archers & stakes

[Daveybaby]

I was thinking that but from a historical realism point of view, if there was a battering ram hammering down on a city gates, I suspect the city folk may indeed stick some more obstacles in the enemy's way.

Ditto bridge battles, for that matter. Although I am rather queasy about them altogether (I've never heard of one in pre-WW2 history).

The stakes are only hurt cavalry, infantry just get slowed down.

Trouble is, in a bridge battle (and slightly less so in a siege, cos there is often more than one door) stakes can effectively disallow the attacker from using cav in any way at all. Seems a bit too uber to me.

In a normal open fight they can have advantages and disadvantages for the person placing them (i.e. they stop your own cav charging the enemy in the back once theyre engaged) but in battles with no way around them... hmmmm....


Interesting note: the first time i ever used stakes i was fighting near a small village, and there was a road nearby. My initial deployment was smack across this road. The units located on the road itself couldnt deploy stakes while those on normal ground could (they had to be 100% off of the road to be able to do it). This makes sense since hammering stakes into a paved road would be tricky at best. I had to relocate the entire army sideways off of the road in order to get a complete stake wall in front of my archers.

So the mechanism clearly exists in the game to prohibit stakes from being placed in some locations.

It strikes me that, since the land inside a city wall is all roads, you should similarly be blocked from placing stakes there. Also, logically, there should probably be roads leading from a castles gates and to and from a bridge. If this was the case then stakes would be prohibited from being placed just outide city games and too close to a bridge as well.