Siege Units

[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]

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.

[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!