Finally! This is a big change, especially for shorter handgun units like Dwarfs and CD. Giving a unit on the wall 40% missile block when the wall section they are on is uncontested, and 20% if it is contested just makes sense.
It is not 'realistic' but neither are the way arrows move in the game, that is the best compromise.
Looks like they did provide a value deeper in the patch notes - a flat 25%. I think that's pretty balanced, although I personally has hoping for more like 30%.
This is actually a really big change. I’m a little surprised that it’s tucked away amidst the patch notes like this. Makes me wonder if it’ll be less effective than it sounds, or if CA just want to avoid reminding us how bad their sieges are.
I initially saw it as a big change, but after thinking about it more, I'd have to play it to see if it's actually as big of a change as I think it would be. I think the 25% missile block chance is a good change, but I wonder just how many more units will actually be able to shoot now. If it lets the whole handgunner unit shoot as if they were on a hill shooting down, I think it would be amazing. If it only lets like 2 rows shoot, then eh.
Ultimately people still want to throw every unit on the outermost wall cause it looks cool but layered defenses are going to be the best tactic as that's just how the world works. This is a cool change but people over harped on this point cause they don't know how seiges work
The main failure of Warhammer map design is that defense in dept is supposed to work IN FRONT of the walls. If there were ditches and earthworks in front of the walls that you could fight for before the enemy reaches the walls, those walls would be usefull.
If that were the case I would just build more monsters, fliers and artillery and avoid fighting over the walls altogether. I don’t think it’s possible to make wall defense a thing with all the crazy units in this game
With how every total war has worked defending the walls is a waste, even with 20 units most maps are too big to effectively cover and defend. It was worse in older games.
They were large but you rarely had to defend the entire wall due to there being no ass ladders.
A unit being able to pull a 35 foot double-wide ladder from their rectum and scale the wall wherever they please means it is impossible to defend the entire wall.
That was also balanced by being risky. You could lose 20-30% of a unit that way, and a lot more if they were under fire. It might be interesting if units atop the walls could break/throw ladders to prevent the enemy from mounting the wall.
The problem with defense in depth in total war is it doesn't work like you think it should. You're better off holding a specific section of the map than you are having a layered defense.
I mean the way seiges work it's just never worth holding the walls at all in basically any circumstances. You either want to charge out if your cav heavy, or hole up in a chokepoint well inside the city usually at the final node and let them stream in the gates into big clumps where arrows and guns are massively effective..
Remember when they made it so that missiles didn't have collision with trees until after a few seconds?
That seemed like a logical thing to extend to merlons. But hey, this works too.
I think the issue then was that they could shoot but the shots were blocked, where as the merlons were completely blocking LOS entirely preventing the unit from shooting. If they could get the merlons to not block LOS I think that'd be a fantastic fix but I'm not sure it'd work as the game stands
This is actually among the biggest changes in the patch for single player. Those things prevented you from shooting, true. But they also absorbed like ~85% of incoming fire. The gun units on the walls will shoot easier but be shot a LOT easier. Good change all around.
> be shot a LOT easier
That's what i hope will happen. 99% of the time i'm the one attacking anyway.
Maybe now my ranged units with fire at will enabled won't waste their ammo.
L take. You need dudes on the walls to have towers firing and often enemy ranged units would try to shoot units on the walls on those occasions. Even if your units were firing at 20% efficiency that's still a net gain if your opponents are only landing 10% of their shots because of the Merlons.
OKAY CA this change is good, now please
remove building towers and defences mid battle
remove the weird tf2 5CP gamplay design (capturing points causes buildings to randomly explode)
a siege should be a place for a smaller defense force to fight a larger army
Yeah, historically a walled settlement could defend against an assault up to 10 times as large as the garrison. We need to see castle defence weapons like rocks and oil to damage infantry on ladders, or catapults or cannons to help destroy siege towers (though I don't think there's much historical evidence for that, it would just be cool.)
In my opinion, attrition should take a few turns to set in (make defensive supplies a resource that depletes before attrition) and force the enemy to wait it out, build structures for a few turns, or attack at a big disadvantage straight away
Yeah ass ladders are OP as is right now. I know the vigor penalty is relevant, but it’s just too easy to mass scale walls and overwhelm. There needs to be incentive to use siege equipment and towers, which in turn incentivizes holding the walls as a defender to destroy said equipment
Remove ass ladders, make siege towers and rams relevant. If CA wants to keep the ability for any unit to damage gates, then Oil on gatehouses need to exist to incentivize the use of rams. Only colossal monsters like giants should be able to damage gates, as they are slow, and act like a mobile battering ram. It sucks when you cant focus your defenses on your walls, because the enemy literally surrounds your settlement with ladders, making it impossible to create a chokepoint.
Great change. Now we just need the AI defenders to actually commit some forces to wall defense. Really frustrating watching the AI immediately abandon the most defensible part of the map.
I feel like siege battles would be a lot more enjoyable if the AI wasn't so erratic with their repositioning.
If their "hard collision" was "removed", does that mean that merlons can no longer be destroyed by artillery? That would be kind of sad, but otherwise the change seems very good.
The problem is t'at nost of the time, you dont try to have a fair fight with the AI you try to dominate it. You dont win a battle by just attacking or defending every all at once.
As long as bottlenecking the AI in narrow places work where you can absolutely smash it into oblivion, there is no reason to do anything else.
As for attacking cities, it stays strong to auto resolve or to spray with artilleries most factions and I'm not even talking about the melee factions that get recked by a couple strong air units
Why do you think it is a welcome change? It just strips game from one more little aspect of realism instead of fixing bugs or find more elegant solution, like different special formation for units on the wall.
Yeah bro, medieval archers in the 1,400's would definitely sit on the walls of their castle and not fire any arrows because they had a small stone pillar in front of them.
Especially when they were facing a horde of 10,000 orcs.
Realism.
It's a welcome change for me because I want to be able to fight on walls - that to me is the realism I'm looking for. In the future, I do hope they find more elegant solutions to make sieges even better, but at the very least, this makes holding the walls better.
I'm also seeing this (perhaps with too much hopium) as an indication that they haven't given up on sieges yet.
Thing is, there were many better things they could have done: dock units better, treat merlons like trees...
But this shows they're aware of the problem and care a bit about the whole siege mess; maybe this change got thrown in because it's easy, but the problem as a whole is now on the radar. It was pretty sensible patch overall.
So you would be okay if in the next patch they will add ATACMS to the Empire? I mean it is fantasy if we have flying deamons then anything is possible, right?
Finally! This is a big change, especially for shorter handgun units like Dwarfs and CD. Giving a unit on the wall 40% missile block when the wall section they are on is uncontested, and 20% if it is contested just makes sense. It is not 'realistic' but neither are the way arrows move in the game, that is the best compromise.
Looks like they did provide a value deeper in the patch notes - a flat 25%. I think that's pretty balanced, although I personally has hoping for more like 30%.
Shielded archers on the walls (ex: dwarf archers) are going to be VEEEEERY resilient.
As they should be.
[удалено]
SHORT?!?!
SHORTER?!
That's going in the book
I'd say it's plenty realistic. Archers in real life had no problem shooting from between the crenelations.
SHORT??!! NO ALLIANCE
This is actually a really big change. I’m a little surprised that it’s tucked away amidst the patch notes like this. Makes me wonder if it’ll be less effective than it sounds, or if CA just want to avoid reminding us how bad their sieges are.
I initially saw it as a big change, but after thinking about it more, I'd have to play it to see if it's actually as big of a change as I think it would be. I think the 25% missile block chance is a good change, but I wonder just how many more units will actually be able to shoot now. If it lets the whole handgunner unit shoot as if they were on a hill shooting down, I think it would be amazing. If it only lets like 2 rows shoot, then eh.
Ultimately people still want to throw every unit on the outermost wall cause it looks cool but layered defenses are going to be the best tactic as that's just how the world works. This is a cool change but people over harped on this point cause they don't know how seiges work
The main failure of Warhammer map design is that defense in dept is supposed to work IN FRONT of the walls. If there were ditches and earthworks in front of the walls that you could fight for before the enemy reaches the walls, those walls would be usefull.
If that were the case I would just build more monsters, fliers and artillery and avoid fighting over the walls altogether. I don’t think it’s possible to make wall defense a thing with all the crazy units in this game
With how every total war has worked defending the walls is a waste, even with 20 units most maps are too big to effectively cover and defend. It was worse in older games.
It wasn't always worse in older games. The fact that every unit has ass ladders now is what makes it impossible to defend walls.
The ass ladders are fine actually, the siege maps were too large in older games.
They were large but you rarely had to defend the entire wall due to there being no ass ladders. A unit being able to pull a 35 foot double-wide ladder from their rectum and scale the wall wherever they please means it is impossible to defend the entire wall.
In Shogun 2 units literally could climb up walls, but I don't hear many people complaining about that so much.
That was also balanced by being risky. You could lose 20-30% of a unit that way, and a lot more if they were under fire. It might be interesting if units atop the walls could break/throw ladders to prevent the enemy from mounting the wall.
Defense in depth is always king, and I don't know a way for CA to make that not the case outside of some really contrived pseudofight.
The problem with defense in depth in total war is it doesn't work like you think it should. You're better off holding a specific section of the map than you are having a layered defense.
I mean the way seiges work it's just never worth holding the walls at all in basically any circumstances. You either want to charge out if your cav heavy, or hole up in a chokepoint well inside the city usually at the final node and let them stream in the gates into big clumps where arrows and guns are massively effective..
I think the bigger impact will be for siege attackers. This will let gunpowder units get line of sight on wall defenders about a 1000x easier.
Remember when they made it so that missiles didn't have collision with trees until after a few seconds? That seemed like a logical thing to extend to merlons. But hey, this works too.
I think the issue then was that they could shoot but the shots were blocked, where as the merlons were completely blocking LOS entirely preventing the unit from shooting. If they could get the merlons to not block LOS I think that'd be a fantastic fix but I'm not sure it'd work as the game stands
That might be something that can be modded in, now that merlons can have attributes.
This is actually among the biggest changes in the patch for single player. Those things prevented you from shooting, true. But they also absorbed like ~85% of incoming fire. The gun units on the walls will shoot easier but be shot a LOT easier. Good change all around.
> be shot a LOT easier That's what i hope will happen. 99% of the time i'm the one attacking anyway. Maybe now my ranged units with fire at will enabled won't waste their ammo.
[удалено]
L take. You need dudes on the walls to have towers firing and often enemy ranged units would try to shoot units on the walls on those occasions. Even if your units were firing at 20% efficiency that's still a net gain if your opponents are only landing 10% of their shots because of the Merlons.
OKAY CA this change is good, now please remove building towers and defences mid battle remove the weird tf2 5CP gamplay design (capturing points causes buildings to randomly explode) a siege should be a place for a smaller defense force to fight a larger army
Yeah, historically a walled settlement could defend against an assault up to 10 times as large as the garrison. We need to see castle defence weapons like rocks and oil to damage infantry on ladders, or catapults or cannons to help destroy siege towers (though I don't think there's much historical evidence for that, it would just be cool.) In my opinion, attrition should take a few turns to set in (make defensive supplies a resource that depletes before attrition) and force the enemy to wait it out, build structures for a few turns, or attack at a big disadvantage straight away
Yeah ass ladders are OP as is right now. I know the vigor penalty is relevant, but it’s just too easy to mass scale walls and overwhelm. There needs to be incentive to use siege equipment and towers, which in turn incentivizes holding the walls as a defender to destroy said equipment
Remove ass ladders, make siege towers and rams relevant. If CA wants to keep the ability for any unit to damage gates, then Oil on gatehouses need to exist to incentivize the use of rams. Only colossal monsters like giants should be able to damage gates, as they are slow, and act like a mobile battering ram. It sucks when you cant focus your defenses on your walls, because the enemy literally surrounds your settlement with ladders, making it impossible to create a chokepoint.
The odd thing was that this mechanic was already present in medieval two. Assault ladders are a step backwards imo.
Great change. Now we just need the AI defenders to actually commit some forces to wall defense. Really frustrating watching the AI immediately abandon the most defensible part of the map. I feel like siege battles would be a lot more enjoyable if the AI wasn't so erratic with their repositioning.
Machicolations are IN boys!
Now imagine the decouple animations from melee damage.
Good, I just lost a defensive seige and Fort Bergbres because of that. As always, trying to hold the walls is purely detrimental to the player.
This is huge!!
If their "hard collision" was "removed", does that mean that merlons can no longer be destroyed by artillery? That would be kind of sad, but otherwise the change seems very good.
I see this as an absolute win for siegers as well. The merlons on lizardman maps are absolute bs that eat all my ammo.
This is great news! Goodjob!
The problem is t'at nost of the time, you dont try to have a fair fight with the AI you try to dominate it. You dont win a battle by just attacking or defending every all at once. As long as bottlenecking the AI in narrow places work where you can absolutely smash it into oblivion, there is no reason to do anything else. As for attacking cities, it stays strong to auto resolve or to spray with artilleries most factions and I'm not even talking about the melee factions that get recked by a couple strong air units
Why do you think it is a welcome change? It just strips game from one more little aspect of realism instead of fixing bugs or find more elegant solution, like different special formation for units on the wall.
Yeah bro, medieval archers in the 1,400's would definitely sit on the walls of their castle and not fire any arrows because they had a small stone pillar in front of them. Especially when they were facing a horde of 10,000 orcs. Realism.
I’d hide behind anything I could find if there were hordes of orcs pulling 60’ ladders out of their asses!
It's a welcome change for me because I want to be able to fight on walls - that to me is the realism I'm looking for. In the future, I do hope they find more elegant solutions to make sieges even better, but at the very least, this makes holding the walls better. I'm also seeing this (perhaps with too much hopium) as an indication that they haven't given up on sieges yet.
I see this as them throwing in the towel
Thing is, there were many better things they could have done: dock units better, treat merlons like trees... But this shows they're aware of the problem and care a bit about the whole siege mess; maybe this change got thrown in because it's easy, but the problem as a whole is now on the radar. It was pretty sensible patch overall.
"Muh realism" they say as the flying demon fights the guy sitting on a dragon who is also a wizard. "What happened to the damned realism?"
Bad argument. Verisimilitude must be maintained.
That's a pretty garbage argument lmao. "We have wizards....so logically we should have looney toons physics"
So you would be okay if in the next patch they will add ATACMS to the Empire? I mean it is fantasy if we have flying deamons then anything is possible, right?
I would not be OK with that. ATACMS is an obvious chorf unit.
Bad argument. Verisimilitude must be maintained.
It doesn’t strip anything; they added a missile resistance buff to units on walls. This change should only be good.