The need to hold the walls...

[Degtyarev14.5]

... is non-existent in RTW, at least when employing strong defensive troops such as armoured hoplites.

This is the inevitable result of this contrived "take the central courtyard" system that is now in place. Simply put, it is much, much easier to defend this courtyard than it is to hold the walls, be they wooden, stone or epic.

!) The central courtyard can not be breached by means of ladders or towers.

2) The central courtyard is beyond the reach of ballistae and onagers.

3) The central courtyard is generally approachable by very few routes, often four, sometimes just two. It is far too easy to simply plug these roads with hopites, backed up with peltasts and archers, and simply wait for the attackers to impale themselves. In fact, the attackers often lose their will to fight before making it that far.

Rather than one central flag, I would propose a system whereby a settlement contains a number of flags determined by its size, eg. a large city might have ten flags. The three minute timer commences when the enemy controls greater than 50% of the flags. Each flag is accessible by three or four roads: this would force the defender to divide his (or her) forces, and to keep a watchful eye over them.

But given the nature of my proposed changes to the capture-the-flag system, requiring practically every town and city to be redesigned from the ground up, I don't see it happening.

Last night, I assembled my Greeks in the central courtyard of Tarentum and went for a shower and some supper as the Julii assailed the walls. I don't believe I need to tell you how the battle ended.

Any thoughts on this matter?

A.

[Craterus]

i like the way you can fight on top of the stone walls in rtw
but i agree that when siege equipment breaks through your defences there is no need to worry because the central courtyard is realatively easy to defend!as long as you have enough troops to block the entrances

[Aetius the Last Roman]

I see what your saying,
adopt a qausi-battlefield system of flag control.
However, even though this would make battles a good deal better, it would make sieges soo much longer. Seeing as you actually experience more sieges than proper battles, it might extend the game unneccesarily.

[Degtyarev14.5]

I would think that it's pretty bloody necessary!

But in any case, it's all just wishful thinking, because it just ain't gonna happen...

I'm not angry, just very, very disappointed...

A.

[Dutch_guy]

Sounds like a good system , but it would require remapping of the settlements , which is probably a lot of work, so I don't see this happening in the near future.
and you can limit yourself to puttinbg your units on the centrtal plaza, as Romans ( I like fighting on walls ) I never put my whole army on the plaza just the walls.
I know this isn't really a practical solution for hoplite style factions, but still you know what I mean.
and CA should have made it harder to defend the central plaza, I mean if units don't rout it pretty hard to destroy them, basicly impossible when you have to sdestroy every single soldier in a spartan hoplite unit

[Kekvit Irae]

A courtyard does not fire heavy arrow fire on the enemy on it's own. Walls do.

I keep the walls defended because I like having my towers get off free kills. Plus one time the enemy assaulted my stone gates with a battering ram. The battering ram never got to the gates before being destroyed by the gatehouse towers. When assaulting a wall using ladders and siege towers, it's usually 1-5 attackers at a time versus the entire defending unit. All these factors, plus the ability to defend a small hole left by a sapping point using a unit of phalanx makes me always defend the walls to the death easily. Hardly anything gets through. If they do, well, I always do enjoy city fighting once in a while.

[Craterus]

i like to fight inside the city too but it's annoying when half a unit gets stuck behind a building that makes me angry!

[Vlad Tzepes]

Good ideea. And there are several smaller plaza's in bigger cities - I use them a lot to regroup before attacking the central one. IMHO, it should be about key-buildings to be captured, more than just open spaces in a city. You could imagine those little plaza's being put in front of those buildings (or you would ask for a Stalingrad way of conquering floor by floor the governor's palace, hehe).

[Lochar]

I was a little disappointed by this too, as if I had a good approach I could bypass the troops on the walls and just rush my forces in the center and defend it for 3 minutes.

But there are problems with not taking walls first.

1. The towers - most approaches to the city center passed by a few of these and they really took a toll on my troops.

2. Unless you made a few rams , sometimes they die before even getting to the gates, thus the need to open the doors by capturing the gatehouse.

I do think a check and balane should be in place so no city center rushes can cause a capture, as it usually takes a few minutes for troops to get off the walls, but so far I enjoy sieges more than open field battles just for the wall fighting that takes place.

[Simetrical]

Try playing an assault as the Romans, defending against the Macedonians, with typical troop setups. Then tell me there's no need to defend the walls.

-Simetrical

[PseRamesses]

Any thoughts on this matter?

IMHO there´s only one way to go about it:
1. No time limit.
2. All defenders must be killed.
3. All towers, gates etc must be in your control.
4. Delete the central square function.

This is how I currently roleplay my sieges. Shure it takes some times but it feels right to do it. When the wall-fighting is over I send some runners in each direction to capture the towers and gates while the bulk of my army gets inside. I usually plug each entrance to the town square with hoplites or triarii backed by missiles and slowly make my way to the center. If opposed by just one unit guarding the square I surround it with cavs and rush it when the walls are mine. I just wish the AI could be as methodical in defending a city instead of sending one unsupported unit at the time that gets hammered, breaks and runs just to come back a few moments later to repeat this pattern.

[Shadar]

I believe in setting very very strict rules for myself for Urban warfare, and that makes the game so much more fun.

My main ones are:
- You must not capture the central plaza before ALL OTHER ENEMY UNITS ARE ANNIHILATED. i think it works a charm, because you must assault the heaviest defended side of the city! (which is basically wherever you put your troops).

- Never rush to the central plaza until all enemy have routed and ran to it (no taking advantage of the crappy AI pathfinding system for routing troops, who run THROUGH your army). In other words, multiple prongs in multiple streets are allowed but no rushing troops forward THROUGH an almost routing army in the hope of destroying them by cutting them off that way, OR, rushing troops directly to the central plaza and taking that while there is still fighting going on in one part of the city. (think about it in the context of the ancient warfare. You aren't going to advance your army in a pell-mell fashion in the streets because thats the best way to get your troops killed. Even the soldiers would realise that danger could lurk around any corner and would stay together, in case of ambush etc by enemy forces. And you aren't going to attack the most heavily defended position in the town before ensuring that you won't get ambushed while attacking that position!). Also, it means the rest of the city must be secured before finally attacking the town centre (as it should be). If thats too hard, at least secure entirely YOUR SIDE of the city before attacking the central plaza(since i realise that spreading troops out does exploit the AI a little).

- No cavalry units in the city unless you are the defender. How on earth are cavalry supposed to maneuvre in those streets? O.o. Plus poor paving stones were a hazard (means as one of those cavalry-strong/infantry-weak nations, you're going to have to siege them and starve them to death and only fight when they sally out from the castle).


Thats about it really. I think that this makes the game much more fun, and the 2nd rule really makes the sieges more fun (in my opinion). It gives a much better sense of roleplaying (i think anyways).

[Atreides]

I do not see the problem.

The only is the stupidity of the Al attacking a flank head on.

With a good combined army the walls are much easier. Rember you got the towers AND you have arrow fire advantages.

[Jambo]

siege assaults look good and the ideas and designs are great. In reality though they're far and above the weakest aspect of Rome TW. I love the battles on the walls, but it's just too easy to beat the AI, and especially as a faction with phalanx or hoplite units.

As the original poster said, just place a phalanx beside any opening and the AI will commit sepuko trying to force its way through, usually with its cavalry general first.

The only way I play now it without the walls. THe AI marches (not runs) to you plaza in a slower more controlled manner and gives a decent account of itself in both offence and defence. I will actually lose a few cities now. Coupled with the loadgame bug, this is the only way I've been able to play Rome. @:D