It's a known that generals have a higher chance of being hit by siege engines than other units. It works on both sides. It is however considered a cheesy tactic to use in combat.
Re: Horse Archer Armies...(long text)
It's a known that generals have a higher chance of being hit by siege engines than other units. It works on both sides. It is however considered a cheesy tactic to use in combat.
Originally Posted by Drone
Re: Horse Archer Armies...(long text)
AI controlled siege engines have been a pain in my behind whenever I've happened to deploy my forces in range of them. Almost every shot hits at least something, whereas my own siege equipment can be said to follow the reverse statement...
But I never lost a general to siege engine fire, not once in playing M:TW extensively for years. I managed to kill the odd AI general with a large rock from time to time, though. Just yesterday, it happened again in my Aragonese campaign, killed a five-star Italian prince defending against my two-star captain with a zero-valor Catapult.
People know what they do,
And they know why they do what they do,
But they do not know what what they are doing does
-Catherine Bell
Re: Horse Archer Armies...(long text)
I usually have found siege engines to be pretty useless for hitting things, instead preferring regular troops that are easier to control.
Re: Horse Archer Armies...(long text)
The catapult towers are great at shooting their own gatehouse to pieces.
I only train an occasional catapult, until gunpowder is invented.
“The majestic equality of the laws prohibits the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets and stealing bread.” - Anatole France
"The law is like a spider’s web. The small are caught, and the great tear it up.” - Anacharsis
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks