Walls in M2

[Burns]

Does anyone think that walls are pathetically weak? Even huge stone walls can't last long against Catapult stones. I can understand cannon blasting down walls, but stone throwers of any type be they catapults or trebuches were said to have taken a long time to significantly damage walls, and not least to actually be able to smash them down. I think that the siege weapons and cannons need to have their damage vs. buildings toned down.

Secondly, has anyone actually been able to fire either catapults or other artillery from inside a settlement? I can't say that I've ever seen a catapult fire unless it was through an opening in the walls.

[Bullethead]

Does anyone think that walls are pathetically weak? Even huge stone walls can't last long against Catapult stones.

This used to bug me in previous TW games, but then it occurred to me why it's like this...

Remember that in all TW games, a single strategic map turn is a very long time, ranging from several months to a couple of years, depending on the game. So even if your sieging army didn't need to build anything prior to the assault, it's still got at least a few months of gametime in which to conduct the battle. Therefore, you could assume that your arty had been pounding the walls for months or even years prior to you playing the actual assault battle. Thus, what you see in the game is the "last straw" :D.

Basically, it seems CA just stuck the wall-busting in for cool cinematics in battles. In real life, of course, the bombardment went on and not much else until the attackers created a "practicable breach" in the walls. Then the assault would go in. But this could take months or years, which would be boring for the player. Besides, if the battle started with the breaches already there, it wouldn't be as cool as being able to flatten the walls yourself.

[shifty157]

Bullethead pretty much gave the exact reason.

[Waleed]

Also it depends what you are sieging. I've noticed City walls are pathetically weak wheras castle walls take multiple bombardments to finally bring down. I like the way that's set up, makes castles have real strategic value other than just being a settlement that produces military units. I actually dread sieging a castle as it can be a very painful process. I LOVE IT! Cities are a breeze unless there is a large garrison.

[TheFluff]

I noticed that when the attacker scales walls via seige tower or ladders, they usually get slaughtered by even the weakest pesent archers. Has any one else noticed this? unfortently i've lost a few fudual foot knights to this sort of attack against town milita. I had made a thread about it but no one responded, but seeing as this one is simmilar i figured i'd ask.

Also i agree, walls seem somewhat weak at times, that or seige weapons are awfully strong. It only took a few hits from a trebuches to bring them down, and tends to kill tons of your soilders in the process.... (IE, mongols) >.>

[BigTex]

I noticed that when the attacker scales walls via seige tower or ladders, they usually get slaughtered by even the weakest pesent archers. Has any one else noticed this? unfortently i've lost a few fudual foot knights to this sort of attack against town milita. I had made a thread about it but no one responded, but seeing as this one is simmilar i figured i'd ask.

Also i agree, walls seem somewhat weak at times, that or seige weapons are awfully strong. It only took a few hits from a trebuches to bring them down, and tends to kill tons of your soilders in the process.... (IE, mongols) >.>

They tend to get slaughtered becuase their disordered and usually are so tightly packed their recieving bunching effects. Generally if you want to take a wall by storming it with a latter or tower, the unit needs to enter the ramparts a little ways away from the other units. Also you have to remember those towers will fire on you continually until you capture them. I'd suggest storming them with plenty of powerful shock infantry.