need a manual control for the freaking gate

[derfinsterling]

I think we should be able to tell towers what to do.

Ra's argument against is entirely based on balance. But the argument for is simply logic and history. The commander of a city can't direct the towers where to fire? At all??? That's just illogical. Next thing you know, because human players win so easy. you'll say we don't need to control troops either...

It's not about balance, it's about the choices I COULD have made as a military commander that I can't. Yet.

On the other hand, Towers never run out of ammo. You just need a unit nearby.

[JCoyote]

On the other hand, Towers never run out of ammo. You just need a unit nearby.

So? The problem is they pick the wrong targets, and therefore often can't get things done fast enough to make a difference. It doesn't matter if they shoot forever or not; what they shoot at in the first 5 minutes is most important. After that, the battle is often already won or lost based on what they did. I'm not commanding a field army that's fighting in a fortification; I'm commanding a fortress. So let me command the fortress.

As for ammo amounts? Actually, any decently reinforced settlement had far, FAR more ammunition than any field army could bring with them. Given the usual time constraints, any walled place would have practically unlimited ammunition compared to a field army. The besieging archer would have his regular old quiver, but it starts looking limited compared to the defender up on the wall who's pulling arrows out of a barrel sitting next to him...

[FactionHeir]

As for ammo amounts? Actually, any decently reinforced settlement had far, FAR more ammunition than any field army could bring with them. Given the usual time constraints, any walled place would have practically unlimited ammunition compared to a field army. The besieging archer would have his regular old quiver, but it starts looking limited compared to the defender up on the wall who's pulling arrows out of a barrel sitting next to him...

Considering towers got unlimited ammo and archers/engines inside the town have the same limit on ammo as those outside, I think there's something illogical going on

[sapi]

@chickenhawk - i believe that boiling oil was removed because you could easily hold the enemy up in the gatehouse and kill them by the dozen.

Add that to the new building/wall control system of m2tw and it'd be carnage just to get through the gate...

[JCoyote]

Add that to the new building/wall control system of m2tw and it'd be carnage just to get through the gate...

What? You mean it's supposed to be easy to go through the gate of a heavily reinforced defensive position?

I think it would actually make siege towers, ladders, and knocking out walls with artillery more attractive options is all.

[Carl]

Ive got to agree with you JCoyote.

I've heard it was changed because in MP it and the old tower control system was making sieges extremely easy for the defender.

Without meaning any insult however, it's my opinion that much of this is the MP communities own fault for insisting on playing with equal florin levels. The entire point of towers, walls, gates, boiling oil and all the rest if it is that it gives the defender a LOT more firepower and ability for his army size than an attacking opponent. In effect, even with artillery and siege equipment it SHOULD take a significantly more expensive attacking stack to defeat a given size of defending force.

Rather than nerfing siege defenses to hell they should have introduced an algorithm into the custom/MP battle selection mode that ensures the attacker always has say double the defenders money. Thats the theoretical ideal IMHO, that a defending force should be about equal to a double size attacking force.

[chilling]

I'd like to be able to lock the gates like you could in MTW1. Any troops split out should just turn round and route.

They know you've abandoned them as you've shut the gates on them. If it was me I'd be doing my best to run away without being killed.