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

Burning gates is a horrible feature. Please remove it.

csouth154csouth154 Senior MemberPosts: 170Registered Users
edited September 2013 in General Discussion
Thread title says it all. Please, CA...remove this ill-conceived feature.
Post edited by csouth154 on

Comments

  • ShatteredLanceShatteredLance Senior Member Posts: 119Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Agreed, these are not the Japanese castles these have iron and steel! It'd be a nice thing to remove and require someone use a battering ram/ siege equipment rather than just burn down a gate and pour through.
  • fourty6to3fourty6to3 Member Posts: 84Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Yeah, siege equipment is rather useless when you can just use your spearmen to burn down the gate.
  • RagnarokRagnarok Senior Member Posts: 707Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    - Makes besieging unneccassairy
    - Makes headshotting cities possible
    - Does not seem very realistic either, doesn't make sense IMO

    agreed with OP
  • LoneMercLoneMerc Senior Member Posts: 1,058Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Agreed and already many threads on it.
    It is a lovely thing to live with great courage and to die leaving an everlasting fame,
    Macedonians!... Why do you retreat?!... Do you want to live forever?!
    In the name of Zeus!... ATTACK!

    Rig: i7 3770k OC @ 4.5G, GTX780TI 3Gig, 16 Gig Ram, 120SSD, 1TB HD
    Rome 2: Nvidia Experience Optimization used. All settings VHigh to Ultra with Unit Size: Ultra
    Rome 2: In Game Benchmark @ FPS: Low 52, Average 76.6, High 129
  • MasterPonchoMasterPoncho Senior Member Posts: 211Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    It really is. I have no reason to bring siege equipment to siege battles.
  • Masher8559Masher8559 Senior Member Posts: 503Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Yep so much for epic sieges. Throw a torch burn down both wooden and metal gates? then watch as the a.i blobs and charges through.
  • FourWindsFourWinds Senior Member Posts: 143Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    I'm not disagreeing, but I don't understand all the fuss about this.

    I'd like to have the option remain: I mean I have so many towers to point at so many wall points right. If I can burn a gate too it means the the AI has more ground to cover. Sorry, but to say it makes besieging unnecessary is just plain wrong: you really want to try and fit your whole army through that little gate?

    In fact I've changed my own mind here: Burning gates must remain as an option. If I was a Roman general I would do this thing.
    You dun started fixing it up.
  • CanOmerCanOmer Senior Member Posts: 296Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Did you taste boiled water? It can kill your entire army if the gate is defended with small garrison.
  • SporeduckSporeduck Senior Member Posts: 767Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    I agree wholeheartedly - The gates should be more than strong enough to withstand simple torch fire. We've got battering rams, towers and ladders to tackle a great wall of stone. No one in their right mind would ever construct a wall of simple wood, when they've got tall stone walls. It's too obvious of a weak point - Weapons grade metals.

    If it isn't already possible, the attacker (sieger) should be allowed to retreat into a zone and end the battle prematurely if they lose all of their siege weaponry, leaving them with no way to breach the city. This would also save time for the defender, having to wait for timer to run out. (The AI should NOT suicide the walls for no reason - they should fall back and use any remaining siege equipment)
  • Theta SigmaTheta Sigma Senior Member Posts: 388Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Many, many threads on this.

    And absolutely, yes it should be removed. Besieging fortified settlements should require siege equipment to even commence a battle, let alone be successful.
  • KatsusandKatsusand Senior Member Posts: 234Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    FourWinds wrote: »
    If I was a Roman general I would do this thing.
    You'd burn down an iron gate?
  • Masher8559Masher8559 Senior Member Posts: 503Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    CanOmer wrote: »
    Did you taste boiled water? It can kill your entire army if the gate is defended with small garrison.

    No it cannot. I ran two stacks through two separate gates in one siege and whilst i took many losses from towers and water it was still too easy.

    I have yet to see the a.i use proper siege equipment in 30+ hours of playing.
  • FourWindsFourWinds Senior Member Posts: 143Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Katsusand wrote: »
    You'd burn down an iron gate?

    lol, What I'm saying is that if I could burn the gate I would, even if I had no plans to try and mosh my guys through it. I would want the defenders to be as fragmented inside that town/city as possible, and this is a way to do that.
    You dun started fixing it up.
  • FourWindsFourWinds Senior Member Posts: 143Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Masher8559 wrote: »
    No it cannot. I ran two stacks through two separate gates in one siege and whilst i took many losses from towers and water it was still too easy.

    I have yet to see the a.i use proper siege equipment in 30+ hours of playing.

    It's bugged with proof mate. Watch this video and wait for a fix:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO53KphbJTk
    You dun started fixing it up.
  • AstrohawkeAstrohawke Senior Member Posts: 159Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    FourWinds wrote: »
    I'm not disagreeing, but I don't understand all the fuss about this.

    I'd like to have the option remain: I mean I have so many towers to point at so many wall points right. If I can burn a gate too it means the the AI has more ground to cover. Sorry, but to say it makes besieging unnecessary is just plain wrong: you really want to try and fit your whole army through that little gate?

    In fact I've changed my own mind here: Burning gates must remain as an option. If I was a Roman general I would do this thing.

    Besieging is unnecessary. I can send my whole army through the gate and lose like 200 men in the fight. Sure if you have ladders and stuff it's easier but it's not worth the turn it takes to build when you can just blitz through all their settlements.
    CanOmer wrote: »
    Did you taste boiled water? It can kill your entire army if the gate is defended with small garrison.

    No I haven't because either the AI never researches this or the game is over before they get around to it. Plus the AI will not move to defend all gates. If you deploy then move your army to one of the undefended gates then you pretty much get in for free, boiling water or no boiling water.
  • vizzovizzo Senior Member Posts: 527Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    +1 this is Europe, not Japan. While a British wooden gate could be burned down, a bronze gate should not. We need to have siege-equipment based warfare in the Med, and this is currently ruining it.
  • FourWindsFourWinds Senior Member Posts: 143Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Astrohawke wrote: »
    Besieging is unnecessary. I can send my whole army through the gate and lose like 200 men in the fight. Sure if you have ladders and stuff it's easier but it's not worth the turn it takes to build when you can just blitz through all their settlements.



    No I haven't because either the AI never researches this or the game is over before they get around to it. Plus the AI will not move to defend all gates. If you deploy then move your army to one of the undefended gates then you pretty much get in for free, boiling water or no boiling water.

    But mate, when the AI is working this will not be an issue. You would regret then not being able to fire the gates to fragment the AI defending. This request, and all the other just like it, is an overreaction to the broken AI. Watch the video I posted and you just might agree.
    You dun started fixing it up.
  • DavidtheDukeDavidtheDuke Senior Member Posts: 2,156Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Burning gates, general AI bugs (and the moddability of it), flags, formation issues, and performance issues are pretty much the biggest gripes of the forums (and me). 1+ here
    i6700k @ 4.0 ghz
    EVGA GTX1080ti FTW3 11GB
    1TB SSD w/ Windows 10 Pro 64bit
  • FrontlinerDeltaFrontlinerDelta Senior Member Posts: 3,548Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    This is one of my few real problems with the game. Makes battering rams useless, they are slower and easier to stop than running some heavy infantry up and burning the gates.
  • Germanicus75Germanicus75 Senior Member Posts: 143Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    This feature needs to be removed.
  • De MolayDe Molay Senior Member Posts: 349Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    One of those issues that ruin immersion


    There is NO WAY you could burn a capital's city metal gates .. absolutely no way

    Besides the realism/immersion issue , it makes a Whole tech tree totally redundant gameplay wise

    I sincerely hope they get rid of this ASAP , the only reason they put this feature seems to be because some casuals gamers don't want to have to build a siege engine or something , but there is a simple fix if you really want to cater to casual gamers as a priority : allow the most basic type of siege engine without neededing a tech , and that's it , everybody is happy and the sieges of major cities are suddenly more credible for the majority of TW players
  • SydrekSydrek Junior Member Posts: 4Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    City gates where rarely if ever made completely out of metal.
    Usually just reinforced wood, in either cases you wouldn't burn down the gates but rather making the hinges fail or at the very least weaker.

    However i do partially agree, at it's current state there's no point in besieging a city.
    It should take at least twice as long / be twice as hard to deal enough fire damage to a gate before it catches fire.
  • FourWindsFourWinds Senior Member Posts: 143Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    De Molay wrote: »
    One of those issues that ruin immersion


    There is NO WAY you could burn a capital's city metal gates .. absolutely no way

    Besides the realism/immersion issue , it makes a Whole tech tree totally redundant gameplay wise

    I sincerely hope they get rid of this ASAP , the only reason they put this feature seems to be because some casuals gamers don't want to have to build a siege engine or something , but there is a simple fix if you really want to cater to casual gamers as a priority : allow the most basic type of siege engine without neededing a tech , and that's it , everybody is happy and the sieges of major cities are suddenly more credible for the majority of TW players

    I've done no research, but what makes you say that any of the Roman gates were metal? Maybe some were clad in metal, but it seems unlikely to me that the romans could have cast anything so large in metal.

    I will say again, and for the last time because this call for the feature removal is a runaway bandwagon now, that this is a good feature, and that you guys are simply overreacting to the broken siege AI. You will find in this thread a video link that I posted that will explain why the AI won't siege, and it is nothing to do with the burning of wooden gates.
    You dun started fixing it up.
  • NorsaNorsa Senior Member Posts: 997Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Yes, agree 100%... Make siege armies actually mean something....
    2%
  • De MolayDe Molay Senior Member Posts: 349Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    FourWinds wrote: »
    I've done no research, but what makes you say that any of the Roman gates were metal? Maybe some were clad in metal, but it seems unlikely to me that the romans could have cast anything so large in metal.


    First of all i didn't talk about Roman gates specifically , actually i was more thinking about Hellenic gates which were for most of them made of a high proportion of bronze, and i'm pretty sure Roman gates were extremely resilient to a bunch of small thrown torches that would probably be extinguished once they hit the door if thrown like in the game .

    Especially since Roman gates in capital cities had a large amount of iron for many of them and the thickness and type of woods used made it extremely resilient against small sources of fire : the people who built these gates were no fools , they used the best materials and design to resist torching and forcing attempts specifically

    We are talking about cities and gates that were the best defence against raids and barbarians , sieging armies for centuries , if you seriously think that you could burn gates instead of having to siege for weeks and bring siege equipment to take down capital cities like countless sieges throughout the period , history would be very different in the history books

    Moreover from a gameplay perspective , besides a whole tech tree being rendered obsolete , it makes sieging/starving someone totally pointless , you can just burn the gate with expendable mercs that you disband after the siege and that 's it , cheap way to attack any capital city from turn 1 and annihilate immersion
  • NydelithNydelith Senior Member Posts: 595Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Um, YES I want to fit my armies through that breach. Are you serious man? Ever played a Total War game before Empire? That was the whole advantage of being the DEFENDING army. You had a wall to protect you, and a gate the enemy actually had to try to breach. And if you were a Roman general, you'd fail because your torches wouldn't burn jack. It's a thick wooden/iron gate, it shouldn't burn like a stack of hay.

    Don't even make it an option. Take it out of the game completely.
  • NydelithNydelith Senior Member Posts: 595Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    FourWinds wrote: »
    I'm not disagreeing, but I don't understand all the fuss about this.

    I'd like to have the option remain: I mean I have so many towers to point at so many wall points right. If I can burn a gate too it means the the AI has more ground to cover. Sorry, but to say it makes besieging unnecessary is just plain wrong: you really want to try and fit your whole army through that little gate?

    In fact I've changed my own mind here: Burning gates must remain as an option. If I was a Roman general I would do this thing.

    Um, YES I want to fit my armies through that breach. Are you serious man? Ever played a Total War game before Empire? That was the whole advantage of being the DEFENDING army. You had a wall to protect you, and a gate the enemy actually had to try to breach. And if you were a Roman general, you'd fail because your torches wouldn't burn jack. It's a thick wooden/iron gate, it shouldn't burn like a stack of hay.

    Don't even make it an option. Take it out of the game completely.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,157Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    FourWinds wrote: »
    I'm not disagreeing, but I don't understand all the fuss about this.

    I'd like to have the option remain: I mean I have so many towers to point at so many wall points right. If I can burn a gate too it means the the AI has more ground to cover. Sorry, but to say it makes besieging unnecessary is just plain wrong: you really want to try and fit your whole army through that little gate?

    In fact I've changed my own mind here: Burning gates must remain as an option. If I was a Roman general I would do this thing.
    I sort of agree: it should be a quick alternative, but one that should bear some risk in itself, like if it would take much longer and could cost more men that if you waited a few turns for some siege engines made.

    If the game had morale effects after a battle due to significant losses that could also be something that will affect your decision to attack the settlement via burning gates. But so far, it is a much more convenient and advantageous alternative than sitting around just to play with engines that will take a long time to get to the walls.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • Adam ChattawayAdam Chattaway Member Posts: 40Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    /signed, please remove this, burning a gate in real life took freaking hours not seconds.
Sign In or Register to comment.