Siege Units
 

Not sure if Dominions_3 will have siege units or not... but I believe it will be possible to make at least some siege units via modding.
Siege units such as a Battering Ram or Siege Tower which allow for storming more quickly, catapults which can be used on the battlefield for long distance area attacks during a battle, and even design some siege units which can be used as counters to target and more easily destroy siege type units.
I believe most siege units should exist on the battlefield where opponents have an opportunity to destroy them.

Would love to hear ideas
.................. especially developer ideas. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

[b]
EDIT: Just wanted to add I don't know the overall opinion about the mass-castle strategy currently in Dominions, but if designed correctly siege units might address this issue where gamers focus on building of castles more strategically instead of everywhere.

Re: Siege Units
 

Battering ram - useless on battlefield, needed to burst the gate in. What do you think the besiegers are doing? Siege towers would be really strange, as for some reason units can only attack through the gate.

Catapults are probably trivial to mod in, after all, Boulders already exist. They can fly as far as you want, as long as you increase the catapult's strength. The stronger it is, the better it is at breaking castles.

I woudln't except siege engines in Dom3. Sappers, Siege Engineers, Golden Era down-to-earth engineer/philosophers (whatever they are called), and on the other hand, Guardians, Ghoul Guardians, Man's Tower Guards, C'tissian City Guards etc have been enough for both Dom:PPP and DomII.

Re: Siege Units
 

Yes of course they'd be useless on the battlefield... their whole purpose is to storm the castle more quickly. The reason for their appearance on the battlefield is so that people trying to break the siege can destroy siege units.


Not just boulders perhaps flaming boulders as well or perhaps it can toss an animal which spreads disease. Different catapults for different nations as well.

Yes but those are all units with two feet also siege units such as battering rams, catapults, and siege towers were used on castles in history... I see no reason they can't be used on castles within Dominions which takes many units from history.

Re: Siege Units
 

It is quite hard to be able to destroy siege engines on the battlefield, without new commands that would be added in. Killing specialized commanders is easier, with assassination already in the game.

Flaming boulders (burning stone? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif) would be directed to the defenders, as the disease-corpses. That wouldn't work well, unless you actually wanted to be able to slowly kill the defenders without actual battle.

And, do you really except the Siege Engineers personally walk next to the castle, and pound the wall to dust? I think the actual engineering part is hidden, but I don't mind that, personally.

Re: Siege Units
 

Of course it should be hard otherwise these uncommon units wouldn't have much long term value. The only units which should get unique commands for attacking siege units would be anti-siege units as mentioned earlier.

Burning stone... yes... it is a magical realm and types of oil and fuel can also make this work. Some units might be so strong that you're main interest may be to try giving them a disease or crushing them with a boulder. Different catapults can have different sized boulders as well... I wonder what size boulder the Jotuns would use? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

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.


==============
These can be units on the battlefield which their main purpose is off the battlefield... except for maybe the catapult.

Re: Siege Units
 

Then create a unit with whatever strength and siege bonuses you want, give it an attack that does 0 damage without adding strength, and whatever other stats you want. Then you can pick an image that looks like what you want. All of this can be currently done in Dom2.

There's absolutely no reason they couldn't be used, except that nobody has bothered to mod them.

Re: Siege Units
 

I'd love to have include siege weaponry in a mod, it's just that I'm completely inexperienced with graphics... maybe Illwinter will chime in on whether or not the gfx are in there already so Wish_4_blood_slaves doesn't have to start http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

There's already some sort of machine in the UlmPunk mod, I don't remember what it does, though. Giving a unit a "spell" as a special ability is possible in mods, isn't it? Some sort of machine that casts Flying Shards or Blade Wind would be sweet...

Re: Siege Units
 

Siege units seem like a good idea to me. The only thing is that some of us don't care to use our imagination to see how it might work. The only problem I see would be the huge balance issues. On a further note: Bog Beast is a siege unit.

But one thing I'm concered about is the graphical side. There's three ways I can think of making the graphics work for a standard catapault.

1. Graphics act like arrows. They fly, fall, hit the ground, and that's it. Disadvantage: It ignores the fact that boulders roll.

2. Graphics act like a 1-round summon spell. Catapault shoots, boulder appears ontop of a square of units, boulder rolls (moves) one or two squears. Disadvantage: You don't get to see the boulders fly.

3. A combination of the two where the boulder acts like it has cast a targeting spell, but when it hits a target, a boulder appears as a 1-round summon spell. Disadvantage: Is it even possible? And then since it's treated as a spell, if you have 5 catapaults, won't battles take way longer?

Re: Siege Units
 

I don't know how to give a spell, but Blade Wind effect is just set damage (no str bonus), proper graphics, and 50 attacks/round. And precision -5, and limited to only be fired once or twice, and maybe something else for balance.

Most different damage spells can probably be modded in, but the special often can't. If a weapon already does it, it can already be modded, there are some weird things out there (eye loss from Vision's Foe, plague, life drain, paralyze, soul slay, enslave mind)

Re: Siege Units
 

Siege weapons had no long-term value. Nobody carried battering rams and siege towers from city to city, at least in countries with trees. All I know indicates that they're universally constructed on the spot (though I'm not an expert on the subject). It might be interesting to add grappling-hook special forces, or wall-climbing ninja, who can attack inside a castle during a siege... but mobile siege units is more "Warcraft" than "Dominions".

Re: Siege Units
 

That was true for simple siege equipment during the earliest uses, but further into medieval times the equipment was built and then moved. In the 4th century BC engineers in the armies of Philip of Macedon and of his son, Alexander the Great, built mobile siege towers which were taken on campaign.

Would be interesting to watch units scale the walls... maybe Dominions_4. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

My last warcraft game was Warcraft_2 which was over 5 years ago. My point is in relation with history and the only time fortifications haven't seen siege equipment was around 2000BC and earlier. Since Dominions has 3 unique eras it seems only logical for siege equipment to exist within at least one of the eras. Siege units were part of history for many nations and since many aspects of Dominions is from history their existence seems only logical.

Re: Siege Units
 

I can see siege weapons used defensively - immobile national units, somewhat like Watchers, except shooting stones and bolts... in addition to the free ones from the castle towers.

According to Wiki:



[/quote]Catapults were usually assembled at the site of a siege, and an army carried few or no pieces of it with them because wood was easily available on site.

[/quote]

Most of the other articles don't say. Trebuchets were almost certainly immoble. Battering rams are so simple that they were almost certainly built on-site. But the article on ballistae seems to indicates that there were various types, some boat-mounted or even wagon-mounted. However, those aren't really siege artillery IMO, so much as anti-personnel artillery.

I suspect that the mobile ones used arrows and the ones that used boulders were strictly immobile... but, I don't know for sure.

Re: Siege Units
 

Duuuuuudz... well I am going to agree with Cherry, it is kinda unrealistic to carry catapaults around. At best, the movement of an army with a catapault should be 1 and cannot go past forests and mountains, swamps, etc. Only farms and plains. But I do like the idea of building catapaults on site.

I GOT AN IDEA!!!!1

Create a commander, name him something like: Head Catapault Engineer. Make it so the HCE has a leadership of like 5 (can only control 5 units) and if it's possible, make it so he can only command units called catapault engineers. The number of catapault engineers decides the number of.... omg this is not a good idea.

For 1 thing, each turn is a month. Another thing, it usually took 5 days to construct 1 catapault. Not sure if it's 5 days in a construction yard or out in the middle of a forest near a castle, or with 5 people or 50... not sure.

Or we can ignore history and say the number of catapault engineers commanded by a head engineer = the number of catapaults you will have during your next battle divided by 5. So every commander + 5 units = 1 catapault during your next battle. And the engineers don't fight in battles if they are the attacker. Only if they are the defender.

... ok... kinda messy, but whatever!

Re: Siege Units
 

That sounds a tad too complicated. Maybe we should simplify it a bit.

1) If one commander can build a castle, normal workers are probably available anywhere.

2) Thus, the units that actually build the catapult are available everywhere.

3) We only need a commander. This commander could be named "Master Catapult Engineer" or "Siege Engineer".

4) Every Siege Engineer should give a bonus for breaking down castle walls. I think 25 would be a good value. Siege Engineers should be able to lead few units, which can emulate the warriors operating the catapult or just guarding it from enemy attacks against it (assassinations). If you really wanted to play around with the idea, I quess we could give the Siege Engineer no fighting equipment, but high resource cost, like 50 or so. And this is very, very Ulmish; they already have Sappers and Guardians and Lord Guardians and - oh, Siege Engineers already exist! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Isn't it nice when the developers are ahead of us? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Siege Units
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

I love seeing a good smackdown, and that one was classic, Endo. The existing mechanics cover he siege engine issues quite well, as any engines are assumed to be destroyed if the attacking army retreats and abandoned or used for firewood/reconstruction if they win.

The only thing the existing system does not cover in the abstract are ballistas. Those would be nice, but they'd also probably slow any army down to a crawl, and we don't need all the extra graphical fluff that showing the siege engines would entail.

Edi

Re: Siege Units
 

Still, they could be immobile - a defender's perk.

Re: Siege Units
 

Pythian, Ermorian and Abysian castles have Ballistas in their towers. Most nations have shortbows, few crossbows/arbalests.

Re: Siege Units
 

All the way to this point sounds great and logical. With the siege engines actually built and seen it will make the sieging of a castle more realistic. And step #2 is where the unit is created.
--one side note is that in wasteland it should be more difficult in building siege engines.

It's not the engineers which toss the boulder it's the catapult. With this current setup there's no way to target the actual siege engines... you could only target individual units which each make a percentage.
Also it would make the battles much more interesting to see different catapults from different nations which hurl boulders or diseased animals across the battlefield. Your suggestion does not make this possible.

Re: Siege Units
 

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.

May I quote your second post in this thread?
They wouldn't hurl anything in the battle, would they? And if they aren't in the battle, where else should they show? They aren't actual units with hp, they are tools with which the (unseen) workers bombard the castle walls and the defenders. Unless some kind of siege animation is added, we never see what is done to the castle walls. And siege animations can't be done with two-sprite graphics, and can't be pre-generated when any imaginable and many unimaginable combinations of soldiers and monsters can exist in both the besieging and the defending army. The Siege Engineers have an icon for their Siege Bonus. It is a stnoe-hurling device of some kind IIRC.


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

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.

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.
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. Illwinter have chosen to have siege engineers instead of catapults.

Again, I thought you mentioned the catapults wouldn't be seen on the battlefield. At least they won't be of any use in the battlefield, and are only there because they have to be with the army. That's exactly what the Siege Engineers do ATM. It seems that you want a Siege Engineer to look like he was a dozen or so catapults, which can be destroyed individually. But what use would that be? The Siege Engineer can always build new catapults, so he has to be killed any way.

Are you sure you don't just want the Siege Engieers' effectiviness be based on time he has used besieging and the resources the province has?

Re: Siege Units
 

I thinking sieging should be a mini-game where you have to mash your keyboard buttons as fast as possible: the faster you press the quicker your siege engines load and fire.

Re: Siege Units
 

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.


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.

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.

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



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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Re: Siege Units
 

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

Re: Siege Units
 

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

Re: Siege Units
 

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:
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.

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." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif
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.

Re: Siege Units
 

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

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.

Re: Siege Units
 

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.



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


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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

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.

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.

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.


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.

Re: Siege Units
 

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.

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.

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

Re: Siege Units
 

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.

Re: Siege Units
 

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.

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.

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.

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! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: Siege Units
 

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif 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...

Re: Siege Units
 

Of course it can be done in Dominions_2, but I thought of the idea about the same time I posted the topic. Someone can do this right now if they wish. I'm not going to start since Dominions_3 is right around the corner... perhaps the developers already added these type of units.

I see great fun in watching a bleeding cow fly a long distance across the battlefield and then giving disease to some archers or even cavalry still on hold with the hold&attack setting.
I see great fun imagining what the Jotun giants boulder will do, or the flaming boulder from Abysia, or a boulder from Ermor doing possibly fear... the different types of heavy long range attacks can really be interesting.
Even some siege tower might be able to be made more interesting to match the different types in history. I believe Dominions can have these type of units... the units just need to be setup with game balance in mind.

The point of deciding when or if to break a siege is a tough choice. The player must decide if forces elsewhere can rescue and if the troops inside are strong enough to do worthy damage. I believe gem income is maintained for the owners of the castle. We'll see what's happened in the demo before much can really be commented on castle defense.

Some interesting points... we'll have to see once the demo or the game arrives. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: Siege Units
 

Yes I would also like to know whether or not the gfx for siege engines already exist. Knowing whether or not to start the gfx would be great information.

Yes many new possibilities exist with spells taken into consideration as an option as well. I'm eager to see what Dominions3 will have to offer.

Re: Siege Units
 

Very true... I know that for sure. The key is game balance and using the options available to make the units interesting and worthy for sieges against fortifications.

Yes the cost of the unit, its siege bonus and battlefield damage all must be taken into consideration. We don't want these units to be too powerful or too weak. If myself or someone else releases a Siege MOD adjustments can be made as time passes. If siege units are one of the easter egg features in Dominions3 then balance can be seen via patches.

Well we'll have to see what options will exist within DOM_3... it may provide a 4th or 5th option. Based on the three listed above I would probably use option_1 or option_3. I'll give it more thought after I see what options Dominions_3 offers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Re: Siege Units
 

If the modding tools are sufficiently powerful, it should be possible for a high-cost Engineer unit to gain the "Summon Allies" command, that summons an immobile siege weapon. Sounds to me like a good compromise between abstract and concrete. The seige weapons should have enough upkeep to model several soldiers manning them and many noncombattants maintaining them. Hopefully Doms III will allow disbanding, but if not, the ranged ones would still be good on the defensive.

Re: Siege Units
 

I think the mod tools will be powerful enough to add siege type units for sure. The Doms2 modding ability was very good imo, and it will be even more powerful in Doms3 as we all know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Siege Units
 

Yes that's one option. Since we're not getting a demo until after the game is released perhaps the developers could give a pre-copy of the modding documentation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I agree their upkeep will have to model several soldiers manning the siege engines. I ponder what the Modding and MapEdit documentation for DOM_3 will include that's new. It will be interesting to see how fortification types have been improved as well.

Re: Siege Units
 

Obviously, a seige bonus has already been implemented, but what about the other effects of seige weapons? They were also used to kill defenders. Maybe some modelling of that could be included in-game? (maybe as a scalable ability, which does x damage to a random, possibly non-commader unit, every turn. Or acts like a certain # of arrows fired at a random unit).

Re: Siege Units
 

I don't know if I'd like that. It would be possible, of course. Say, Flames from the Sky-like effect, 8 non-resistable armor-piercing damage to at max 50% of the defenders, defense allowed.

However, that would kill all mages, who shouldn't be on the walls. It'd be nice, if it was implemented properly, but having a poor implementation wouldn't be fun at all.

Re: Siege Units
 

I think it might be fair if it didn't hit commanders (though then it would just make normal troops worse than they already are... Hmmm....)

Re: Siege Units
 

Depends on what's available via modding in DOM_3. Ideally I hope Dominions_3 will have or allow via modding the ability to create unique siege engines for each nation.

Re: Siege Units
 

How many times do people have to tell you that Dominions 2 already has that capability before you believe it?

Re: Siege Units
 

Fate is asking for a unit to have a wide variation of siege effects to units inside a castle outside of battle which could include 'flames from the sky' as listed by Endoperez. I merely commented we'd have to see what new mod features will be available. Geeez http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

It wasn't even my suggestion this time! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Siege Units
 

Yes, the idea being put forth (by me,Fate, NOT NTJedi) is someting which (I believe) is not currently in the game. A special ability that allows a defender to fire X amount of arrows which hit a random enemy UNIT (not commander) and deal the damage of a normal arrow (could be based on their weapon).

I do not believe there is that capability currently, but, not having looked at the modding files, you never know...

Re: Siege Units
 

I doubt that kind of ability is added. In Dominions II, all modding that was available was editing the units' abilities and costs, and creating new units and adding existing abilities to them. Unless siege engines have been changed or some other creature/unit capable of hurting enemies in a besieged castle has been added, I doubt an ability like that can be modded in.

Re: Siege Units
 

You guys do realize that with dragons and mages and stuff, none of the siege weapon effects have to be grounded in reality. We have a weapon that essentially does what one person already suggested. And btw wiki is a horrid source for information.

Re: Siege Units
 

Have you read all the posts in this topic???? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif If you have read all the posts I'd like to hear about the weapon you mention.

Re: Siege Units
 

I have done a mod that adds unique siege equipment to sevral sides. A ry'leh mind enslaver to get pathetic humans to open their gates, a c'tis poison trebuchet, a machaka web catapult, and a hoburg soup cannon (don't ask).
Immediate plans include ulmish ballistae, caelian battlefield lightning rods, and an enormous atlantian turtle. All of this is easy to encode in Dom2.

Re: Siege Units
 

Very interesting mod... as mentioned earlier I would have started myself if Dominions_3 was not being released soon.

Perhaps others could add their ideas for what type of siege units should exist for each nation... so the community as a whole can agree on the final results.

Re: Siege Units
 

Thanks for the support. Of course, very little balancing work was done, and the graphics are only half finished. I kind of got bored. And yes, discussion would be interesting, if only in preparation for a mod. perhaps I'll place a thread eventually. I AM pretty lazy though.