe to do so. I know it's there to an extent in R:TW, but it could be more.
Even in the 1500's Cannon, trebs and all other kinds of heavy arty (i.e. stuff that you would use against a wall) were incredably heavy and difficult to move. I would be resonable imho to make heavy arty immovable so after it has been placed it can't be moved. The idea that you could use cannon to breach the first wall, storm it with your infantry and then move your cannon up to the breach and start blasting away at the second wall is silly.
In reality it would take days to disassemble it, dig a firing position, move the very heavy barrel, reassemble it and start firing again.