On Sieges

from Elemental Forums

Anyone else feel castle sieges are a bit lackluster atm? Essentially the same as any other battle plus 2 archers for the defender. I guess this is placeholder but I can only comment on the game as is so. . .

I feel like the castle should be an element of the battle, simplest implementation might be to have it shoot siege type ranged (eg: skorpion / catapult) as if a unit. The effectiveness could mirror upgrade level of the on-map ranged attack or have its own separate upgrades.

Also I think watchtowers should be similarly implemented, but there seems to be plans to give them a defense rating. Maybe castles should have one too, and the hit points of both only be attackable on the tactical map and after defending units have been dispatched, forcing attackers to withstand some damage from the castle/watchtower attack while they sap it.

I could mention siege units here but I feel this may be beyond the intended scope of the game ;)

17,932 views 5 replies
Reply #1 from SorcererKing Forums Top

I really don't like siege mechanics at current.

 

Sieging an enemy usually means taking my large army to kill 2 melee and 2 archers. At the beginning of the game this may be a bit difficult, but very quickly becomes trivial. 

I rarely try to defend my own territory, as SK units usually just randomly wander through and die to outposts / city damage, or are passing through to somewhere else(?). Coupled with limited logistics, and many weak stacks from SK it usually isn't worth the units or effort to hunt the stacks down individually. Occasionally though, SK will attack a city. I only get 2 archers to defend (why does AI get more?), and have occasionally lost by underestimating enemy. My level 7 city that I have built up all game? Gone to 2 wargs because I didn't realize the initiative difference between them and archers. 

 

City defenses should improve as city levels up. 

A mechanic as in EL to siege a city to reduce city defenses would not be amiss.

SK needs to act in a rational manner - are you attacking me or not? SK doesn't feel like a faction, but just like all the randomly roaming monsters of FE have been put under one banner without any plan.

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

In tactical battles for cities e.g. sieges, I think that watchtowers should provide a stationary building shooting arrows or the like with a low initiative. With battlements it could add some archers stationed away from the battlefield. Both the watch tower and the archers on the battlefielld should only be reached by ranged weapons, flying units (Varda), incorporal units (Banshee, unless the defenders has some kind of spiritual wall) or when all defenders on the battlefield has been vanquished. With all the defenders vanquished the attackers/besiegers could attack the door/gate.


if the attacker defeats the units on the battlefield and the watch tower/archers the siege is won.

It would also be nice to see siege engines e.g. ballista, javelin etc. which can target the watch tower or the battlements.

Another suggestion would be to make the battlefield "interactive" e.g. be able to destroy buildings, set fire to plants, bushes or trees. For example on tactical maps, where the middle is restricted due to a narrowing by plants, it could be possible to destroy the bushes to open a wider path. 

Another suggestion is the Line of Sight. 

I am aware this is a beta and that the engine and resources might set some limitations on the possibilities.

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

Let's face it guys - we need proper city sieges: with archers on city walls and siege units. There is siege mechanic in every single HoMM and AOW game. Even the latest ones, with 3D engine, have this (in HoMM it looks a bit lame though). I know making siege mechanic costs and those games have bigger budget, and but it's worth it. Archers leaving city walls to defend the city, really?

If sieges won't make it to vanilla SK, than make a DLC for SK (or for FE:LH!). I think people will pay for it. If not than please make it part of your next 4X fantasy game (War of Magic 2 or Fallen Enchantress 2 or whatever Derek is working on :grin: ).

Reply #4 from SorcererKing Forums Top

On one side it makes sense that cities have some kind of defenses as they get more important, but on the other side this allows the player to forget about protecting his land, and I think that removes depth (and fun!) from the game.

Having towers and walls a la HOMM is ok, but having free units is too much. Unless those units are some sort of militia units, representing the untrained citizens that grab what they have to defend themselves instead of just surrendering.

Reply #5 from SorcererKing Forums Top

I think the player's cities should remain as are, but the SK's cities need to scale with something. The doomsday counter sounds about right, but maybe proximity to the SK would be better.

Distant outposts are guarded by merely two Trogs and two Trog archers, but if he manages to build a city nearby his fortress, it'll be guarded by swarms of shadows wargs and a juggernaut, maybe even a few umberdroth.