[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.