Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: What is the reason to not include sap points?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    I have yet to see a spy actually open a gate for me. I have played with the patch, and without. Even when I get the message that a spy has opened the gates. The gates are not open. On at least one occasion I checked every gate into the city (4 I believe). None of the gates were open, and I had to use a balista to break the gate down. So obviously the spy did not actually open the gate

  2. #2

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    Quote Originally Posted by DukeKent
    I have yet to see a spy actually open a gate for me. I have played with the patch, and without. Even when I get the message that a spy has opened the gates. The gates are not open. On at least one occasion I checked every gate into the city (4 I believe). None of the gates were open, and I had to use a balista to break the gate down. So obviously the spy did not actually open the gate
    You have to go up to the gate and knock for it too open.

  3. #3
    Desperately Seeking Tamworth Member Ethelred Unread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bricstowe
    Posts
    226

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    I hope that sapping and a moat upgrade for castles will come out in a expansion/patch
    "The gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials"


  4. #4
    Senior Member Senior Member katank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA, USA
    Posts
    3,739

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    Sapping should be darn easy to add since it's already in the Rome engine. I honestly think that sieges become a lot easier due to the gates becoming very viable. Whereas in RTW best way was to fight on walls with siege towers to avoid boiling oil of doom, now it's walk up, ram the gate, and then zerg your way in.

    Sieges seem biased against humans. With equivalent defenses, they set fire to my equipment far more than I do to them. If I assault using a single ram against even wooden walls, it's practically guaranteed to be burned. Meanwhile, I need at least ballista towers to be able to be fairly certain that their ram dies.

  5. #5
    Member Member Musashi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    The Mists of Legend
    Posts
    811

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    Quote Originally Posted by DukeKent
    I have yet to see a spy actually open a gate for me. I have played with the patch, and without. Even when I get the message that a spy has opened the gates. The gates are not open. On at least one occasion I checked every gate into the city (4 I believe). None of the gates were open, and I had to use a balista to break the gate down. So obviously the spy did not actually open the gate
    LOL, dude.. they don't just stay open... If your spy has opened the gate for you, that just means that if you walk your troops up there, it will open for you as if you were the defenders.

    Basically think of it as your spy being in control of the gatehouse.
    Fear nothing except in the certainty that you are your enemy's begetter and its only hope of healing. For everything that does evil is in pain.
    -The Maestro Sartori, Imajica by Clive Barker

  6. #6
    Member Member Daevyll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    277

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    I think it is because sapping (as it was in RTW) had no counter, even sallying out cavalry would have no use.
    If you payed the buildpoints for it, then the wall would go down and there was nothing the enemy could do about it, 100% safe, 100% succesrate.

    To make sapping a fun gamemechanic, there would have to be some form of counter to it, such as countermining.

    I'm glad it isnt in in its RTW-incarnation tbh.

    Now what I DO miss is the boiling oil from the gatehouses, right now it is far too easy to just smash a gate and just pour all your cav through it.

  7. #7
    Estratega de sillón Member a_ver_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    127.0.0.1
    Posts
    144

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    IIRC the sap point can be burned in RTW also you can't deploy it, most of times it was placed to sap a wall section which you aren't interested. So it wasn't th ultimate siege weapon, but I agree that it was the hardest to counter.

    Anyway it should be better improve the sap mechanics either than remove it.

    As someone wrote if sap point was removed to increase the seige difficulty, removing the burning oil may done easier.

    Finally from the forum feedback it seems as the siege battles have been too improved so despite these point I am sure that I am gonna enjoy it.

    Just one day left to have the game on my hands, yahaaa!!!

    Regards,

    PS. Excuse my lame inglish.
    uh ?

  8. #8

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    I think it is because sapping (as it was in RTW) had no counter, even sallying out cavalry would have no use.Using ladders has no counter either. I wish halberdiers could push them off the wall, killing everybody on it and (possibly) destroying the ladder. Right now it's too easy: run to the wall (you could not run with ladders in RTW, IIRC) — climb — send more units to climb while the first is clearing the way for them.
    By the way, is there any point in building Towers? Do they work or are they broken?

  9. #9

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    they work... and you will get way less casualty then with ladders, especially if your ennemy has archers.

  10. #10

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    It's broken quote tag again, sorry. The first sentence was a quote from the Daevyll's post.

  11. #11

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    No, I mean Ballista and Cannon Towers. I heard they are broken somehow, especially for castles.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Senior Member katank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA, USA
    Posts
    3,739

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    Ladders are still reasonably viable. They can't collapse like towers with your unit inside. I've done that to the AI before. It reached the walls and the enemy troops started climbing only for the tower to burn down and collapse with a unit trapped inside. Only 1 man made it to the walls and was promptly cut down.

    Sapping is indeed extremely effective and low risk in RTW. Adding counter mining etc. wouldn't be a bad idea. Maybe give the defenders some build points for counter mining tunnels, stakes behind gate, that kinda thing.

  13. #13

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rollon
    I think it is because sapping (as it was in RTW) had no counter, even sallying out cavalry would have no use.Using ladders has no counter either. I wish halberdiers could push them off the wall, killing everybody on it and (possibly) destroying the ladder. Right now it's too easy: run to the wall (you could not run with ladders in RTW, IIRC) — climb — send more units to climb while the first is clearing the way for them.
    By the way, is there any point in building Towers? Do they work or are they broken?
    Heh I miss stronghold.
    Counter mining etc would be boring. It'd just be who can outbuild each other.
    Imperator de Basileia Ton Romaion-A "The long road" M2tw AAR
    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...41#post1657841
    Click here if you want to know what a freshly shaven **** looks like.

  14. #14

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    I'll second on the boiling oil. Lately I've been running archers out of the gate and in range of any siege engines to try to reduce the crew or burn the engine. The catapults must provide great cover because the crews are almost impossible to kill with archers. Last night I did have a catapult change position to get away from the archers I sent out. They hid behind a siege tower and them promptly demolished it.

  15. #15

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    I'll second on the boiling oil. Lately I've been running archers out of the gate and in range of any siege engines to try to reduce the crew or burn the engine. The catapults must provide great cover because the crews are almost impossible to kill with archers. Last night I did have a catapult change position to get away from the archers I sent out. They hid behind a siege tower and them promptly demolished it.

    I go out with light cavalry or Jinetes using alternative attack. The AI is very slow to respond and you can wipe out hte entire crew very quickly.

  16. #16
    the G-Diffuser Senior Member pevergreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,585
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: What is the reason to not include sap points?

    Found some interesting stuff in the data folder.


    Deleted the irrelevant stuff.
    Code:
    faction						england
    
    can_sap						no
    can_have_princess			yes
    has_family_tree					yes
    Huurrmmm.
    Quote Originally Posted by TosaInu
    The org will be org until everyone calls it a day.

    Quote Originally Posted by KukriKhan View Post
    but I joke. Some of my best friends are Vietnamese villages.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemur
    Anyone who wishes to refer to me as peverlemur is free to do so.

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