Siege Units

[NTJedi]

Endoperez said:
Your sidenote is reflected by the province's resources.

Why should the siege engines be seen? We can presume they are already built, because we agreed that the siege engineers aren't throwing boulders on their own. I thought we already agreed in that the siege engines won't do any fighting.

Siege engines such as Siege Towers and Battering Rams would do none or very little on the battlefield. The catapults would be the most effective on the battlefield by actively hurling boulders or diseased animals. Of course balance would need to be setup regarding siege damage, battlefield damage and cost of unit.

Endoperez said:
They wouldn't hurl anything in the battle, would they? And if they aren't in the battle, where else should they show?

The units would be both in the battlefield and traveling as units. Ideally these units should not be allowed to travel in swamp, mountains and probably forests too.

Endoperez said:
They aren't actual units with hp, they are tools with which the (unseen) workers bombard the castle walls and the defenders.

A wooden construct magically animated has a specific amount of hitpoints until it's destroyed. The same would be true with catapults and other siege equipment. The only difference between the two is one is magically activated to work and one is manually activated to work.

Endoperez said:And siege animations can't be done with two-sprite graphics,

Siege Towers don't need to do anything in the battlefield. Catapults only need as many animations as used by the archers we see now... firing boulders already exist.

The Siege Engineers have an icon for their Siege Bonus. It is a stnoe-hurling device of some kind IIRC.

The actual siege engine(s) cannot be destroyed... my suggestion would make them realistic targets along with the engineers instead of just the engineers.

Endoperez said:
We never see anyone hurling the boulders, so your first point doesn't come up.

Jotun giants hurl boulders short distances... the catapult would allow actual engines to hurl boulders on the battlefield as what's happened in history. My suggestion only makes the battles more realistic.

Endoperez said:
Destroying individual catapults would also only make a percentage of the total siege value, into which the units and the other siege engines would still effect. I don't see what you are trying to say with that.

What I'm suggesting is a new type of unit for Dominions which existed within history for many nations. A mobile unit which cannot fight back in melee combat with it's effectiveness towards sieging fortications. The catapult would have some effect on the battlefield.

Endoperez said:
With the current setup, it is possible to try to disable the individual commanders (Siege Engineers, or Catapults) which are most efficient at sieging; if the catapults were units instead, they couldn't be assassinated. Because of this, I think it's better to have the siege engines be commanders instead of units - otherwise it would be harder to try to disable the catapults.

Yes siege engines could be individual commanders with engineers as the units... additionally players could set guards for the siege engines if they wish.

Endoperez said:
If we make the catapults be commanders, the effect would be exactly the same as changing current Siege Engineers' graphics into that of a squad manning a catapult. That can be done, but it is then only a matter of taste.

It does more... The catapults would also be able to shoot heavy long range damage on the battlefield. Currently this does not exist for units without magic paths or magic weapons. Currently every unit has the ability to melee fight... these new siege units would not. My suggestion adds new types of units. One for purely increasing the speed of storming and one for increasing storming and providing heavy long range damage which was also part of history.

Endoperez said:Again, I thought you mentioned the catapults wouldn't be seen on the battlefield.

Read my posts again and you will see siege units should be on the battlefield thus allows those breaking the siege an opportunity to break the siege weapons.

[Edi]

NT_Jedi, when did you join Club Stupid? I don't know what it is with you, but you seem to be completely incapable of grasping the fact that you have no goddamn point at all. You want to add an extra layer of complication that does absolutely NOTHING simply for the sake of adding it. The existing mechanics cover siege engines quite well, so why complicate the system?

The only suggestion you made that has any merit is the addition of long range missile units, but those would be anti-unit missile units in combat and would be treated as normal albeit mindless units. If they had a siege bonus, fine, then they'd also serve the function of siege engines, but I fail to understand why you need to inject all the extra crap into this discussion.

Edi

[Daynarr]

Keep discussion civil please. I'd rather not have to close this thread.

[Endoperez]

From your earlier posts, I was under the impression that you wanted siege engines that help during the siege, but do nothing or next to nothing on the battlefield; they could be desroyed on the battlefield, and would have to be protected, but would be otherwise nearly useless.

First, battering rams and siege towers wouldn't add anything Siege engineer, the commander, doesn't already model. They have to be protected, they shouldn't be in melee, if they are present during the siege, the walls go down.

You agreed to this earlier:

I don't expect battering rams or siege towers to do anything on the battlefield or very very little. Their purpose is to allow storming to occur more quickly... when they are on the battlefield it provides players a chance to destroy siege equipment.

Would this be any different from the current Siege Engineers? Their purpose is to allow storming to occur more quickly, and their existance on the battlefield and as commanders provides players a chance to destroy the siege bonus, whether from equipment or from the lack of trained user.

Second, adding a whole new caste of ranged units that are much more powerful than any existing unit is a bit too complicated to my tastes.

The Siege Engineers have an icon for their Siege Bonus. It is a stnoe-hurling device of some kind IIRC.

The actual siege engine(s) cannot be destroyed... my suggestion would make them realistic targets along with the engineers instead of just the engineers.

What difference would it make? They could attack in battle, but I'd rather not have that. It'd be stupid if they were powerful enough to be used in common fights e.g. against indies. "On turn 3, attack with your massed catapults."
If they were as weak as stone-hurling devices which take a few shots to adjust to hit a castle should be, they'd only fire a stone every five turns or so, so their second shot would already endanger your own melee units. They would have to be set to guard commander, if they were units, or be guarded, if they were commanders. It'd be much easier to destroy siege equipment that it is currently. Also, it wouldn't be realistic for the armies to build siege engines against a fight with barbarians, or to reassemble their siege engines from the parts included in the Siege Engineer's cost as resources when fighting those barbarians.

Of course your opinion is as valid as that of anyone else, but I fail to see why it is so important that the siege engines can be realistically destroyed. The siege in Dominions is already very abstract - no one dies, except from starvation/disease, until one party decides to attack. In my opinion, whether the defender tries to destroy siege engineer or his siege engines makes no difference - except that, realistically, siege engineer can build new siege engines, but siege engines might be unusable without the siege engineer. With every turn equaling a month, there'd be lots and lots of siege engines in just a couple of turns.

[NTJedi]

Edi said:
NT_Jedi, when did you join Club Stupid? I don't know what it is with you, but you seem to be completely incapable of grasping the fact that you have no goddamn point at all.

Keep the discussion civil... if you don't understand that's fine. No reason to morph into a troll.

The existing mechanics cover siege engines quite well, so why complicate the system?

The current system has no siege engines... only siege engineers which give a siege bonus. Currently when sieging a castle all units are troops which can melee fight. My suggestion of siege engines adds a new type of troop.... common historical siege units which are different from any current type of unit in the game which results in new strategies.

[NTJedi]

Endoperez said:
First, battering rams and siege towers wouldn't add anything Siege engineer, the commander, doesn't already model.
....
Would this be any different from the current Siege Engineers? Their purpose is to allow storming to occur more quickly, and their existance on the battlefield and as commanders provides players a chance to destroy the siege bonus, whether from equipment or from the lack of trained user.

Actually the battering rams and siege towers would be immune to poison and probably with some fire weakness. Siege Towers would obviously have lots more life than a regular engineer as well. Also siege engines can be different for nations which is more variety than the current siege engineers.
Also within the current setup only the engineers can be killed compared with my suggestion which would make both the engineers and the siege engines targets as seen within historical battles.

Endoperez said:
Adding a whole new caste of ranged units that are much more powerful than any existing unit is a bit too complicated to my tastes.

Sorry to hear, but I like the idea of adding new content that would add new strategies to battle which is historically accurate.

Endoperez said:
It'd be stupid if they were powerful enough to be used in common fights e.g. against indies. "On turn 3, attack with your massed catapults."

First catapults should have limited shots and it will be a single boulder which is not very effective against most types of indies. Catapults will also have slow movement. As I commented earlier the balance would have to be setup for cost, siege bonus and battlefield damage. Mass catapults on turn 3. (that was funny) LOL

Endoperez said:
If they were as weak as stone-hurling devices which take a few shots to adjust to hit a castle should be, they'd only fire a stone every five turns or so, so their second shot would already endanger your own melee units.

I've seen plenty of posts about people losing troops to friendly fire from archers... this isn't much different. Also it depends on how the battle is going... I've had plenty of battles where enemy rear troops could not be reached while mechanical men, undead and living statues duked out a battle in the middle.

Endoperez said: Also, it wouldn't be realistic for the armies to build siege engines against a fight with barbarians, or to reassemble their siege engines from the parts included in the Siege Engineer's cost as resources when fighting those barbarians.

Of course siege engines wouldn't be used against barbarians. Siege engines are primarily for storming castles more quickly and the catapults can be used to attack rear troops... barbarian indies won't be in the rear of a battlefield.

Endoperez said:
Of course your opinion is as valid as that of anyone else, but I fail to see why it is so important that the siege engines can be realistically destroyed. The siege in Dominions is already very abstract - no one dies, except from starvation/disease, until one party decides to attack.

Currently in Dominions only the units with siege bonus can be killed in battle this gives the attacker an advantage because there are less important units to guard compared with what actually happened in history. In history both the units and siege engines could be targeted.

Endoperez said:
With every turn equaling a month, there'd be lots and lots of siege engines in just a couple of turns.

Now this is where game balance has to be considered the same as many other things. Example units auto-retreat after 50turns which can be seen as providing game balance so players don't win via some long delay method. Siege engines just like every unit within the game will need to be properly balanced.


-- EDIT = to remove earth gem example and replace with a better example.

[Edi]

NTJedi said:

Keep the discussion civil... if you don't understand that's fine. No reason to morph into a troll.

Believe me, I'm far from being a troll here. If I really wanted to flame you, you'd notice it. But perhaps a somewhat harsher tone makes it sink in that people are getting frustrated with the Wall of Dismissal you've erected to bounce everyone's arguments off without addressing the points.

NTJedi said:

The current system has no siege engines... only siege engineers which give a siege bonus.

What part of the argument about a level of abstraction in the portrayal of sieges did you fail to understand? It's been repeated many times.

NTJedi said:
Currently when sieging a castle all units are troops which can melee fight. My suggestion of siege engines adds a new type of troop.... common historical siege units which are different from any current type of unit in the game which results in new strategies.

What new strategies would those be? Spend gold and resources on units that slow your army down to a crawl, cost upkeep and prevent you from moving through a lot of terrains and are only usable part of the time. The rest of the time they would just sit somewhere with their crews dicking around with their thumbs up their ***. They'd also have to be more or less vulnerable to fire (so a fire susceptibility would make them a dicey proposition in addition to the other drawbacks). What exactly is so superior about this?

The reason there are no siege engines like siege towers and battering rams on the field during the battle replay is that the breaching has already been done and what you see is more or less an abstract of what happened in the battle (instead of the actual storming of the walls).

If you absolutely had to have the kind of missile siege engines you're talking about, it could be programmed much like fort defenses are. Each nation gets a number of siege engines based on their fort type or production scale or whatever factor you want to use for determining it (or just use the nation, as is already done with the fort), and they act like a fort defense but on the attacker's side. Of course, to compensate, you'd have to double or triple fort defenses to even things out a bit.

If you want to insist on these siege engines, then the least you could do is come up with some suggestions that are actually implementable without substantially increasing micro, bogging down play and requiring rejiggering all national troop compositions and other elements. If you really want minor fluff like this, then bring an actually sensible proposition to the table.

Edi

[Endoperez]

To sum this up, it seems that you think that it is too easy to break down castle walls, and would rather give defender easy ways to destroy the siege engines that would do most of the wall-breaking job. I don't think such a chance is needed.

The siege engines would also have a role in the battlefield, by targeting enemy rear (hopefully just archers, because fire at mages/commanders was removed for a reason). There could also be different effects for different nations, even though this would probably be an even lesser consern as siege engines won't be used much on the battlefield any way.
I don't think we need ranged units that spesifically target enemy archers, and national differences can be emphasized in other ways as well. If siege engines were implemented, I don't see why these changes couldn't be added, as well.

I quess it comes down to whether a change is needed. Matter of taste.

[NTJedi]

Endoperez said:
To sum this up, it seems that you think that it is too easy to break down castle walls, and would rather give defender easy ways to destroy the siege engines that would do most of the wall-breaking job. I don't think such a chance is needed.

In history siege engines are what did most of the outside damage to the fortifications allowing troop units to storm the city or castle. Also it would add a new historically correct strategy to have units on the battlefield which can do heavy long range damage which aren't mages or commanders with magic items.

Endoperez said:
The siege engines would also have a role in the battlefield, by targeting enemy rear (hopefully just archers, because fire at mages/commanders was removed for a reason).

Yes mages/commanders could not be targeted, additionally to increase interest siege engines can be setup as unique where only they are allowed to target other enemy siege engines.

Endoperez said:
There could also be different effects for different nations, even though this would probably be an even lesser consern as siege engines won't be used much on the battlefield any way.

Correct the siege engines are primarily for storming castles. On another note the siege engines might be useful enough to make the mass-castle strategy less used, thus players would build foritications more logically such as choke points or strong magic sites. I don't know the overall opinion about the mass-castle strategy, but if designed correctly siege units might address this issue.
Also since the main use for these new unit types will be for storming fortifications I don't see them being a great influence on current gameplay.

Endoperez said:I quess it comes down to whether a change is needed. Matter of taste.

Well the developers could always make the siege units only available for 3 nations... players could then test and discuss the siege units to determine if it's something useful for all nations.
If time permits I might make this into a Mod and then collect feedback. Thanks for the chat!

[Chazar]

So why not mod a unit that has 1 strat move, 0 battlefield move, no meele attack, a huge siege bonus and a powerful ranged attack with just one ammo, is vulnerable to fire, a mindless construct, immune to poison, a little resistant to cold, has decent hitpoints but no armor? You can have all this in Dom2 if I am not mistaken.

I do not worry about history too much, but I worry about fun. So where is the fun of gameplay in this siege engine proposal? It was fun in the WarlordsII & III to move siege engines around that provided a nice bonus to your overall army, but which was crap when it stood on the frontline. Since they were slow, one would move a siege engine by its own ahead to the next target, so your enemy could sent fast units to intercept it. That was fun. However I cannot see how this would carry over to Domininos: the scale is much larger, and intercepting armies doesnt work in Dom2. (Hopefully there is a command in Dom3, which gives fast units a chance to defend one or two neighboring provinces to allow some limited interception.)

However, I do see a problem with sieges in Dom2, too: Where is the point for besieged troops to try and break the siege? If they wait they have their towers firing as a helper. The only reason might be starvation, but this is hardly an issue thanks to lab-teleportation of wineskins into sieged castles. Recovering tax and gem-resources? Hmm, not that urgent, is it?

So maybe every break siege attempt may recover some castle defense points and thus prolong the siege, thus modelling that the sortie of the defenders interrupted the enemies siege. Should be based on the summedup strength of the troops that try to break the siege and the number of battle turns that they manage to survive, so that continually breaking sieges with a single scout won't have any effect at all. But then again it should be good enough to set off the loss of the troops for the next few siege rounds, too. Hmm...