Looking for best defensive cities and castles in 3.8
- Thread starter Hanikura
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
k0nr@d said:
Like the ramp?
It would make pathfinding much easiar for the AI but would make some places a bit easiar to defend as there would be only 1 entry point.
I say go for it, as with multiple ladders the AI dosen't use some of them so it will give a better peformance
Serazu
Sergeant Knight
It would also make fiefs that need siege towers to take the ideal spots to hole up and make a stand. Till now, the advantage the fiefs that needed just ladders had was that the enemies came one after the other making it easier to block them, so many players preferred to own those. If ladders turn to ramps, that advantage is lost and fiefs like Avendor, Rane, Walven, Haringoth etc. will definitely become better defending spots by comparison.
The answer isn't easy at all. It depends on the side you want to give an advantage. It'd be often an improvement if you'd only have to defend just a single hotspot, compared to a split defense. But it'd be also harder for the raiding party. I'd not go to jugde this generally, but place distinctive (don't know the correct term to use) siege scenes which are known to be very easy or very hard for one side or the other.
For example the famous Oregar and Poinsbruk (maybe also Rane) fiefs could be candidates for exceptionally easy to defend fiefs. Oregar, because it's still in the mind of all those gamers, and Poinsbruk/Rane, because they're target No.1 for all those Jatu and Mystmountain armies. On the other hand, the Fierdsvain cities were always known for their weak defense, so having only slight changes there wouldn't change the original idea how sieges should work in PoP.
Overall, yes, even if the ladder would be wide, exchanging two entry points for a wider single one would push the balance in siege battles in the direction of the defenders.
For example the famous Oregar and Poinsbruk (maybe also Rane) fiefs could be candidates for exceptionally easy to defend fiefs. Oregar, because it's still in the mind of all those gamers, and Poinsbruk/Rane, because they're target No.1 for all those Jatu and Mystmountain armies. On the other hand, the Fierdsvain cities were always known for their weak defense, so having only slight changes there wouldn't change the original idea how sieges should work in PoP.
Overall, yes, even if the ladder would be wide, exchanging two entry points for a wider single one would push the balance in siege battles in the direction of the defenders.
Maybe that just me, but walled fiefs supposed to protect defenders, be advantageous to them.
I am thinking about simple solution to solve issues with defending archers (when new ladders force them to draw melee weapon). We have had these ladders in POP already - how the siege looks like?
I am thinking about simple solution to solve issues with defending archers (when new ladders force them to draw melee weapon). We have had these ladders in POP already - how the siege looks like?
Well the changes with the new amount of ladders have made castles/towns with siege towers easiar to defend compared to having defend multiple ladders
One of the problems with defending archers is that when they die their replacements typically have to pass by the main melee area and they switch to melee when there and don't take up the preferred positions. This is always gonna be a problem.
I think sieges are just fine now easiar to attack and still possible to defend most castles/towns without too much bother still i'm not opposed to any changes the devs wish to make
One of the problems with defending archers is that when they die their replacements typically have to pass by the main melee area and they switch to melee when there and don't take up the preferred positions. This is always gonna be a problem.
I think sieges are just fine now easiar to attack and still possible to defend most castles/towns without too much bother still i'm not opposed to any changes the devs wish to make
sher
Baron
k0nr@d said:
I'd say it would be better, now it's mostly a bugfest. Playable but still. They already act like morons in battle with new animations, in sieges they have pathfinding problems much more often and often ignore these new ladders completely, some scenes are just huge empty landscapes turned into siege scenes in last moments just to justify creation of huge and empty castle. It looks bad and incomplete.
This whole change in the first place... It's subjective but personally I haven't tired of original scenes at all. There are dozens of castles on the map, almost 20 cities, you hardly will see them all in one game if you will stop before full victory. And you'll just forget them before your next game in 6-12 months. If you'd want them to change then you'd want them change to something better, to improve. Instead they were changed into this.
Also it is bad for gameplay that player has unlimited ammunition. It's awkward since it actually gives you an option to stay as defensive archer as long as you like and doesn't take away ability to go in melee, but archery is so much stronger that player may discard this opportunity only through very strong effort to roleplay or something. I wouldn't suggest to remove it since it's an option, not mandatory feature but in practice it reduces defensive siege gameplay to machine gun fire. Just FYI. Maybe if players ammunition was replenished less frequently it would force him to go to help troops at choke point in melee but I don't know maybe it would be just irritating considering that troops will not give a F that he needs to pass to breach to help.
noaheaven
Recruit
Serazu said:
sher said:
Brew said:
Articulo34 said:
Brew said:
thank you guys for the answer. really help with noob like me. this mod really have huge aspect. even use your sorrounding faction as your shield. and you guys even give backround for each city/castle really apreciate it
. have a nice daysher said:
Imo melee in defensive sieges is horrible too many friendlies blocking you and you can get trapped or forced to jump off battlements to get by all the facehuggers.
I never had a problem with ammo in defensive sieges(before the change) as there was always a few corpses to loot and I would friendly fire an archer to steal his ammo if the need arose
Depending on the siege scene, that can be remedied by using the new overhead thrust animations that some polearms have. The Black Iron Spear works great in defensive sieges, as you can remain behind the first line of defenders and still get the enemy as they come over the walls. And it doesn´t matter how many troops are pressing your back as that animation cannot be interrupted from behind.Brew said:
I think that this would be a good solution for sieges! The attacking AI troops shouldn't get stuck that much with a single, but wider ladder. Meanwhile, the defenders will be able to hold a single entry point more effectively. With these changes (also, a single siege tower without additional ladders for the corresponding siege layouts), getting to the walls will be easier and more fluent than in prior versions, while defending will remain easier imo (as it should be), as the AI will have to hold a single (but wider) choke point. I would say go for it for 3.8.5, and we will see how it works out!k0nr@d said:
P.S.: Sieges with the engine of Warband are optimal with single entry points, that's why native had a single ladder or a single siege tower everywhere. The only downpoint is that the AI can get stuck sometimes with a normal ladder (siege towers are always fine because they have a ramp). But if you would change those narrow ladders to wider ramps (a single one of course) that siege towers have, then this and the other problems that players stated in 3.8 will be solved imo more or less
sher
Baron
Wow, Sher Quila is really something. I actually liked this experience though strictly speaking it's bugs nest - almost all of my troops got stuck along this maze. But since I use mix of FH and EAC it didn't help D'Shar much - tons of snipers everywhere. It was funny to duel with Warriors on "streets" of this fortress, got knocked out during shooting and watched show as spectator. Weird but funny.
BananaFruit
Regular
I personally like to have the opportunity to enter the walls at different entry points as it is now. This is especially useful if you decide to head for the walls after some of your troops. With a single ladder, you would get stuck and wait forever to personally participate in the slaughter, while your troops ahead of you do the job (or die). I've had many occasions prior to 3.8 where I just stood bored on a ladder with an empty quiver wondering: "Now what?".k0nr@d said:
In 3.8 I've never experienced that problem as there is almost always a ladder less frequented than another, which lets you take action much faster.
Additionally, one would not only have to adjust the ladders, but also some of the castle walls merlons, as those might then be the bottleneck in the flow of attackers. Here is Muqaddas Pani as an example:
In conclusion I'd rather leave sieges as they are right now.
Tuldar Fortress
Used to be alright on defence but with the new ladder its much harder
300 mid tier troops(garrison) and my army of 180 top tier verus 1700 d'shar
gave it 3 trys,
first time was KO'd right at the start,
second time tried to hold the entry points but was let down by terrible defensive archer performance,
third try was much better as I held the stairs but buildings stopped my archers from working properly and I spent ages moving them around using command nearest to try and increase their efficency, in the end was helped by this guy who clogged up the dshar on the stairs and was heading for a win until I got KO'd
I'll call him Mr Beam
On the whole terrible defensive archer performance hampered further by the courtyard layout making it not a very good defensive castle at all
Done it on fourth attempt, I pulled all my men off the front wall, set up infantry at base of stairs, archers and companions on far wall that looks into the courtyard and used command nearest to get some archers set up in the courtyard.
Took about 120 loses and +150 wounded, the whole dshar marshal stack wiped out in one battle, Boadice got 68 kills and most of my companions gained a level and also got 160 renown, I got KO'd when I went into melee as I had no infantry left and got headshot almost instantly
Used to be alright on defence but with the new ladder its much harder
300 mid tier troops(garrison) and my army of 180 top tier verus 1700 d'shar
gave it 3 trys,
first time was KO'd right at the start,
second time tried to hold the entry points but was let down by terrible defensive archer performance,
third try was much better as I held the stairs but buildings stopped my archers from working properly and I spent ages moving them around using command nearest to try and increase their efficency, in the end was helped by this guy who clogged up the dshar on the stairs and was heading for a win until I got KO'd
I'll call him Mr Beam
On the whole terrible defensive archer performance hampered further by the courtyard layout making it not a very good defensive castle at all
Done it on fourth attempt, I pulled all my men off the front wall, set up infantry at base of stairs, archers and companions on far wall that looks into the courtyard and used command nearest to get some archers set up in the courtyard.
Took about 120 loses and +150 wounded, the whole dshar marshal stack wiped out in one battle, Boadice got 68 kills and most of my companions gained a level and also got 160 renown, I got KO'd when I went into melee as I had no infantry left and got headshot almost instantly
Styxt
Sergeant
k0nr@d said:
Just my 2 cents here : Walven castle has an amazing design and resemble an actual castle (which name I forgot), allowing the use of many good defensive strategies => this is awesome
On the other hand, some "castles" like Maras feel like temporary, badly designed army forts screaming "take me, taaake meeee!!!". It doesn't feel rewarding at all to take it and it is impossible to hold it meaning that the interest of the player for it greatly decrease.
