1257 replies to this topic

[Myrdin]

yea shikari, that was what i was referring to
what strategy are you using that leaves you stuffed inside a castle without any siege and little defense other than a few archers on walls? if you are facing a brutal you should probably have an army stong enough to destroy a few trebs (even if its just hit-and-run) and if you dont, i suggest you slow it down to hard

this was just model situation, im not stupid to do this to myself
but you are stucked, if he slashes pierces burns knocbacks and whatever else your army with his, then of course if his army is victorious over yours, he goes for your fort.

well whatever you guys just closing your eyes before the truth. Just you to know this " during medieval, trebuchets and catapults and stuff like this, was WERY wurnareable to fire, it were simple wooden constructions ( sad, after the newest researches, the Roman empire had far more advanced siege machines then people many centuries after them, praise Discowery channel ), and it wasnt really hard to ignite them, all you needed was something burning ( piece of wood thrown at them, cloathes soaked in oil, or burning arrows ), soo if you guys want REALISM, then THIS is REALISTIC, not fire immune only to cavalery weak siege engines.

[Dalmp]

The weak point of a seige engine is not the wood. The weak point is the engineers.

[myster]

actually it kinda is both... you can set the wood on fire wich destroys the siege engine... and you can kill the engineers wich stops the shooting(tho maybe after a while other people will come and shoot again)

[Dalf32]

ive gone on realism rants with siege before and i suppose its time for a little one here:
if you really want your siege to be realistic, then they wouldnt be on wheels, they would be built at the spot. they would take much much longer to reload, it would take a team of many more than two to man it, and they would do a ton more damage. also, the current trebuchet model would not really work unless the counterweight was many times heavier than it actually appears to be (i.e. it would need to be a few times larger to get the distance that its getting). a real trebuchet would raise the counterweight to the point that it was abou 45 degrees to the ground, and the projectile arm would not be horizontal as it is now, but would also be about 45 degrees with the ground, perhaps more. it would need to be much larger all around basically.
you must also think that this is very very thick wood, a small flaming arrow is like throwing a lighter at an oak tree. its not gonna do all that much. the arrow would likely stick into the wood and go out. try lighting a hunk of wood with a lighter and see how long it takes ;P

so there it is, my latest siege rant. i do enjoy these lol.

[Shikari]

Nice rant Don't go burning any trees down trying this out though kids.....

[Myrdin]

ive gone on realism rants with siege before and i suppose its time for a little one here:
if you really want your siege to be realistic, then they wouldnt be on wheels, they would be built at the spot. they would take much much longer to reload, it would take a team of many more than two to man it, and they would do a ton more damage. also, the current trebuchet model would not really work unless the counterweight was many times heavier than it actually appears to be (i.e. it would need to be a few times larger to get the distance that its getting). a real trebuchet would raise the counterweight to the point that it was abou 45 degrees to the ground, and the projectile arm would not be horizontal as it is now, but would also be about 45 degrees with the ground, perhaps more. it would need to be much larger all around basically.
you must also think that this is very very thick wood, a small flaming arrow is like throwing a lighter at an oak tree. its not gonna do all that much. the arrow would likely stick into the wood and go out. try lighting a hunk of wood with a lighter and see how long it takes ;P

so there it is, my latest siege rant. i do enjoy these lol.

you wannt to teach me ?!
just to warn you that history of medieval age ( european ), is my hobby.

btw to that lighter theory of yours, the ropes which were mostly used, were soaked in oil or some king of luquied " stuff " ( sorry but english isnt ma mother language soo its not 100%, and i lack some words of art ), soo if the fire would hit the ropes the whole construction would be consumed by fire, in less then few minutes.

i think we both know enough of " selected " knowledge, and we both have sources from which we can get the needed information. Soo let us stop here, and let the realism be realism.

btw, just fuc*** nerf the damn trebuchets armor, instead pump their attack, it ll be fair, and will work fine

[CIL]

I know alot about Japanese, Korean and Chinese history as well as European history (naval, land, economy, etc.). Did you know that the Chinese and Japanese were using bombs in naval warfare around 1000 Anno Domini? And that the Chinese had flamethrowers 500 years after Christ's birth? Anyways, catapults DID have wheels from time to time, according to my immensely vast knowledge of world history and culture. Actually... only some did... but that matters not, what matters is if they did. And they did.

Edited by Crazy Intellectual Liberal, 20 March 2008 - 08:53 PM.

[Dalf32]

i knew they used bombs/explosives, but i didnt know they had flamethrowers! *gasp* i guess you learn something new everyday lol
anyways, my point is that few did and for a long while, none did. let me also clarify, i am speakin solely about trebuchets and not of catapults as i dont know nearly as much about them.

and to which ropes are you referring myrdin? a trebuchet has 1 rope (2 if you count the other part of it) that attatches to the sling and i doubt an archer would be able to hit those ropes as they are underneath the main structure of the trebuchet (when loaded).

[Dalmp]

Seriously gentlemen, siege engines were rarely destroyed in battle. Rare in the extreme. They were dismantled after battles. It's really just a weapon. Do you destroy the gun, or the person holding the gun? Well, attempting one will probably be fatal for you, because a person without his gun is far more dangerous than the gun without it's person. Not only that, but flesh is weaker than wood. You don't even need fire arrows. Regular arrows work fine on flesh and blood. Trying to light an engine on fire is ludicrous, with the engineers standing around watching you, and the rest of the army also watching in amazement that you are spending hours trying to burn it, while ignoring the dudes with the swords and spears. (think about this - seriously lol).

Although I can just imagine a monty-python skit over something like this. A couple of seige engineers standing nearby sniggering and saying 'No, no, you gotta use more fire arrows' while they smacked their foreheads like homer simpson, and rolled around laughing.

Realistically? Kill the people around it. And then consider destroying it so that no one finds it later and uses it. But that makes for a poor game.

Edited by Dalmp, 20 March 2008 - 09:42 PM.

[Myrdin]

excuse me, cough cough,. but flamethrowers, were first used by the ancient Greeks, it was a one use weapon, and the efect itself was not much, but the psychological efect of this weapon was immense. The morale of enemies had endured shock.

btw i dont know how we end up here, but as im reading this, it looks like SOME poeple here ( referring to you, Crazy I. L. ) are trying to look cool, in the way if they show us what they know.

and dalmp, do you really think the enginers were stupid enough to stand there, sunbathe, and take some arrows as greetings form defenders.

they were out of range, dont forget that siege engines had far more range than normal missle weapons.

the only weapon, that could shot far enough, soo there was a chance of killing them, ( im not speaking about gun powder weapons ) the Legendary English Long bow, this bow was large, with big L. they were long as the poele wielding them. but it required a LOT of skill to use it. normal bows, crossbows and slings, nor spears, could not reach the enginers.

[Dalf32]

so basically what this whole discussion is getting at is that its probably best not to change anything? because thats what im seeing in all this mess.

and the ancient greek thing; are you referring to greek fire, because that was more of a napalm than a flamethrower; it just burned a lot.

[Dalmp]

and dalmp, do you really think the enginers were stupid enough to stand there, sunbathe, and take some arrows as greetings form defenders.

Certainly not. Because they wouldn't have been exposed to attack in the first place. There was a small matter of the army between them and their foes. And if that army was routed, they'd leave their machinery were it stood, and run like everyone else.

That's realism. But like I said, it doesn't make for entertaining RTS gameplay. I can't see how true realism has any bearing on how BFME siege engines should behave. Whatever works imo. That being said, I think I'm kind of derailing the topic, and I appologize for that.

Edited by Dalmp, 20 March 2008 - 11:54 PM.

[robnkarla]

so basically what this whole discussion is getting at is that its probably best not to change anything? because thats what im seeing in all this mess.

Nah, I know the point! Time to watch more Monty Python

As for realistic siege, as stated by others, it rarely ends up with fun gameplay. So as far as changes that I think could/should be made. Right now, Cavalry is meant to be a counter for siege, which I feel is an important piece of the balancing act.

The hardest part I feel in terms of balance in BFME2 and above are specialized arrows, specifically Silverthorne. When you make an adjustment to fire/fire arrows then the other arrow damage types need to be considered (Frost which is fine, but silverthorne use Magic). Since Magic is used by Hero units and such I always feel like I'm spinning plates.

While this is related to siege/fire/gamelpay discussion. Would anyone mind if I worked on changing the damage type of Silverthorne away from Magic, thus I could disconnect Gandalf, Saruman, & other hero's abilities so as to make a bigger distinction?

Basically, Silverthorne I think should be a new damage type instead of Magic. I think this could free me up in terms of balance of upgraded arrows and more, without worrying about the damage of Gandalf.

What impact would this have? Some of Gandalf's powers (and others) could then be the correct counter to high-end pikes without letting upgraded elven archers completely destorying pikes, etc.

What say you?

Robert J.

[CIL]

I like the idea but PLEASE DON'T make them throw the enemies back like Sauron's mace (Grond) or Galadriel on crack (ring)... It looks stupid and it is weird.

Edited by Crazy Intellectual Liberal, 21 March 2008 - 11:45 PM.

[Dalf32]

yea i like it, especially if it gives you more freedom to balance things out.

[Scryer]

so basically what this whole discussion is getting at is that its probably best not to change anything? because thats what im seeing in all this mess.

Nah, I know the point! Time to watch more Monty Python

As for realistic siege, as stated by others, it rarely ends up with fun gameplay. So as far as changes that I think could/should be made. Right now, Cavalry is meant to be a counter for siege, which I feel is an important piece of the balancing act.

The hardest part I feel in terms of balance in BFME2 and above are specialized arrows, specifically Silverthorne. When you make an adjustment to fire/fire arrows then the other arrow damage types need to be considered (Frost which is fine, but silverthorne use Magic). Since Magic is used by Hero units and such I always feel like I'm spinning plates.

While this is related to siege/fire/gamelpay discussion. Would anyone mind if I worked on changing the damage type of Silverthorne away from Magic, thus I could disconnect Gandalf, Saruman, & other hero's abilities so as to make a bigger distinction?

Basically, Silverthorne I think should be a new damage type instead of Magic. I think this could free me up in terms of balance of upgraded arrows and more, without worrying about the damage of Gandalf.

What impact would this have? Some of Gandalf's powers (and others) could then be the correct counter to high-end pikes without letting upgraded elven archers completely destorying pikes, etc.

What say you?

Robert J.

You did introduce the "Air" element through Elven siege.... So why not use that for arrows? Silverthorn arrows sound like they could get away with an "Air" element attached to them! I especially hated the STAs because of their cheap-ass throwback. There was no point in using heroes when you could have more Mirkwood archers with the STA upgrade.

I believe that Vilya (The air ring, if I remember correctly) was the most powerful out of the three, so I think that it would be pretty possible if it had a certain influence over the other 2 rings.

[Dalmp]

What say you?

[Myrdin]

i like the air element idea, but to make it fair it should do minimal dmg to buildings, while fire arrows do the dmg they do, Frost arrows ( angmar ) do good dmg against everything, soo if we implement the " air " arrows. well get 3 elements used, and two specials (HaradRhun) as Barded arrows, and Poison arrows.

soo overall we would have 5 diferent types of dmg. That sounds pretty cool to me

[Devon]

Doesn't really fit here, but what if we put arrows and pikes both back on pierce, like it was in bfme1 I think? And take away the silverthorn, but I don't really see how you get an air upgrade onto your arrows....I mean...it's air

[robnkarla]

I'm pretty sure BFME1 was specialist for spears and pierce for arrows. They need to have different damage types or I think it will really be an odd balance as armor vs. pikes would be the exact same as arrows.

As for the damage types and upgrade I'll probably use just something that is unused. There are things like WATER, TOPPLING, UNDEFINED codes that are not being use. As for the knockback, I'm hesitant not to change this as I know for many it's one of the things they really like about the Elves. This will just make it so the % amount of armor against hero powers can be adjusted without adjusting the arrows and visa versa.

Robert J.