Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: Options when defending a settlement

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Modder Member Encaitar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    234

    Default Re: Options when defending a settlement

    Looks like CA has indeed included these options.
    http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...gAnch=imgAnch5
    http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...gAnch=imgAnch6
    (There's also a white flag button which I'm presuming/hoping is 'surrender and flee')
    Encaitar Arandur

    Middle-earth: Total War Dev

  2. #2

    Default Re: Options when defending a settlement

    Quote Originally Posted by Encaitar
    Looks like CA has indeed included these options.
    http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...gAnch=imgAnch5
    http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...gAnch=imgAnch6
    (There's also a white flag button which I'm presuming/hoping is 'surrender and flee')
    AND there's an option to "attempt a night attack"! That's pretty cool.

    I don't see any point in having an option to retreat before a siege though, since you already essentially have this option available to you when you see an enemy army approaching.

    What might be good is an option to sack your own town before retreating, burning down infrastructure and so on to deprive the enemy of it. A sort of "scorched earth" policy. On the other hand, I don't really think you should ever be able to capture enemy military infrastructure anyway, it just doesn't doesn't make sense, so maybe all such buildings should be eliminated by the game automatically whenever a settlement changes hands.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Senior Member Jambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Athens of the North, Scotland
    Posts
    712

    Default Re: Options when defending a settlement

    Quote Originally Posted by screwtype
    What might be good is an option to sack your own town before retreating, burning down infrastructure and so on to deprive the enemy of it. A sort of "scorched earth" policy. On the other hand, I don't really think you should ever be able to capture enemy military infrastructure anyway, it just doesn't doesn't make sense, so maybe all such buildings should be eliminated by the game automatically whenever a settlement changes hands.
    This is how STW and MTW used to work and believe me, you don't want to back there from an AI point of view. Do you not remember the AI factions knocking each other back into the Stone-age in these two games by repeatedly taking and destroying each other's regions over and over? The human player could better defend their key provinces and this feature wouldn't impact on their empire and so what we had in the end game was chivalric knight based armies vs peasant and spearmen armies.

    The method they adopted in Rome was pretty good in this respect, where buildings could be damaged or destroyed, but repairing them took only one turn as opposed to the original time to construct the building from afresh.
    =MizuDoc Otomo=

  4. #4

    Default Re: Options when defending a settlement

    Hmm yes good point. You could get around that easily enough though simply by making it that the infrastructure is only destroyed when the human player takes a settlement. Or you could even make it that the military infrastructure built up in an AI settlement simply isn't accessible to the human player who always has to build his own. But it will be available to the AI again if it retakes the settlement.

    But really you raise a good point, which is that the military infrastructure system is pretty silly anyhow. After all, what do you need for training troops? Nothing much but experienced teachers and maybe some spare armour and weapons to train them with.

    It would probably make more sense to dump the whole military building paradigm and replace it with something else. Unfortunately, CA seems to be in love with their building paradigm, so I guess we won't be seeing a change any time soon.

  5. #5
    Ricardus Insanusaum Member Bob the Insane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,911

    Default Re: Options when defending a settlement

    Well infrastructure is not destroyed in RTW when a settlement is taken. Sure things are damaged but things are not destroyed (not sure about that newer sack feature in BI though).

  6. #6

    Default Re: Options when defending a settlement

    Quote Originally Posted by screwtype

    But really you raise a good point, which is that the military infrastructure system is pretty silly anyhow. After all, what do you need for training troops? Nothing much but experienced teachers and maybe some spare armour and weapons to train them with.
    Well i dont think the only thing you need is a teacher and spare armour and weapons, you'd need an area in which to do it in, if they did it in the streets with the teacher then with those men running wild, some civilians are bound to get injured.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Options when defending a settlement

    I don't understand why you think you shouldn't be able to use another factions' buildings - it's not like it's Starcraft or something where the different factions use wildly different technology. A blacksmith is a blacksmith, and a practice range is a practice range, no matter who is using the building. There might be slight variations in amenities and architecture, but the basics are the same.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Options when defending a settlement

    Quote Originally Posted by Nathanael
    I don't understand why you think you shouldn't be able to use another factions' buildings
    Because the game is too easy, and if you weren't able to capture all that juicy infrastructure it would be harder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nathanael
    it's not like it's Starcraft or something where the different factions use wildly different technology. A blacksmith is a blacksmith, and a practice range is a practice range, no matter who is using the building. There might be slight variations in amenities and architecture, but the basics are the same.
    What I'm saying is that all these different buildings for training different troop types is not realistic. All you need to train troops is a barracks for them to live, some open space for them to practice fighting, and some experienced soldiers to do the training. All these different buildings really only exist to add interest to the game. I mean, take the Romans in RTW. First you can build hastati, then after a few upgrades you can get principes, and after a few more you get triarii. How does this simulate reality? It doesn't. The Romans didn't field armies of hastati, only later adding some principes and after that triari and so on. All the different troops types were available to be trained from the outset, the only cap on availability was cost and equipment availability and so on.

    So the building tree is really only there to maintain interest, oh gee, I'm only a few more building upgrades from getting some triarii and I really want to see how good they are and what I can do with them. It has very little if anything to do with the way armies were actually raised.

    And therefore there is no reason at all that capturing a foreign city might suddenly allow you to build a bunch of units you couldn't build before, just because it has some buildings that supposedly allow you to do this. I think that is just an absurd mechanic.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO