Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

What are some race specific traps that could be added to make sieges more fun?

BillybabelBillybabel Registered Users Posts: 106
Empire Total War had explosive mines, Shogun had the bamboo firing lines, rome had the burning balls of hay, and Attila had barricades. These little additions personally made defensive battles and sieges so much more fun, and I know it might not be 100% lore accurate it's fun to think about.

Dwarfs I think obviously get mines

Skaven suicide bomber rats.

Empire should definitely get barricades they can fire over.

Undead that should get a crypt pit that collapses and spawns a free zombie for every unit it killed.

orcs should get a rolling flaming dung ball.

Brettonia should get flaming tar they can set alight.

what are some of your ideas?


Comments

  • Polar_IceCreamPolar_IceCream Registered Users Posts: 93
    edited October 28
    One for Bretonnia


  • Qwerty55Qwerty55 Registered Users Posts: 546

    One for Bretonnia

    Taunts that deal astronomical amounts of morale damage. Excellent idea and very in line with the silliness of Warhammer.
  • MagicspookMagicspook Registered Users Posts: 560
    For skaven I was more thinking some deployable menace from belows. You walk over it, a unit pops out and attacks.

    Each clan could get their own upgrade in tech:
    -warp grinders for skryre
    -gutter runners for eshin
    -something filthy for moulder
    -plague monks for pestilens
    -stormvermin for rictus
    -donno about mors. Maybe two units?
  • Polar_IceCreamPolar_IceCream Registered Users Posts: 93
    Qwerty55 said:

    One for Bretonnia

    Taunts that deal astronomical amounts of morale damage. Excellent idea and very in line with the silliness of Warhammer.

    “You’re bald, Your Dad doesn’t love you, and you smell like off meat”

    *Sad Mannfred Von Carstein noises*

  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 730
    I also propose deployable objects as one of several parts to make siege battles more engaging.

    I would diverge then further however. First basic traps which can be used by almost any faction. These are simple traps e.g.:

    -wooden barrides
    -murder holes
    -inflammable tarpits
    -moats
    -wooden spikes
    -gunpowder barrels to be shot from afar
    -ressource depots which buff defenders and replenish ammunition

    In addition to these mundane defensive options I would like to see faction spefic ones, which can be as diverse as your own creativity, as long as they are functional.
    For example these could range from:

    -animal cages containing feral predators (like cold ones for the lizardmen, vampire bats for vampire counts etc.)

    -special mines: warpstone mine for skaven (boom), tomb king mine (summons a scarab swarm), zombie hole (summons a unit of zombies)

    -magical traps: activating specific spells when a unit comes into contact

    Elven gardens/ god specific shrines: the magical equivalent of the ressource depot. Depending on the shrine/garden the buffs can have more exotic effects like fire damage or regeneration.

    -many more

    In general most of these traps should also activate if your own troops step on them. And the attackers should have the possibility to destroy them.
    And many deployables should also be deployable before the walls.
  • JRCBurgessJRCBurgess Registered Users Posts: 22
    I love this idea. The sieges have been one of the biggest problems in the game since day one, and while I am personally fine with the limited approach style vs the whole city, I do think some race specific features for both attackers and defenders could be great.

    Here are a few of my thoughts;

    Initial thought; These would not be 'built' like Towers and Rams. For defenders, the number of features/uses/whatever would linked to Settlement size and Walls and Specialist buildings, just like Garrisons. For attackers, it would scale up with the number of turns spent besieging (or, sometimes, for each Siege Tower and Ram built- see Dwarfs for example), i.e. Greenskins would start with two uses of Sneaky Tunnelin' (see below), and then gain another one for every two turns they spend besieging.
    I like this, as currently there is little need for or point in protracted sieges unless you are waiting out the Hold Out Time. This way there are three viable options- 1. attack straightaway (speed), 2. besiege for a number of turns (more of these attacking features), 3. long term siege (easy win with minimal causalities thanks to attrition).

    General;
    Attackers- Barricades with a certain number of hit points that provide wall cover.
    Defenders- Defensive pots of race specific stuff- burning oil for humans (damage), a type of byzantine fire for Dwarf (fire damage), boiling blood for Chaos/Norse/Dark Elves (minor damage plus LD debuff), general steaming filth for Beastmen/Greenkins/Skaven (poison), multi-coloured mystical something for High Elves and Lizardmen (1-3 random debuffs), ectoplasmic stuff for Undead (major LD debuff) etc. Obviously they would be custom placed on walls by the player, but would not require troops to man them like Towers do. The model itself would include 2 little men/goblins/skeletons/elves/whatever to pour them. Single use, set off automatically, disappear after use, can't be targeted by ranged (too 'small'), but have a small number of hit points so can be destroyed in combat by fliers (really adds a new tactical element to the use of fliers in sieges) or other troops on wall.

    Dwarfs
    Attackers-Cannons (smaller and weaker than regular) being added to Siege Towers, Battering Rams and Barricades (see above).
    Defenders- A number of uses of summonable Miners as an army ability.

    Tomb Kings
    Attackers and Defenders- A number of uses of summonable Carrion and Tomb Scorpions as army abilities.

    Empire
    Attackers- Improved version of the Barricades (see above) that are tougher and improve ranged attacks to those behind (on?) them.
    Defenders- A number of uses of an army ability that is some kind of prayer to Sigmar or a rallying cry that makes wall defenders unbreakable for a period of time (I like the idea of some kind of heroic stand thing for the Empire, very thematic).

    Bretonnia
    Attackers- Improved version of the Barricades that are on wheels, are actually attached to units like Towers and Rams and can slowly move.
    Defenders- a Sally port, placed by on a section of wall by the defender, that is invisible and/or unassailable by attackers until used.

    Southern Realms/Kislev/Rogue armies/Rebels/Savage Orcs
    Attackers and Defenders- just the general ones above.

    Greenskins
    Attackers- A number of uses of a 'The Menace Below'-type ability (Sneaky Tunnelin'?) that summons Night Goblins.
    Defenders- invisible pits full of spikes (or squigs!) placed inside or outside before battle start that on contact cause damage to the triggering unit and them form a temporary barrier to movement before they collapse in on themselves (permanent barriers would be too powerful and exploitable).

    Vampire Counts
    Attackers and Defenders- A number of uses of summonable infantry troops as an army ability.

    Chaos Warriors
    Attackers- A number of uses of some kind army ability that is of a prayer to the Chaos Gods or call for blood lust that makes wall attackers unbreakable for a period of time (You may notice this is the flip side of the coin of the Empire's defenders mechanic. Once again, very thematic). Maybe linked to local Chaos Corruption rather time spent besieging, to help promote the whole aggressive style-of-play wanted for hordes?

    Beastmen Warherds
    Attackers- A number of uses of some kind army ability that is of a prayer to the Chaos gods or call for blood lust that makes wall attackers Rampage for a period of time. Yes, very similar to Chaos Warriors. Again, linked to corruption rather than turns.

    Wood Elves
    Attackers- A number of uses of some kind army ability that means that ranged units ignore wall cover for a period of time.
    Defenders- A number of uses of summonable Dryads.

    Norscan Tribes
    Attackers- Something similar to, but different from, the Chaos warriors and Beastmen. Not sure what exactly...
    Defenders- A number of uses of some kind army ability that reflects the Norscan environment. Some kind of icy wind attack?

    Skaven
    Attackers and Defenders- additional The Menace Below uses. Not exciting maybe, but I still feel the most thematic.

    High Elves
    Attackers and Defenders- A system to reduce the rate at which Martial Prowess/Mastery fails, i.e. an additional 10% per Settlement size/Walls or number of turns spent besieging.

    Dark Elves
    Attackers and Defenders- A system where the Murderess Prowess/Mastery bar starts more full i.e. an additional 10% per Settlement size/Walls or number of turns spent besieging. (NOTE; The High and Dark Elf systems seem thematic and appropriate to me, but are they a little dull? Just numbering crunching rather than actually adding to the game?)

    Lizardmen
    Attackers and Defenders- A number of uses of a variety of army abilities taken from the Winds of Magic (avoiding Magic Missiles and Summons).

    Vampire Coast
    Attackers and Defenders- A number of uses of summonable infantry troops as an army ability.

    What do you all think? I don't think many of these would be stunningly hard to add, disrupt game balance too much, or detract from the fun of sieges (such as they are). How would you change these based on specific factions (i.e. Followers of Nagash summon VC units instead)?
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 628
    I don't think you can fix sieges without completely redoing all the siege maps.

    And even then it'll be dicey.


    As a defender, the biggest problem with sieges is that the walls are a sucker trap. It's far harder to focus ranged damage on units if you're trying to fight them on the walls and most factions' towers are unreliable and rubbish. Which means that the only faction that should really fight for its walls on the defence is Skaven. (Skaven also always get their own tower projectiles, which are the best in the game).

    Garrisons also unaccountably like to have cavalry in with no effective way to deploy or operate in the field, because the AI will bring full stacks and go super wide meaning you don't have space to use a small cavalry element safely.



    As the attacker, the fact that siege maps give the defender such little room to deploy, and the AI likes to camp stacks in its cities at all times (which works in its favour against other AI because autoresolve) means it will invariably have massive crowds somewhere in its city begging to have a vortex spell dropped on them.


    To be honest, I think the best way to fix sieges would be to not have them. Turn city battles into battles before the walls, where the walls form one map edge and their towers operate as free artillery for the defending player. Then reconsider all the garrisons to make sure they're all at least reasonably evenly capable.
  • TempestWolfTempestWolf Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 979
    suicide bomber rats............ so basically exactly what they have now? :lol:
  • sykallsykall Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 730

    I don't think you can fix sieges without completely redoing all the siege maps.

    And even then it'll be dicey.


    As a defender, the biggest problem with sieges is that the walls are a sucker trap. It's far harder to focus ranged damage on units if you're trying to fight them on the walls and most factions' towers are unreliable and rubbish. Which means that the only faction that should really fight for its walls on the defence is Skaven. (Skaven also always get their own tower projectiles, which are the best in the game).

    Garrisons also unaccountably like to have cavalry in with no effective way to deploy or operate in the field, because the AI will bring full stacks and go super wide meaning you don't have space to use a small cavalry element safely.



    As the attacker, the fact that siege maps give the defender such little room to deploy, and the AI likes to camp stacks in its cities at all times (which works in its favour against other AI because autoresolve) means it will invariably have massive crowds somewhere in its city begging to have a vortex spell dropped on them.


    To be honest, I think the best way to fix sieges would be to not have them. Turn city battles into battles before the walls, where the walls form one map edge and their towers operate as free artillery for the defending player. Then reconsider all the garrisons to make sure they're all at least reasonably evenly capable.

    Yes a rework of city maps is the first and most important step overall. But I would not completly cut them. Instead I would like to increase the overall options for attackers and defenders. But threads about this topic already exists, so I do not want to repeat myself here
  • YannirYannir Registered Users Posts: 589



    To be honest, I think the best way to fix sieges would be to not have them. Turn city battles into battles before the walls, where the walls form one map edge and their towers operate as free artillery for the defending player. Then reconsider all the garrisons to make sure they're all at least reasonably evenly capable.

    I personally don't mind having some factions garrisons being more capable than others. I just want more options to make the best possible use of that garrison for any given race. The option to put artillery on the walls, having the second row of wall-mounted infantry also facing forward, re-thought maps so that they actually fit the faction they are under, and those sorts of things.

    That said, the garrisons should be reworked but with keeping relative power disparities in mind. Dawi should still have the best garrisons but also making sure the Lizardmen don't have 60% units that are unsuited for a garrison. Having excessive amounts of cavalry, low-arc artillery or skirmish units in walled city garrisons just makes no sense. Though if arty could be on walls, cannons and the like would make a bit more sense.

    One more thing to do would be to make sure that the garrisons are loreful and realistic. High Elves are a good example of this as it makes 0 sense that their garrisons are made up of Lothern Sea Guard(when the city is inland) and White Lions of Chrace(that are the Phoenix Kings bodyguard). However, they also have a good example, the Gate Guard. Garrisons should be made out of renamed(Tor Guard?) these guys and then something other than White Lions as the primary melee roadblock.
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 628
    Yannir said:


    I personally don't mind having some factions garrisons being more capable than others. I just want more options to make the best possible use of that garrison for any given race. The option to put artillery on the walls, having the second row of wall-mounted infantry also facing forward, re-thought maps so that they actually fit the faction they are under, and those sorts of things.

    Artillery on walls would be terrible. Due to the sizes of the maps and there being no practical way to stop enemies from reaching the walls, plus the way the walls increase the dead zones in front of ranged units because nobody can fire down (except Darkshards), artillery on walls would be overrun super swiftly after only getting a few shots.
  • BillybabelBillybabel Registered Users Posts: 106

    Yannir said:


    I personally don't mind having some factions garrisons being more capable than others. I just want more options to make the best possible use of that garrison for any given race. The option to put artillery on the walls, having the second row of wall-mounted infantry also facing forward, re-thought maps so that they actually fit the faction they are under, and those sorts of things.

    Artillery on walls would be terrible. Due to the sizes of the maps and there being no practical way to stop enemies from reaching the walls, plus the way the walls increase the dead zones in front of ranged units because nobody can fire down (except Darkshards), artillery on walls would be overrun super swiftly after only getting a few shots.
    barricades and moats could go a long way in helping with that problem.
  • jamesbluewavejamesbluewave Registered Users Posts: 313
    Honestly, no matter what traps they add for sieges in terms of campaign it’s still shoot em with archers/artillery in terms of campaign.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,970
    edited October 29

    -It will be nice if there are some trees inside forests that attack and stomp units who get too close (Athel Loren)

    Also how about make them as trap which is only available for wood Elves? They can only be deployed in forest areas.
  • YannirYannir Registered Users Posts: 589

    Yannir said:


    I personally don't mind having some factions garrisons being more capable than others. I just want more options to make the best possible use of that garrison for any given race. The option to put artillery on the walls, having the second row of wall-mounted infantry also facing forward, re-thought maps so that they actually fit the faction they are under, and those sorts of things.

    Artillery on walls would be terrible. Due to the sizes of the maps and there being no practical way to stop enemies from reaching the walls, plus the way the walls increase the dead zones in front of ranged units because nobody can fire down (except Darkshards), artillery on walls would be overrun super swiftly after only getting a few shots.
    Oh yeah, I did forget to mention that I want them to get rid of those effing pocket-ladders. Add them to the purchasable items like siege towers and battering rams but so that it actually takes a turn to get them.
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 628
    Yannir said:

    Yannir said:


    I personally don't mind having some factions garrisons being more capable than others. I just want more options to make the best possible use of that garrison for any given race. The option to put artillery on the walls, having the second row of wall-mounted infantry also facing forward, re-thought maps so that they actually fit the faction they are under, and those sorts of things.

    Artillery on walls would be terrible. Due to the sizes of the maps and there being no practical way to stop enemies from reaching the walls, plus the way the walls increase the dead zones in front of ranged units because nobody can fire down (except Darkshards), artillery on walls would be overrun super swiftly after only getting a few shots.
    Oh yeah, I did forget to mention that I want them to get rid of those effing pocket-ladders. Add them to the purchasable items like siege towers and battering rams but so that it actually takes a turn to get them.
    It's like you're determined to reinforce the archer/SEM meta at all costs....
  • Eliak_The_Rat_MercEliak_The_Rat_Merc Registered Users Posts: 507
    For skavens i'd go with mines or barricades for weapon teams. Or both
    I assure you, we are very real. And we have come for you and your realm.
  • RomeoRejectRomeoReject Registered Users Posts: 1,561

    Yannir said:

    Yannir said:


    I personally don't mind having some factions garrisons being more capable than others. I just want more options to make the best possible use of that garrison for any given race. The option to put artillery on the walls, having the second row of wall-mounted infantry also facing forward, re-thought maps so that they actually fit the faction they are under, and those sorts of things.

    Artillery on walls would be terrible. Due to the sizes of the maps and there being no practical way to stop enemies from reaching the walls, plus the way the walls increase the dead zones in front of ranged units because nobody can fire down (except Darkshards), artillery on walls would be overrun super swiftly after only getting a few shots.
    Oh yeah, I did forget to mention that I want them to get rid of those effing pocket-ladders. Add them to the purchasable items like siege towers and battering rams but so that it actually takes a turn to get them.
    It's like you're determined to reinforce the archer/SEM meta at all costs....
    Eh, I think they're hoping to make sieges more interesting. And I'm not saying removing the magic ladders is the right step to do that, but I get what they're going for. At the moment, there's no point taking basically any siege equipment - rams are worse than just sending a monster to destroy the gates, and towers take so long to be deployed that it's usually less annoying to use the instantaneous ladders instead. If you actually had to spend time buying ladders, and you'd leave your troops out and exposed, now you're going to have a decision between buying a bunch of ladders for everyone, and going wide, or buying a siege tower or two and going for a narrower attack.
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 628

    Yannir said:

    Yannir said:


    I personally don't mind having some factions garrisons being more capable than others. I just want more options to make the best possible use of that garrison for any given race. The option to put artillery on the walls, having the second row of wall-mounted infantry also facing forward, re-thought maps so that they actually fit the faction they are under, and those sorts of things.

    Artillery on walls would be terrible. Due to the sizes of the maps and there being no practical way to stop enemies from reaching the walls, plus the way the walls increase the dead zones in front of ranged units because nobody can fire down (except Darkshards), artillery on walls would be overrun super swiftly after only getting a few shots.
    Oh yeah, I did forget to mention that I want them to get rid of those effing pocket-ladders. Add them to the purchasable items like siege towers and battering rams but so that it actually takes a turn to get them.
    It's like you're determined to reinforce the archer/SEM meta at all costs....
    Eh, I think they're hoping to make sieges more interesting. And I'm not saying removing the magic ladders is the right step to do that, but I get what they're going for. At the moment, there's no point taking basically any siege equipment - rams are worse than just sending a monster to destroy the gates, and towers take so long to be deployed that it's usually less annoying to use the instantaneous ladders instead. If you actually had to spend time buying ladders, and you'd leave your troops out and exposed, now you're going to have a decision between buying a bunch of ladders for everyone, and going wide, or buying a siege tower or two and going for a narrower attack.
    But no, you'd just get a Single Entity gate smasher stack.

    If you're climbing walls in a siege as the player, you've screwed up. It's the worst possible thing you can do in a siege battle.

    You win siege battles by creating a safe zone by killing one or two towers then hammering the infantry inside the walls with artillery, magic, and ranged fire. Depending on the layout and where the high value units end up standing you should be able to win most sieges without even entering the city.

    Either that or you have a stack of monsters and barge in through the game and trample everything.

    And the reason you do that is because it means you win with no or almost no losses and so are better positioned to either weather a counterattack or maintain your campaign momentum and stay on the offensive.
  • LordCommanderLordCommander Registered Users Posts: 1,574
    Maybe Dwarf miners could... mine. Rome had it.
  • Ol_NessieOl_Nessie Registered Users Posts: 4,303

    Maybe Dwarf miners could... mine. Rome had it.

    CA made them "good against gates" as a compromise.
    Build a Slayer Hero and make Miners, Rangers, and Irondrakes great again! Thorek Ironbrow 2020

  • ThirdeyeThirdeye Registered Users Posts: 198
    Well tunneling factions like Dwarfs and Skaven should be able to tunnel and plant bombs under walls. Wood Elves could get a spell that causes large, powerful roots the grow under walls/towers and crack/crumble them. “… and the walls came tumbling down”.
  • RomeoRejectRomeoReject Registered Users Posts: 1,561

    Yannir said:

    Yannir said:


    I personally don't mind having some factions garrisons being more capable than others. I just want more options to make the best possible use of that garrison for any given race. The option to put artillery on the walls, having the second row of wall-mounted infantry also facing forward, re-thought maps so that they actually fit the faction they are under, and those sorts of things.

    Artillery on walls would be terrible. Due to the sizes of the maps and there being no practical way to stop enemies from reaching the walls, plus the way the walls increase the dead zones in front of ranged units because nobody can fire down (except Darkshards), artillery on walls would be overrun super swiftly after only getting a few shots.
    Oh yeah, I did forget to mention that I want them to get rid of those effing pocket-ladders. Add them to the purchasable items like siege towers and battering rams but so that it actually takes a turn to get them.
    It's like you're determined to reinforce the archer/SEM meta at all costs....
    Eh, I think they're hoping to make sieges more interesting. And I'm not saying removing the magic ladders is the right step to do that, but I get what they're going for. At the moment, there's no point taking basically any siege equipment - rams are worse than just sending a monster to destroy the gates, and towers take so long to be deployed that it's usually less annoying to use the instantaneous ladders instead. If you actually had to spend time buying ladders, and you'd leave your troops out and exposed, now you're going to have a decision between buying a bunch of ladders for everyone, and going wide, or buying a siege tower or two and going for a narrower attack.
    But no, you'd just get a Single Entity gate smasher stack.

    If you're climbing walls in a siege as the player, you've screwed up. It's the worst possible thing you can do in a siege battle.

    You win siege battles by creating a safe zone by killing one or two towers then hammering the infantry inside the walls with artillery, magic, and ranged fire. Depending on the layout and where the high value units end up standing you should be able to win most sieges without even entering the city.

    Either that or you have a stack of monsters and barge in through the game and trample everything.

    And the reason you do that is because it means you win with no or almost no losses and so are better positioned to either weather a counterattack or maintain your campaign momentum and stay on the offensive.
    ...Wut? Climbing the walls in the battles is an AWESOME tactic, because you can specifically take optimal matchups. Put your swordsmen up first and you don't even have to consider cavalry or monsters, and the AI isn't smart enough to retreat from the walls. Once you've wiped out the forces on the walls, you toss up your ranged units and let them start pelting the enemy's cavalry and monsters from up on the walls. You've got to be the first person I've ever heard suggest otherwise.

    Sitting back with artillery or magic might work, especially if you've gone super far in to focusing on just those two things, but it's a pretty boring way to play, and also extremely inconsistant. Artillery and ranged units tend to struggle with hitting forces on the walls, meaning they often run out of ammo before you've taken out just those forces, to say nothing of the people within. Magic almost assuredly runs out of WoM first unless you've doomstacked specifically for that. Also, using your own ranged units to try and fight ranged units up on walls is a perfect way to make sure your ranged units get utterly wiped out. They'll often struggle to even target the enemy, let alone hit them.

    As for monsters at the gate... That's got to be the single worst tactic I've seen proposed. The gate bug means that's a great way to suffer heavy casualties on your monstrous infantry and cavalry unless you're running an all SEM doomstack, in which case you don't need to be doing tactics or thinking of any kind anyways.
  • GloatingSwineGloatingSwine Registered Users Posts: 628

    Yannir said:

    Yannir said:


    I personally don't mind having some factions garrisons being more capable than others. I just want more options to make the best possible use of that garrison for any given race. The option to put artillery on the walls, having the second row of wall-mounted infantry also facing forward, re-thought maps so that they actually fit the faction they are under, and those sorts of things.

    Artillery on walls would be terrible. Due to the sizes of the maps and there being no practical way to stop enemies from reaching the walls, plus the way the walls increase the dead zones in front of ranged units because nobody can fire down (except Darkshards), artillery on walls would be overrun super swiftly after only getting a few shots.
    Oh yeah, I did forget to mention that I want them to get rid of those effing pocket-ladders. Add them to the purchasable items like siege towers and battering rams but so that it actually takes a turn to get them.
    It's like you're determined to reinforce the archer/SEM meta at all costs....
    Eh, I think they're hoping to make sieges more interesting. And I'm not saying removing the magic ladders is the right step to do that, but I get what they're going for. At the moment, there's no point taking basically any siege equipment - rams are worse than just sending a monster to destroy the gates, and towers take so long to be deployed that it's usually less annoying to use the instantaneous ladders instead. If you actually had to spend time buying ladders, and you'd leave your troops out and exposed, now you're going to have a decision between buying a bunch of ladders for everyone, and going wide, or buying a siege tower or two and going for a narrower attack.
    But no, you'd just get a Single Entity gate smasher stack.

    If you're climbing walls in a siege as the player, you've screwed up. It's the worst possible thing you can do in a siege battle.

    You win siege battles by creating a safe zone by killing one or two towers then hammering the infantry inside the walls with artillery, magic, and ranged fire. Depending on the layout and where the high value units end up standing you should be able to win most sieges without even entering the city.

    Either that or you have a stack of monsters and barge in through the game and trample everything.

    And the reason you do that is because it means you win with no or almost no losses and so are better positioned to either weather a counterattack or maintain your campaign momentum and stay on the offensive.
    ...Wut? Climbing the walls in the battles is an AWESOME tactic, because you can specifically take optimal matchups. Put your swordsmen up first and you don't even have to consider cavalry or monsters, and the AI isn't smart enough to retreat from the walls. Once you've wiped out the forces on the walls, you toss up your ranged units and let them start pelting the enemy's cavalry and monsters from up on the walls. You've got to be the first person I've ever heard suggest otherwise.

    Sitting back with artillery or magic might work, especially if you've gone super far in to focusing on just those two things, but it's a pretty boring way to play, and also extremely inconsistant. Artillery and ranged units tend to struggle with hitting forces on the walls, meaning they often run out of ammo before you've taken out just those forces, to say nothing of the people within. Magic almost assuredly runs out of WoM first unless you've doomstacked specifically for that. Also, using your own ranged units to try and fight ranged units up on walls is a perfect way to make sure your ranged units get utterly wiped out. They'll often struggle to even target the enemy, let alone hit them.

    As for monsters at the gate... That's got to be the single worst tactic I've seen proposed. The gate bug means that's a great way to suffer heavy casualties on your monstrous infantry and cavalry unless you're running an all SEM doomstack, in which case you don't need to be doing tactics or thinking of any kind anyways.
    And then you arrive at the top of the walls tired and your troops fight like garbage, taking far more casualties than they would in an open battle (compounded as you turn the difficulty up and the AI fights over-tiered).

    Meanwhile, you don't have to worry about enemy cavalry or monsters inside the walls because they stand around waiting to get shot to death, whilst your vortex spells get hundreds or thousands of kills.

    And yes, you take enough artillery, ranged, and magic to take a city super consistently, because those are the best ways to damage enemies in field battles as well. Cavalry and monstrous infantry tends to trade down tier for tier, so with a few noble exceptions (Bretonnia, Stone Trolls, Minotaurs) it's a waste of money to recruit them.

    Ranged trades up and does so without exposing itself to danger. Maintaining campaign momentum and letting you capitalise on victories (again, more important the higher the difficulty because the AI recruits cheaper and faster).

    Like if you do this properly you'll take a city guarded by a full stack and barely move out of double digit casualties taken on a bad day. With pretty much every faction.
Sign In or Register to comment.