February 14, 2013 at 14:57 #1482
FlenoomModeratorFebruary 14, 2013 at 15:12 #1483
One can’t argue with such a clear graphical representation 😉 The only thing i worry about is the situation when you attack a city with more than 3 stacks. On the other hand it can no longer be possible.February 14, 2013 at 15:26 #1485
I hope we can still siege from multiple directions, otherwise I will be a little bit sad :c
Still, I will no doubt persevere even if that is the case, but I am curious to finding out more about how the sieges will work ^^February 14, 2013 at 15:26 #1486
It still looks like attacking city from one location. No amount of topological transformations will change this fact: it will still look like attacking a city from one location and it will PLAY like attacking a city from one location (plain, dull, boring, unrealistic, with tactical aspect limited mercilessly, HOMM style).
This might be sufficient reason for me not to buy the game.
So I really hope this is not the case (more screenshots needed to judge)February 14, 2013 at 16:12 #1488
Technically five of the gates are missing. I believe they’ve just reworked the city wall design.
Further to that I believe it was mentioned the maximum amount of units in a battle was the same. Each attacking party seems to consist of six units, and they look to be spaced (except for the battering ram and the other guy) where they would spawn. Logically, there isn’t space for any more groups of units.
3D battles would allow for angled zooms, and I suspect that the screenshot is took at such an angle.February 14, 2013 at 17:15 #1498
More like a siege aow1. The distance between the gate no less than aow2. At the moment I’m more concerned with the city wall. If the camera in a battle as TOTAL WAR (as told developers) can make a wall of normal height. Now it looks bad .February 14, 2013 at 17:37 #1506
Seems they want more visually imposing cities which unfortunately makes it impractical for them to be attackable from multiple sides.
The wall does seem wider however allowing for multiple access points which, in essence, should be the same but we’ll see.February 14, 2013 at 21:12 #1550
You can still siege a city (or defend it) with 6 stacks, no problem. The city is indeed bigger than it was in previous games (it was unrealistically small previously).February 14, 2013 at 21:15 #1552
Narvek, can we attack it from multiple angles?February 14, 2013 at 21:21 #1553
On the battlefield it’ll be like in the screenshot and the trailer, thus you’ll fight against one segment of the wall with a city in the background. On the strategic map you can of course attack from wherever you want.February 14, 2013 at 21:31 #1557
It’s hardly impractical to attack a city from multiple sides if the battles are still turn-based and you can change the camera angles manually 😛
I think atm it looks pretty good and that you folks are assuming a LOT based on one screen shot, meaning that you don’t really know what you’re talking about as you do not have the required information on the topic 😛
Except for Narvek, it makes sense that Narvek would know 😛February 14, 2013 at 21:45 #1561
So, on a tactical map/level, we can attack one side of the city at a time.
Not a problem I don’t think, if we can use all our adjacent stacks…
Curious why we can’t show the whole city (because it’s too big?) perhaps not all at once, but within the same battle…i.e. zoom out. The TW series has pretty big cities and this wasn’t an issue….February 14, 2013 at 21:54 #1566
The adjacent hexes are translated to a setup were the two sides face each other with a multi-gate wall in between. The initiating army directly faces the defending army occupying the center city hex in the center of the battle map, with other units pulled into the city combat with their position relevant to their closeness to the initiating attacking and defending armies. The “unfolded wall” picture linked above is pretty much correct. We feel this avoids the long trek around a city’s walls which we found to be *very* frustrating at times. I this setup the attacker is still able to spread out the defender’s forces when attacking with multiple stacks. Added side effect is that it just feels more realistic (most sieges attempted to concentrate their wall breaching efforts) and cities aren’t ridiculously tiny.
For open field battles, the 6 directions are maintained.
Relating to sieges: attackers are now able to wear cities out by camping outside a city’s surrounding farmlands. This gives garrisons a stronger incentive to make break out attacks. This is a nice alternative the the frontal siege assault and is also inline with historic sieges.
.February 14, 2013 at 21:57 #1567
Yes, it is a problem. You cannot for example bring your onagers from another side and bombard the enemy from the flank or the rear. When defending you cannot stretch enemy lines while keeping yours short enough to move units quickly from 1 position to another. Tactically this will be limited like HOMM is limited. Unless the devs have some other aces in their sleeves.
Maybe the wall breaching efforts are concentrated in one place but the whole idea is that the defender so not know what place this is. This is when the fun starts.February 14, 2013 at 22:05 #1571
Aww… I have to say that I really liked the standard sieges, with multiple walls per castle. Now it looks really simple, and it destroys the game’s realism. I hope this isn’t final decision. 🙁February 14, 2013 at 22:09 #1572
There is no comparison to HoMM battles in terms of gameplay and scale. As I said, most of the adjacent-hex rule benefits are in place.
Regarding realism: There is just no way medieval siege equipment could shoot all the way over a city to bombard a garrison on a wall at the other side of town. Their effective range was couple of hundred meters/yards max.February 14, 2013 at 22:15 #1575
I honestly prefer the new version, thanks for the information.February 14, 2013 at 22:33 #1579
@Lennart: I’m not talking about scale or gameplay, I know these are different. I’m talking about possible tactics. HOMM is limited. Now AoW will get closer to HOMM. I guess it is possible to somehow re-arange this in a way that would keep the one side of the wall thing yet made it more tactically interesting.February 14, 2013 at 22:37 #1584
The best part of aow 2 sieges was you could attack a city from opposite directions.While this was dividing your army in half it also divides armies of defender.
We feel this avoids the long trek around a city’s walls which we found to be *very* frustrating at times.
I did not feel frustrated or annoying about it.While you had to trek around city,so does the defenders archers.Of course their trek was shorter 😛 But that really added realizm to game.
In aow 2 we had 8 gated square castles.If we had 12 gated hexagon castles now instead of one sided city it would be much more strategic and realistic.At least defenders would not have an easy time defending the city like in aow 2.February 14, 2013 at 22:40 #1585
I like this idea. But mind you: gates, as the weakest in the defenses and the obvious targets, were never that numerous. So leave it at 6 then (or 3?)February 14, 2013 at 23:44 #1603
I think big cities especially capitols should have 2 TC maps, one breaching the walls and another when you fight inside the city, but i think maybe only an option to a few cities or the game could get a bit too long.February 14, 2013 at 23:51 #1606
At first I thought that sieges from one side would be a bit boring, but the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to give it a chance.
I am slightly worried that there will be some major bottlenecking going on, with 5 gates, all fairly close to each other, which might be seriously exploitable by the defender.
And historically, http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/siege-weapons.htm. Granted, that’s hardly the most definitive resource.
Also, bit more random, http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/castle6.htm.
If we’re being “realistic,” is there any chance the walls can be mined? Or multiple walls within a fortress?
You’ve already mentioned starving out of a city, so +1 as far as i am concerned.
Will siege units be ‘built to order’. So many question I know.
But thankyou for your replies, and to be honest I was hoping something would be done about the SM system. This will be one of the first things I shall test in the beta/demo.February 15, 2013 at 00:22 #1611
The accessible portion of the wall seens about as long as an unfolded AoW2 wall, but with fewer gates. Looks good to me.February 15, 2013 at 05:09 #1629
I’m open to this new idea as it not only seems to make more sense, but seems more realistic :3
I personally find it mildly amusing that people are complaining about the lack of realism in this new system when:
1. This is a fantasy game, and
2. It seems to be more realistic to me, imo, that the city would be on a much larger scale than the units sieging it 😛
Looks like a good system we have going on atm :3
Btw, do we still choose magic spheres?February 15, 2013 at 14:06 #1678
I like the idea of the flattened siege. +1. I read somewhere else that the AI needs to be smarter and I agree with that. Also, with fast combat using this, I’m all into it. I’ve used strategies of not walling cities because it proved a disadvantage, especially in big combats (lots of big units). My non-missile weapon units would lose the defensive advantage because they wouldn’t attack first and the wall would fall so fast from the attackers.February 15, 2013 at 14:43 #1684
I honestly think this will work out fine. The important bit is that the wall is wide enough to stretch out the troop lines and has multiple gates to allow for flexibility and risk management when deciding where to breach/defend and how. It certainly won’t be like HoMM.
The irony is that, since the wall is a line, defending units that are far away from a breach will have an even harder time reaching it since they have to travel along the length of the wall whereas in AoW2/SM they could move diagonally to reach different sides of the fort faster.February 15, 2013 at 14:47 #1688
Just read about the castles. I think I can even see a castle on one of the screenshots. Will castle sieges play in the same way like cities?February 15, 2013 at 15:24 #1691
I do not really get why people whinning. I think the new sieges are AWESOME. I will not use the word better, or worse, they are obviously different (and not even one bit close to homm from what i can tell) but they look amazing. i’m very excited to try something new like that.
And if you people wanna talk about realism, THIS is realistic. In same games, rts or tbs, like AOE series or EE you could make a diversion by pushing your army from the left side of the city while the catapaults would be on the right, breaking the walls apart. In REAL life, this would have been unsuccesfull, catapaults and trebuchests, need to be extremly well guarder and protected. So that type of attack is actually, impractical.February 15, 2013 at 15:36 #1692
Yeah, I agree with TheDio.February 15, 2013 at 15:51 #1695
I like my spelling…it’s not mainstream
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.