I think the main problem is that you can't target the siege engine itself (or maybe that's just me ?
No, you can target the ram itself, though someone suggested that you should not do this but should target the unit pushing it as it increases the number of hits acheived.
Personally, I've tried both, but the inaccuracy of fire arrows means it doesn't make a lot of difference as far as I can see. It does make a difference with seige towers though, and I always target the tower not the men pushing it. That way the archers fire at the top and sides of the tower rather than its foot.
@Foz : nah, I never group anyone up when I'm defending a city, so that can't be it, although I do keep them on fire at will most of the time. But since you all say targetting the ram separately is possible, I guess I didn't try hard enough. Hovering the mouse over both the ram and the unit (and yes, btw, by "the men lugging it around", I meant the whole unit) showed me the same tooltip, so I assumed it counted as the same target... I'll have to try again.
But back on topic, after my last assault on that castle north of Scotland, I'd say fire arrows do work.
I had a tower set ablaze that I had made doubly sure was in a dead angle from the nearby towers (plus they were both busy shooting juicy peasants deployed right in front of them for their personnal enjoyment), but there was one unit of peasant archers volleying it. They finally managed to set it on fire just as my own Norse Archers were starting to unload sedately (since, you know, you lads had me convinced they weren't in any real danger ), but thankfully most of them made it to the relative safety of the unmanned rempart before the tower crumbled...only to rout immediately afterwards... right through a bunch of Highlanders.
What's weird is that the peasants hit my tower a whole lot, but the damage was still 0%, and then one hit set it to 20something% and burning fairly quick. It's like "safe...safe...perfectly safe...BROKEN, ROW FOR YOUR LIIIIIVES !" . Which is perhaps why you guys doubt they work ? I'd wager everyhit has a chance to work, but that chance is really, really low to give the sieger a sporting chance.
No, you can target the ram itself, though someone suggested that you should not do this but should target the unit pushing it as it increases the number of hits acheived.
Personally, I've tried both and not noticed much difference, the inaccuracy of fire arrows means it doesn't make a lot of difference as far as I can see. It does make a difference with seige towers though, and I always target the tower not the men pushing it. That way the archers fire at the top and sides of the tower rather than its foot.
True. I probably should've noted that I was (and am) using Lusted's LTC 2.3 projectile files, which make arrows (presumably fire included) considerably more accurate. That's probably why I can actually tell that my guys are shooting at the ram instead of the unit.
True. I probably should've noted that I was (and am) using Lusted's LTC 2.3 projectile files, which make arrows (presumably fire included) considerably more accurate. That's probably why I can actually tell that my guys are shooting at the ram instead of the unit.
Ah! well this is always the problem with discussions on this forum. There are so many mods around its impossible to establish whether we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
Reminds me of the guy who was complaining that his city had just been overrun by two units of uber-peasants, only to admit later that he had been fiddling with his combat settings to try and improve historical accuracy on the battlefield.
One thing I noticed was that the OP had used large unit sizes (archer unit has 120 soldiers). I usually use the standard size (60 archers per unit). So, could it be that the size of the units used plays a big factor here. In my case, it would be 3 x 60 archers shooting at the ram (using the same army setup), whereas in OP's case it's 3 x 120archers shooting at the very same ram... Twice as many arrows should burn the ram with higher probability.
On unrelated note, using casual obervation, I have had more luck burnign seige equipment using "fire at will" rather than trying to target anything in particular.
One thing I noticed was that the OP had used large unit sizes (archer unit has 120 soldiers). I usually use the standard size (60 archers per unit).
Thats a very good point. I always play with 'Huge Units' set becuase I like my armies to look as much like armies as I can. But it does make a lot of difference not just to the effectiveness of 'fire arrows'. The ram is just one ram even with Huge set but its now getting pelted with twice as many arrows from the same number of units.
Originally Posted by Sinan
It is truly inconceivable to play the vanilla for me. Didz once you go black you never go back... or so they say.
I have considered it on several occassions but I don't have any real issues with the vanilla version so its never seemed worth the hassle.
If anything the problems some people had with 1.2 have made me even more cautious, my upgrade went without a hitch.
BTW: Nifty, trick with the hidden images how did you achevie that? (is it a standard control feature somewhere)
Thats a very good point. I always play with 'Huge Units' set becuase I like my armies to look as much like armies as I can. But it does make a lot of difference not just to the effectiveness of 'fire arrows'. The ram is just one ram even with Huge set but its now getting pelted with twice as many arrows from the same number of units.
You and Sinan bring up a good point. I seem to recall that there were some mechanics in RTW that specifically scaled with unit sizes, garrison value being a specific one. It could very well be that the probability for siege equipment ignition is coded up to account for different unit sizes and for projectile output. /shrug
"Justice is the firm and continuous desire to render to everyone
that which is his due." - Justinian I
You and Sinan bring up a good point. I seem to recall that there were some mechanics in RTW that specifically scaled with unit sizes, garrison value being a specific one. It could very well be that the probability for siege equipment ignition is coded up to account for different unit sizes and for projectile output. /shrug
Did anyone hear a BANG ? Excellent point, Whacker!!!
If you remember me from M:TW days add me on Steam, do mention your org name.
It is truly inconceivable to play the vanilla for me. Didz once you go black you never go back... or so they say. Sure held true for me, as far as M2:TW is concerned. If you need some recommendations, instructions or assistance I'll be glad to help. You'll never play vanilla again, that's for sure. Mods are doing for M2:TW what water does for life. You guys don't know what you are missing. With the level of GFX M2:TW has achieved there are a lot of simple GFX mods whihc make the game unbeatable. It is not only about GFX, you can mod the game so easily for the most part, you can even give every nation a strategic profile, mods only deepen the game. Just look at Broken Crescent, 120 new units, hundreds of ancillarys, traits, triggers, completely new map, all the way to DELHI. There's so much much improved.
Can you find this in vanilla:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Look at the detail on the Frank, check the Fleur de Lis. Look at the Islanders in the background, look at the horse barding.
Look at the armor on these guys.
Vanilla Pikemen compared to these.. not for me.
Before and after, any comparison. Nope.
Those are very simple images of a very basic mod: Burrek's Europeans.
The vanilla game is just awful, in comparison. No offence guys, that's my opinion. Hope you can respect it, as I respect yours; that vanilla is great. I do not share it though but I appreciate that this is your view. I'm not dissing it either, I'm attempting to show another aspect.
I will do my tests in vanilla 1.20 for community value, when I actually get through all the rest I have to do.
I've had 5 Retiunues fail to burn a single ram on many occasions. There is no doubt that they do work, but to what degree ? How many Archers are enough ?
I'd recommend that someone just do it if they have the time.
It will settle the issue and we will have a concrete quantitative conclusion, along these lines (<-link)
Last edited by Shahed; 05-16-2007 at 17:22.
If you remember me from M:TW days add me on Steam, do mention your org name.
It is truly inconceivable to play the vanilla for me. Didz once you go black you never go back... or so they say. Sure held true for me, as far as M2:TW is concerned. If you need some recommendations, instructions or assistance I'll be glad to help. You'll never play vanilla again, that's for sure. Mods are doing for M2:TW what water does for life. You guys don't know what you are missing. With the level of GFX M2:TW has achieved there are a lot of simple GFX mods whihc make the game unbeatable. It is not only about GFX, you can mod the game so easily for the most part, you can even give every nation a strategic profile, mods only deepen the game. Just look at Broken Crescent, 120 new units, hundreds of ancillarys, traits, triggers, completely new map, all the way to DELHI. There's so much much improved.
Can you find this in vanilla:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Look at the detail on the Frank, check the Fleur de Lis. Look at the Islanders in the background, look at the horse barding.
Look at the armor on these guys.
Vanilla Pikemen compared to these.. not for me.
Before and after, any comparison. Nope.
Those are very simple images of a very basic mod: Burrek's Europeans.
The vanilla game is just awful, in comparison. No offence guys, that's my opinion. Hope you can respect it, as I respect yours; that vanilla is great. I do not share it though but I appreciate that this is your view. I'm not dissing it either, I'm attempting to show another aspect.
I will do my tests in vanilla 1.20 for community value, when I actually get through all the rest I have to do.
I've had 5 Retiunues fail to burn a single ram on many occasions. There is no doubt that they do work, but to what degree ? How many Archers are enough ?
I'd recommend that someone just do it if they have the time.
It will settle the issue and we will have a concrete quantitative conclusion, along these lines (<-link)
Look at the...what the? Phantom horses!!! (no legs or lower body?)
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
True. I probably should've noted that I was (and am) using Lusted's LTC 2.3 projectile files, which make arrows (presumably fire included) considerably more accurate. That's probably why I can actually tell that my guys are shooting at the ram instead of the unit.
I seem to remember a certain Foz lecturing people about not discussing strategy in the game at all if they have modded the time scale because their game play would be fundamentally different than everyone else's.
I seem to remember a certain Foz lecturing people about not discussing strategy in the game at all if they have modded the time scale because their game play would be fundamentally different than everyone else's.
Haha. I haven't been hypocritical just yet, Smith. Shooting a ram with fiery arrows hardly counts as strategy!
Seriously though, I don't think the changes to accuracy can change the ability of a fire arrow to light siege equipment on fire or not do so. It may change the rate that it happens for me, which would make it easier for me to demonstrate that it is a working feature, but it can't govern whether or not arrows can set equipment on fire. It's rather like if you wanted to see if a bullet in the head would kill a man. You take a gun and give it to your next door neighbor Joe the Plummer, and let him shoot at some guy 100 meters down a shooting range, until he scores a hit and presumably kills the guy (say it takes Joe 75 tries, he is a poor shot). I, instead, hand that gun to a world champion marksman, who nails the target guy on the first shot. My guy finds out on the first try that bullets in the head kill people... but the choice of how accurate the shooter will be bears no relevance to the lethality of the headshot, it only makes it more convenient to see it in action. It should be exactly the same with fire arrows.
In fact theoretically you should be able to get a great idea of how the fire arrows work by setting your archers to have a flat 100% accuracy (I think a 0 goes in the file, it says accuracy but seems to actually use a variable that says how much the shot will miss). When your archers bullseye the ram every single shot, it shouldn't be hard to tell if they can or cannot light it on fire.
That leads to yet another observation though: my bet is that archers are just so inaccurate typically that not enough hits are scored on the ram to have a statistically decent chance of success, which is why it seems impossible to do in vanilla. It also may be required that the arrows score a statistical hit on the ram's armor, whatever the game has decided that value is. So it isn't even necessarily the case that every arrow that appears to hit the ram actually scores a hit, it could only be a small percentage. Just watch arrows hit men in a normal battle if you don't believe they can miss while physically hitting. Of those that score statistical hits, they may have to pass a check to light the ram on fire. A tiered system like that could make it a VERY unlikely occurrence: you'd have to hit the physical ram, hit the statistical ram, and make the fire check. If we assume 5% chance of any of those 3 things happening, a given arrow would do it 1 in 8,000 times. That could be a lot of hoops to jump through, and some long odds.
I guess the biggest implication of all that is my speculation that archer attack value may in fact matter, if the game doesn't just assume any arrow intersecting the ram is capable of harming it (as is the case with men, they shrug many arrows off).
Haha. I haven't been hypocritical just yet, Smith. Shooting a ram with fiery arrows hardly counts as strategy!
You may have won this battle, Foz!
Originally Posted by Foz
That leads to yet another observation though: my bet is that archers are just so inaccurate typically that not enough hits are scored on the ram to have a statistically decent chance of success, which is why it seems impossible to do in vanilla. It also may be required that the arrows score a statistical hit on the ram's armor, whatever the game has decided that value is. So it isn't even necessarily the case that every arrow that appears to hit the ram actually scores a hit, it could only be a small percentage. Just watch arrows hit men in a normal battle if you don't believe they can miss while physically hitting. Of those that score statistical hits, they may have to pass a check to light the ram on fire. A tiered system like that could make it a VERY unlikely occurrence: you'd have to hit the physical ram, hit the statistical ram, and make the fire check. If we assume 5% chance of any of those 3 things happening, a given arrow would do it 1 in 8,000 times. That could be a lot of hoops to jump through, and some long odds.
I guess the biggest implication of all that is my speculation that archer attack value may in fact matter, if the game doesn't just assume any arrow intersecting the ram is capable of harming it (as is the case with men, they shrug many arrows off).
I was thinking the same thing during a recent siege. I think it can be partly blamed on the whole rampart issue where archers have trouble firing while on top of walls and instead shoot in high arcs. The effect is that the vast majority of arrows miss the mark completely, making them even less accurate than usual. Even with one rank deep on a wall, once the ram gets at a small enough angle, a good deal of the archers will start firing at a high arc over the archers to their side.
The next time I have a siege battle with Dismounted Dvor on my walls, I'll see if I can do anything spectacular. Their long range arrows and greater arrow damage should mean a longer sustained, straight line barrage of arrow fire.
Just watch arrows hit men in a normal battle if you don't believe they can miss while physically hitting.
I've seen this a lot - I assumed from the physical appearance of the solider appearing 'bloodied' that each arrow inflicts a certain amount of damage unless its an immediate fatal blow.
@Lupiscanis
Well you can certainly see arrows strike enemy troops and cause them to flinch, producing a nice spray of blood in the process. You can also hear the 'plink, plink' of arrows hitting and glancing off armour if you move the camera over the unit under fire.
Under heavy fire units actually get driven backwards by the constant impact of striking crossbow bolts etc.
We also know that the game does include a Hit Point system, because we are told that certain traits and retinue figures increase the HP of our general's.
In STW the history of every man in a unit was seperately maintained so for example a unit of Yari might have some men still wearing out of date armor whilst the rest were wearing the latest kit, and you could look at the data file and see which of the soldiers in the unit had killed the most enemies etc. So, assuming that approach has been carried forward throughout the series it would be pretty simple to include individual HP per man in the unit data file. The only way to be sure would be to look but I'm not aware of any utility that lets you do that with MTW2.
I've seen this a lot - I assumed from the physical appearance of the solider appearing 'bloodied' that each arrow inflicts a certain amount of damage unless its an immediate fatal blow.
Am I an ass for assuming? =p
AFAIK in TW being bloddied just shows a sucessfull hit that missed. most units have ony one hit point so even if they were "hit" multiple times and survived, the survivability of the next hit is the same.
i dont know if M2/ or rome itroduced a factor where each missed hit/"wounding" increased the chances of a subsequent hit getting through the defences but if not no matter how bloodied a unit looks all other factors being the same it is equally hard to kill as a fresh unit.
ive seen units being hit bu sucessive arrows (staggering animation, puffs of blood) bt still not dying like any respectable soldier lol
it would be interesting if each defended hit would make the unit lose 20% of its stamina or something like that?? just thinking...
"Forgiveness is between them and god, my job is to arrange the meeting"
Indeed. Noticed those soldiers who take 30 arrows or more to kill, they are too frequent. KENSAI !!! all over the place. Some impact on would add further depth to an already great engine.
If you remember me from M:TW days add me on Steam, do mention your org name.
Re: Seiges: Proof that fire arrows do work.
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
Reply With Quote
), but thankfully most of them made it to the relative safety of the unmanned rempart before the tower crumbled...only to rout immediately afterwards... right through a bunch of Highlanders. 
Re: Seiges: Proof that fire arrows do work.
Bookmarks