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

Trebs are now worthless

2»

Comments

  • TajlTajl Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 266
    Krunch said:

    Jesus talk about an overreaction. You are supposed to blow walls in the enemy defenses, not just snipe towers anyway.

    Though that is totally ahistorical. Chinese city walls were very thick (like 20m) and 200AD didn't have counterweight trebs. So if they would have started to blow that wall away 200AD there is good chance that they would be still doing it.

    Historically what 200AD arty could do was that they could burn wooden parts. Like towers and city behind walls.
  • lilpopelilpope Registered Users Posts: 78
    Knew this would happen... they were fine the way they were before. Just needed something like lock them to lvl 5 strategists or something
  • shattishatti Registered Users Posts: 461
    some kids only looking for kills
    they have a a great perk, their reach is worth gold money
    breaking enemy formations and forcing them to approach u
  • AxlswhkAxlswhk Registered Users Posts: 216
    Treb is nerf way too much, bring back the original trebs.

    Designing a game is all about giving options for players from a wide range an option to play how they want.

    Not restricting options of others just to please certain group of people trying to impose the way the game should be played on other people.
  • TajlTajl Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 266
    Axlswhk said:

    Treb is nerf way too much, bring back the original trebs.

    Designing a game is all about giving options for players from a wide range an option to play how they want.

    Not restricting options of others just to please certain group of people trying to impose the way the game should be played on other people.

    This should be historical game where available options are same that were available for historical generals. Maybe some modder could add cannons, tanks and airforces for someone who like to have options.
  • AxlswhkAxlswhk Registered Users Posts: 216
    Tajl said:

    Axlswhk said:

    Treb is nerf way too much, bring back the original trebs.

    Designing a game is all about giving options for players from a wide range an option to play how they want.

    Not restricting options of others just to please certain group of people trying to impose the way the game should be played on other people.

    This should be historical game where available options are same that were available for historical generals. Maybe some modder could add cannons, tanks and airforces for someone who like to have options.
    This historical argument serve no purpose, selective argument at best and in no way could be link as an excuse to nerf trebs. So why not totally remove the trebs to stay true to historical facts.

    Vanilla game should be design to allow wide range of people an option to play the way they enjoy most without having a bunch of people telling you how it should/shouldnot be played. I bought the game using my own money Ffs.

    Nerfing it completely remove the option for a certain group to enjoy the way it is. It’s not like the game force people to use trebs in every battle. I think it’s clear who is dramtising now?

  • TajlTajl Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 266
    Axlswhk said:

    Tajl said:

    Axlswhk said:

    Treb is nerf way too much, bring back the original trebs.

    Designing a game is all about giving options for players from a wide range an option to play how they want.

    Not restricting options of others just to please certain group of people trying to impose the way the game should be played on other people.

    This should be historical game where available options are same that were available for historical generals. Maybe some modder could add cannons, tanks and airforces for someone who like to have options.
    This historical argument serve no purpose, selective argument at best and in no way could be link as an excuse to nerf trebs. So why not totally remove the trebs to stay true to historical facts.

    Vanilla game should be design to allow wide range of people an option to play the way they enjoy most without having a bunch of people telling you how it should/shouldnot be played. I bought the game using my own money Ffs.

    Nerfing it completely remove the option for a certain group to enjoy the way it is. It’s not like the game force people to use trebs in every battle. I think it’s clear who is dramtising now?

    If someone enjoy playing with cannons maybe game about 200AD warfare is not for him.

    And yes, removing trebs and replacing them with artillery that actually existed 200AD would have been great, but I understand why CA didn't do it.

    I think that for most people cannons just made this game really really easy. Few cannons and moving your troops in battles were totally unnecessary.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 3,695
    Haven't had a chance to test try them out against settlements, but do trebuchets still knock holes in city walls in relatively short order?

    If yes, then they're not "worthless"; they're now doing exactly what they were always meant to do all along.
  • markp27markp27 Registered Users Posts: 1,531

    Haven't had a chance to test try them out against settlements, but do trebuchets still knock holes in city walls in relatively short order?

    If yes, then they're not "worthless"; they're now doing exactly what they were always meant to do all along.

    You do realise how many trebs would actually be needed for that?
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 3,695
    edited August 2019
    markp27 said:

    Haven't had a chance to test try them out against settlements, but do trebuchets still knock holes in city walls in relatively short order?

    If yes, then they're not "worthless"; they're now doing exactly what they were always meant to do all along.

    You do realise how many trebs would actually be needed for that?
    One, evidently.



    A single rank 1 trebuchet, using standard shot, destroyed a section of wall in under 90 seconds, using about 30% of it's ammo.

    Yeah, trebuchets are fine.
  • TheSpartan1TheSpartan1 Registered Users Posts: 307
    Standard shot seems to do more damage than flaming shots now. At least I could still cause more damage with trebs on units. As for towers, I'll let the spear guard tank the shots and use flamming arrows to do the job. Lots of stuff needed to adapt and improvise after trebs were nerfed.
  • markp27markp27 Registered Users Posts: 1,531

    markp27 said:

    Haven't had a chance to test try them out against settlements, but do trebuchets still knock holes in city walls in relatively short order?

    If yes, then they're not "worthless"; they're now doing exactly what they were always meant to do all along.

    You do realise how many trebs would actually be needed for that?
    One, evidently.



    A single rank 1 trebuchet, using standard shot, destroyed a section of wall in under 90 seconds, using about 30% of it's ammo.

    Yeah, trebuchets are fine.
    In 617 Li Mi (Sui dynasty) constructed 300 trebuchets for his assault on Luoyang. The walls are literally that thick :D
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 3,695
    markp27 said:

    markp27 said:

    Haven't had a chance to test try them out against settlements, but do trebuchets still knock holes in city walls in relatively short order?

    If yes, then they're not "worthless"; they're now doing exactly what they were always meant to do all along.

    You do realise how many trebs would actually be needed for that?
    One, evidently.



    A single rank 1 trebuchet, using standard shot, destroyed a section of wall in under 90 seconds, using about 30% of it's ammo.

    Yeah, trebuchets are fine.
    In 617 Li Mi (Sui dynasty) constructed 300 trebuchets for his assault on Luoyang. The walls are literally that thick :D
    Well, that's very interesting! And that has some bearing on the use of trebuchets in the game... how exactly?
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 25,941
    markp27 said:

    markp27 said:

    Haven't had a chance to test try them out against settlements, but do trebuchets still knock holes in city walls in relatively short order?

    If yes, then they're not "worthless"; they're now doing exactly what they were always meant to do all along.

    You do realise how many trebs would actually be needed for that?
    One, evidently.



    A single rank 1 trebuchet, using standard shot, destroyed a section of wall in under 90 seconds, using about 30% of it's ammo.

    Yeah, trebuchets are fine.
    In 617 Li Mi (Sui dynasty) constructed 300 trebuchets for his assault on Luoyang. The walls are literally that thick :D
    Gotta start recruiting then!

  • markp27markp27 Registered Users Posts: 1,531

    markp27 said:

    markp27 said:

    Haven't had a chance to test try them out against settlements, but do trebuchets still knock holes in city walls in relatively short order?

    If yes, then they're not "worthless"; they're now doing exactly what they were always meant to do all along.

    You do realise how many trebs would actually be needed for that?
    One, evidently.



    A single rank 1 trebuchet, using standard shot, destroyed a section of wall in under 90 seconds, using about 30% of it's ammo.

    Yeah, trebuchets are fine.
    In 617 Li Mi (Sui dynasty) constructed 300 trebuchets for his assault on Luoyang. The walls are literally that thick :D
    Well, that's very interesting! And that has some bearing on the use of trebuchets in the game... how exactly?
    People are saying they should be used to knock down walls, but that was never their job, it was to hit troops that are massing.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 3,695
    markp27 said:

    markp27 said:

    markp27 said:

    Haven't had a chance to test try them out against settlements, but do trebuchets still knock holes in city walls in relatively short order?

    If yes, then they're not "worthless"; they're now doing exactly what they were always meant to do all along.

    You do realise how many trebs would actually be needed for that?
    One, evidently.



    A single rank 1 trebuchet, using standard shot, destroyed a section of wall in under 90 seconds, using about 30% of it's ammo.

    Yeah, trebuchets are fine.
    In 617 Li Mi (Sui dynasty) constructed 300 trebuchets for his assault on Luoyang. The walls are literally that thick :D
    Well, that's very interesting! And that has some bearing on the use of trebuchets in the game... how exactly?
    People are saying they should be used to knock down walls, but that was never their job, it was to hit troops that are massing.
    Nonsense.

    A trebuchet is a siege weapon. The primary purpose of a siege weapon is - and has always been - to break down walls and defenses. Targeting enemy troops with them is an afterthought.
  • decourcy2decourcy2 Registered Users Posts: 182
    Whiskeyjack, I agree in general, but in this period there was no trebuchet. The Chinese man powered catapult fired arrow bundles at the tower defenses to suppress them while the infantry advanced. The walls of any decent city were too thick for 4kg stones to break.
  • TajlTajl Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 266
    edited August 2019

    markp27 said:

    markp27 said:

    markp27 said:

    Haven't had a chance to test try them out against settlements, but do trebuchets still knock holes in city walls in relatively short order?

    If yes, then they're not "worthless"; they're now doing exactly what they were always meant to do all along.

    You do realise how many trebs would actually be needed for that?
    One, evidently.



    A single rank 1 trebuchet, using standard shot, destroyed a section of wall in under 90 seconds, using about 30% of it's ammo.

    Yeah, trebuchets are fine.
    In 617 Li Mi (Sui dynasty) constructed 300 trebuchets for his assault on Luoyang. The walls are literally that thick :D
    Well, that's very interesting! And that has some bearing on the use of trebuchets in the game... how exactly?
    People are saying they should be used to knock down walls, but that was never their job, it was to hit troops that are massing.
    Nonsense.

    A trebuchet is a siege weapon. The primary purpose of a siege weapon is - and has always been - to break down walls and defenses. Targeting enemy troops with them is an afterthought.
    No, siege weapon couldn't break down walls. In Chine those walls could be 20m thick. It would have taken ages to knock them down. It just didn't happen it is pure fantasy.

    Counterweight trebuchet 1000 years after game time could know down some not so thick walls, but even with them it didn't work against anything well fortified. People were not idiots, if they could have knocked down walls they wouldn't have wasted lives with siege ladders and towers. Only after gunpowder it became possible and even then they needed huge siege cannons. And i mean really huge siege cannons which took hundreds of men to operate.

    Early siege weapons job was to shoot over walls and rain fire for people and buildings inside. Burning coals, diseased meat, etc.
  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Registered Users Posts: 2,748

    Well, that's very interesting! And that has some bearing on the use of trebuchets in the game... how exactly?

    Yeah, in the game you can use 1 treb to knock out a wall but historically you needed like 300 to do this. The walls are made out of paper in the game while historically it was way thicker.
  • markp27markp27 Registered Users Posts: 1,531
    edited August 2019
    Even if you forget how thick they were there was another factor as to why they were so immune to siege weapons:

    Chinese walls had tamped earthen cores which absorbed the energy of artillery shots. Walls were constructed using wooden frameworks which were filled with layers of earth tamped down to a highly compact state, and once that was completed the frameworks were removed for use in the next wall section. They also sloped their walls which took away a lot of the impact.

    You could lob rocks at them all day and would not cause much impact. If you dug under them you were likely to buried alive.
  • foureyes85foureyes85 Registered Users Posts: 175

    markp27 said:

    Rewan said:

    In sieges they are worthless due to the towers becoming so weak


    First off, I believe the only towers that got nerfed were the minor settlement towers.
    Second off, if you were using trebs against towers rather than the walls or the units means you were using them wrong (since archers >>>> trebs against towers)
    I was not talking about using trebs against towers, I am sorry if it read that way. I mean the killing power of towers is so weak now that, they rarely kill troops early game. So I can take a ram to the gate. In mid game I can use fire arrows to destroy towers or gates fast.
    They're still strong, just not cheese levels of strong where they enable blowing entire armies away with basic garrisons.
    Hear! Hear! I just finished my first 8 Princes campaign and did not really notice the treb nerf. I used 1 treb in most armies (to me 2 trebs/army feels excessive) - they are still as useful as before.

    Perhaps different unit sizes is partly the reason for the disagreements. I play with small unit size and in 3K I often used to be able to kill 80-90% of armies with just 4 archers/crossbowmen + 2 trebs (that is, prior to the treb nerf).
  • MuzikkMuzikk Registered Users Posts: 4
    decourcy2 said:

    Whiskeyjack, I agree in general, but in this period there was no trebuchet. The Chinese man powered catapult fired arrow bundles at the tower defenses to suppress them while the infantry advanced. The walls of any decent city were too thick for 4kg stones to break.

    The mass of the trebuchet ammo is actually 500 kg in this game.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 3,695
    edited August 2019
    decourcy2 said:

    Whiskeyjack, I agree in general, but in this period there was no trebuchet. The Chinese man powered catapult fired arrow bundles at the tower defenses to suppress them while the infantry advanced. The walls of any decent city were too thick for 4kg stones to break.

    Tajl said:

    markp27 said:

    markp27 said:

    markp27 said:

    Haven't had a chance to test try them out against settlements, but do trebuchets still knock holes in city walls in relatively short order?

    If yes, then they're not "worthless"; they're now doing exactly what they were always meant to do all along.

    You do realise how many trebs would actually be needed for that?
    One, evidently.



    A single rank 1 trebuchet, using standard shot, destroyed a section of wall in under 90 seconds, using about 30% of it's ammo.

    Yeah, trebuchets are fine.
    In 617 Li Mi (Sui dynasty) constructed 300 trebuchets for his assault on Luoyang. The walls are literally that thick :D
    Well, that's very interesting! And that has some bearing on the use of trebuchets in the game... how exactly?
    People are saying they should be used to knock down walls, but that was never their job, it was to hit troops that are massing.
    Nonsense.

    A trebuchet is a siege weapon. The primary purpose of a siege weapon is - and has always been - to break down walls and defenses. Targeting enemy troops with them is an afterthought.
    No, siege weapon couldn't break down walls. In Chine those walls could be 20m thick. It would have taken ages to knock them down. It just didn't happen it is pure fantasy.

    Counterweight trebuchet 1000 years after game time could know down some not so thick walls, but even with them it didn't work against anything well fortified. People were not idiots, if they could have knocked down walls they wouldn't have wasted lives with siege ladders and towers. Only after gunpowder it became possible and even then they needed huge siege cannons. And i mean really huge siege cannons which took hundreds of men to operate.

    Early siege weapons job was to shoot over walls and rain fire for people and buildings inside. Burning coals, diseased meat, etc.

    Well, that's very interesting! And that has some bearing on the use of trebuchets in the game... how exactly?

    Yeah, in the game you can use 1 treb to knock out a wall but historically you needed like 300 to do this. The walls are made out of paper in the game while historically it was way thicker.
    Well, sure, but that's real life. This is a video game. 🤷‍♂️

    I mean, what do you want the game to do? Force the player to recruit a second army composed entirely of trebuchets just to knock down a single section of wall?
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,210
    To the question : How many Strategists should we need to knock down a chinese wall, the answer is 12...
    ... and a half.

    Which is at least four armies made up only of Trebuchets and Strategists.
    TW : Three Kingdoms. Units not running in battles ? You probably came down to a bad case of floor is caltrops. Use this miraculous cure to make your soldiers hoppity happy again : https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2132907090
  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Registered Users Posts: 2,748
    edited August 2019

    Well, sure, but that's real life. This is a video game. 🤷‍♂️

    I mean, what do you want the game to do? Force the player to recruit a second army composed entirely of trebuchets just to knock down a single section of wall?

    Oh yeah I know, I'm cool with how trebs function in the game, I just thought that its an interesting fact to let people know how durable the walls in ancient China were historically.
  • TajlTajl Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 266

    decourcy2 said:

    Whiskeyjack, I agree in general, but in this period there was no trebuchet. The Chinese man powered catapult fired arrow bundles at the tower defenses to suppress them while the infantry advanced. The walls of any decent city were too thick for 4kg stones to break.

    Tajl said:

    markp27 said:

    markp27 said:

    markp27 said:

    Haven't had a chance to test try them out against settlements, but do trebuchets still knock holes in city walls in relatively short order?

    If yes, then they're not "worthless"; they're now doing exactly what they were always meant to do all along.

    You do realise how many trebs would actually be needed for that?
    One, evidently.



    A single rank 1 trebuchet, using standard shot, destroyed a section of wall in under 90 seconds, using about 30% of it's ammo.

    Yeah, trebuchets are fine.
    In 617 Li Mi (Sui dynasty) constructed 300 trebuchets for his assault on Luoyang. The walls are literally that thick :D
    Well, that's very interesting! And that has some bearing on the use of trebuchets in the game... how exactly?
    People are saying they should be used to knock down walls, but that was never their job, it was to hit troops that are massing.
    Nonsense.

    A trebuchet is a siege weapon. The primary purpose of a siege weapon is - and has always been - to break down walls and defenses. Targeting enemy troops with them is an afterthought.
    No, siege weapon couldn't break down walls. In Chine those walls could be 20m thick. It would have taken ages to knock them down. It just didn't happen it is pure fantasy.

    Counterweight trebuchet 1000 years after game time could know down some not so thick walls, but even with them it didn't work against anything well fortified. People were not idiots, if they could have knocked down walls they wouldn't have wasted lives with siege ladders and towers. Only after gunpowder it became possible and even then they needed huge siege cannons. And i mean really huge siege cannons which took hundreds of men to operate.

    Early siege weapons job was to shoot over walls and rain fire for people and buildings inside. Burning coals, diseased meat, etc.

    Well, that's very interesting! And that has some bearing on the use of trebuchets in the game... how exactly?

    Yeah, in the game you can use 1 treb to knock out a wall but historically you needed like 300 to do this. The walls are made out of paper in the game while historically it was way thicker.
    Well, sure, but that's real life. This is a video game. 🤷‍♂️

    I mean, what do you want the game to do? Force the player to recruit a second army composed entirely of trebuchets just to knock down a single section of wall?
    I think it would be best if players would have to use tactics that were available for generals at that time. They didn't knock down walls because it was physically impossible to do so. Instead they used ladders, siege towers etc, if they wanted to attack. Or they could build trebuchets and shoot over walls. Not because they would kill enemy soldiers, but because they could burn city and make life inside miserable.

    Assault against walled cities should be costly. They didn't build walls because they look impressive, instead they built them because before gunpowder it was really hard to take walled cities. It did cost men. Not like it is now in game, when you can easily conquer one city/turn without practically any casualties.

    Historically it just didn't work like that. For example 213 siege of Jicheng lasted months. Even when attacker had 10 times more troops siege only ended after defenders surrendered. They didn't have magical artillery to knock down walls. Maybe they could have used ladders, siege tower or something, but most likely if they would have done that they would have lost half or their army. Walled city should be huge advantage for defender.
  • zmey_gorinichzmey_gorinich Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 227
    edited August 2019
    Trebs still kill a lot of troops if aimed at blobs. Though, for me the most valuable treb feature is that the AI will rush you even if you're the attacker (that has been true in most previous TW titles as well: bring more arty than the AI and they will rush you up the steepest hill).

Sign In or Register to comment.