Printable View
Grrr...
Boiling oil will be made available in the upcoming crusades expansion... (or, so says the totalwar.com distribution e-mail today). That should have been included in the original game (was available all the way back in MTWI already, Rome too), not sold as a "wonderful new feature" in an expansion pack. Rant over...
:wall:
I agree, boiling oil or something more useful for castle defense would be great. As it is currently ramming through the gate and pouring men into the castle is the easiest way to get a siege finished. Towers burn all too often and ladders are horrid unless you use them in cheesy ways. It would be nice if at least stones could be dropped onto the enemy whilst they are entering the gateway whether to ram or simply enter, as long as the gate was still under the defender's control.
Tschüß!
Erich
I agree, going in the main gate with a ram should be a very, very costly procedure, where as it's currently the preferred method, assuming it can be accomplished. I also wish they had included the castle 'improvements' that existed in MTW, such as the ability to add on a barbican. It would be nice if there were a whole slew of possible upgrades for the castle settlements, beyond the current "castle," "fortress," "citadel" levels. Thicker walls, more towers, round towers (vs. square), moat (wet or dry), fortified gatehouse, etc.
I want to be able to capture towers and turn them against the defender again. :(
i dont care that much about boling oil. in RTW it was a nuisance when a defender holding a gate holds it boldly while your men trying to defeat the gate defender is suffering a huge extra casualties by boling oil. (the ones under the gate. and there is a lot)
I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY miss this. Also sapping.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeutonicKnight
Ermm... that's part of the whole point. As Plated Bovine said earlier, cracking a settlement should be a very costly procedure. Boiling oil was used quite often historically, so I don't see what the problem is. Most of the responses I've seen to this effect about "balance" I strongly disagree with.Quote:
i dont care that much about boling oil. in RTW it was a nuisance when a defender holding a gate holds it boldly while your men trying to defeat the gate defender is suffering a huge extra casualties by boling oil. (the ones under the gate. and there is a lot)
@ The OP - I recall reading somewhere that boiling oil was going to make it back in the expansion. Sapping apparently not.
Maybe there will be a longer recharge time now, there used to be infiite amounts of it yeah?
Bet it was an expensive defensive tool back in the day.
Boiling oil was both lethal and historically accurate, but I think the point is: used by an AI, you simply use ladders or siege towers (and sacrifice only one unit of lightest infantry to move the ram), I remember in RTW the enemy destroying the gates, storming inside with every unit -for now it sounds as a reasonable strategy-, and not to be able to get inside because of the 8 pikes/hvy infantry I put past the gate; while he fights these units in defence mode, boiling oil kills tens of its crowded man until their morale goes away (or simply they lose too many soldiers to be able to actually win).
The matter is always the AI vs Human; if the Ai decides to enter from the gate, chances are the Human player understands it and counters it evvectively, while the AI only wonders what.
Lol, I even remember sucking Pontic AI wasting hundreds of man (even heavy cavalry) from boiling oil giving an outcome of 100% death for it and 2-3% death for me.
About sapping, it's a similar thing: AI counters that much worse than an human (not to mention the fact that having 2-3 sap points available as the attacker against an AI had the 95% to caugh it off-guard, IIRC).
Maybe they could set the rule that any form of moat prevents enemy sapping, and introduce them both in the game.
boiling oil came out on first patch with mtw1
I vote for burning sand it was more common and it would be amusing if u could kill the enemy king with sand!
Hm, what would be VERY nice, would be to have a whole list of possible improvements, and then have to choose only one(or two)... There are a lot of things people used to strengthen castles in the middle ages, but it wouldn't be very appropriate to have all of those on one castles...Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
On the subject of castle defenses, the ability to destroy ladders from the top rather than just the bottom would be very welcome...
And give balista towers the ability to shoot the the sides as well (or shoot arrows from the other directions)...
And make cannon tower prioritize the nearest siege engine and not just try shooting at a rams at max range when siege towers are nearing your walls...
etc...
Certainly agree with the OP. There where a load of things with this 'expansion' that should have been in the original. A UK games magazine stated that M2TW was merely like Rome, but better graphics. I disagree. Seems to be a bit of a step back. Better graphics of course, but:
Boiling oil?
Organising Reinforcements?
Moats?
Forts?
These things should have been well and truly in the original.
We all know about what stuff we would like added, but I thought M2 was supposed to be the jewel of the CA crown. At the moment it seems like one of the smaller jems that goes on the side. I appreciate the work that has gone into making the 2 hand/shield bug et al go away AND the time that was taken for the game AND the fact that this is business/make money, etc... But I am one of these people that would never have noticed if it weren't for these forums. But what I did notice, without any help, was the lack of any 'wow' factor compared to ROME that makes M2 a clearly next step up. And the fact that these 'new' features, not talking about the actual campaigns, should have been in from the beginning.
Modders if you are out there.... get the code and add it to the original!
Will be cool to see these features anyway.
I agree boiling oil should have been in the original game, or at least we should get it in whatever the last patch is (unless this is the last one?). It can't be that hard to program, if they're doing it for the expansion.
The main benefit of boiling oil is that it would help counterbalance the tactic of using spies to open gates, which is still a little too easy in the current patch. As the attacker you'd take at least a slight hit running through an undefended gate. If it was defended, you'd take a bigger hit as the enemy blocks your advance through the open gate.
However I do think the oil should be limited to just one or two dumps, not an unlimited supply. That must have been a dangerous and labor-intensive operation. You don't just heat up another pot to boiling all that fast.
I don't miss sapping at all. That always seemed like too much of a low-risk "cheese" option, the way it was implemented in RTW. It's hard to show things like this that took a very long time to set up. And if there is sapping there should be counter-sapping, which is just too complicated to do right. I'd prefer the developer time was spent somewhere else. Just my $.02.
Eh, that reminds me of the first Lords of the Realm... god, I loved that game. Although of course, my castle designs were so extensive they took 300 years, enough stone and wood to choke God, and the wealth of the whole of England to build, not to mention every single peasant around. No harvest for you ! :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
But yeah, barbican would be nice, or at least the option to build a gate on the *outside* of the castle wall, instead of in a convenient recess that shields the ramming team. Or just the ability to shoot right through a castle's metal grate. Then again, that recess will probably become a deathtrap when boiling oil is in...
Moats ? Of course they should be added. What's a castle without a friggin' moat+drawbridge ? If only to buy your wall archers some comfy killin' time while the siegers fill it with dirt/wood/straw... That always bugged me back in MTW/VI, and it still does in M2TW (I know the Romans also used to have very extensive landtrap and pitfall systems, but IIRC it was mostly when they were on the sieging side, no ? Anyway, it wasn't such a sore point to me in RTW)
@Zenicetus : I don't agree with you that sapping made things easy.
It was very costly in terms of build points, would tire the sappers a lot, would take a long time to work (leaving time for the defender to man the spot ahead, theoretically. Of course, the RTW AI wouldn't, but that could be changed for M2.) and of course, while you would have a nice opening into town, the towers on each side would still be murdering you on the way in until you'd climbed up the walls and cleared the defenders anyway. Sure, you could always rush the square I guess, but that always striked me as a hugely gamey way to win a battle...
Reminds me of murder holes. I'd really like to see archers packed in defensive structures right around the gate, wrecking the ramming team by shooting them full of arrows. That always felt more up close and personal to me, which is definitely an effect I like in medieval sieges. Maybe they could represent it similarly to how the towers currently work - they fire arrows, w/o you seeing the archers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
I am incredibly giddy about the return of Boiling Oil. Yes, I said giddy, like a pubescent school girl after the cool guy "looked at her"*.
*Damn, I admire said schoolgirls' optimism.
More fortifications should definitely be added to the game. I never played RTW so I do not know how sapping worked in game but it sounds like it made things easier than it should have. One way to balance all these things out so'z it would not be impossible for an attacker to take a castle with a full garrison would be to make a garrison limit for the defender. Depending on the size of the structure, the amount of units the castle could garrison would be different.
In somewhat reply to Kobal2fr: I enjoy having to go "inside" the gateway to ram open the gate. But instead of being offering protection as it currently does, it should be something your men do not want to do. Made possible by boiling oil or water, burning sand, stones or even arrow slits for bows or crossbows.
Tschüß!
Erich
@Fußball : basically, you bought sapping points before the battle like you would a ram or ladders (a sapping point was worth 75 building points), then when the battle started you'd have tunnel entrances on the map, some way out of your deployment zone. Those entrances were fixed points, you couldn't move them around.
Then, during the assault, if you had an inf unit with the "can sap" trait (don't think I've ever seen any inf unit without it, come to think about it) target it, it would slowly enter the tunnel and disappear in it, then you saw a trail of darker dirt evolve slooooowly from tunnel entrance towards the walls in a straight line (you couldn't tell them where to dig to, they always went straight towards the nearest wall), and when it reached the wall it took away 10% of it every few seconds until the wall just crumbled as if destroyed by siege weapons. After some time, the diggers would emerge from the tunnel entrance, all "very tired" or "exhausted". The whole process could take up to 1/4th of your allowed battle time.
Think of it as a very limited/specialized catapult any inf unit can man (but which you can't control, that can't destroy towers or gates, can't kill the enemy etc...), and you're not that far off.
I never liked Burning Oil as it just ruined the AI during siege assaults. It would kill the general and rout all their units as they tried to enter the gates. CA had better make sure that the AI is capable of using any new features they introduce.
Sieges and fortifications generally are a bit basic in MTW 2. Nothing to throw on the besiegers, only one door at every gate (for comparison with a truly formidable real castle, the King's Gate at Caernarvon was intended to have 5 doors and 6 portcullises), no ditches or moats, no sapping, no flanking towers or barbicans.
boiling oil is very overpower gameplay wise, I mean really. I remember it killing 2 entire units of war elephants trying to breach my gate. the moment those beasts gets close, it was elephant BBQ. putting a phalanx unit right behind it will kill alot of units trying to push through with oil also.
I for one like gameplay balance over any realism. I don't get why ppl wants it back? easier gameplay?
Well, you are incorrect then. Realism>Balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by craziii
This so called "expansion" will not be on my shopping list. I dont buy games, generally, I download them. Medieval 2 is one game I DID buy, and most of it is a let down.
<snip>
Well if you only defend then yes... But the same problem will apply to you when you attack, so it is not entirely unbalanced... And anything that helps the AI fend of the rushers for a little longer can only be a good thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by craziii
I am trying out Carl's ProblemFixer beta which ramps up the power of towers and the tower activation range of units and this turns the siege mechanic on it's head... Rather than it being easy to take settlements it is easy to defend them with a small garrison unless the attacker brings sufficient artilliery to take out the towers. It is an interesting change that he is still working on balancing but it certainly does not make the game any easier overall...
Well, uh, good job on having an opinion. You do realize that your opinion means precisely squat, right? And that an opinion, inherently, cannot be correct nor incorrect, yes? Just figured I'd mention that since you're being so blatantly ignorant by proclaiming yourself right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruniac
Also, judging from the majority of forum-goers, it seems that most TW players care a heck of a lot more about balance than they do realism. Most people play games to have fun, not to recreate history to the letter. It looks to me like CA knows its place in the market quite well, and is likely very smart for adopting the things its fans are vocal about, regardless of their implications historically.
I for one require only enough realism to not be shocked into disbelief. Beyond that, the game should be as balanced as possible, because balance leads to more viable ways to play, tactical diversity, and ultimately a more interesting and more challenging game. It's all a direct result of increasing the viable ways to play, which is done largely (if not entirely) through better balance.
Yeah, I'm more for balance than accuracy. The entire siege scenario is basically a version of "capture the flag".... run to the town square and hold it for X number of seconds. That's about as unrealistic as you can get. And yet, you don't see too many people complaining about the mechanics.
For me, boiling oil is good because it helps balance spies opening gates, not because it's realistic.
Then I guess I'll throw in my pseudo-dissent. I love boiling oil, nor do I think it's cheap. Why? Hurts me just as much as it hurts the AI. Besides, in later versions of RTW, the AI would always use a number of methods to get through/past/onto your walls. Also, I had a number of instances where I tried to *push* my way through a gate when I thought I had a good chance or an opening, only to have the AI hold me right in place, and my guys would get murdered hand over fist. Unbalanced? Disagree completely.
As for overall "balance", I don't know how to say this exactly except that I don't care about balance. I do care, in the sense that I expect units to have relative levels of power/attack/defense/abilities/etc, but not "balanced" in the sense like one would see in Starcraft, or Warcraft. I know CA has self-labeled the games as strategy, not simulation, but I think these games are closer to the simulation aspect that the RTS aspect. Sure there are some mechanics like Zenicetus pointed out, the limited scope of the battlemaps, the "capture the flag" of the town center, etc.
As Jambo said, I want these things in, but the AI needs to be able to handle it. In my personal experience, in the later RTW patches, the AI was able to "handle" boiling oil, whether or not it was specifically programmed to.
:balloon2:
I heard boiling water was how they did it, regarding the price of oil...
It will be a welcome [re]feature.
I'm sure it varied by region, based on what was handy and cheap... water, oil, sand, lead, rocks, whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
FYI, the boiling point of water is 212 deg. F.
Olive oil smokes at about 400 deg. F and actually boils at around 570 deg. F. Which one would you rather be hit with? Not to mention the "area denial" factor and general nastiness of slick hot oil on the ground.
BTW, the difficulty of actually reaching a high enough heat to boil oil, is why I don't think it should be more than a one-shot, or at most two.... not unlimited recurring damage if your attacking force is stuck at the gate.
Do not discuss piracy on these forums. You will not be told a second time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kruniac