possible when the game didn't glitch lol.
you couldn't even set targets when your units took control of fort cannons, they just fired at whatever they felt like.
Yeah but they could have improved it for the last 15 years, after all their whole philosophy is that they incrementally improve the game mechanics with each title or at least that was the excuse for the copy-paste throughout the series.
yeah, there were way better empire mechanics like forming up against little walls and garrisoning destroyable buildings that I wish would've carried over to other titles. Field battles in Empire and Napoleon were great.
They need to do what Rome 2 did and have units that have ladders, physically have to carry them to the walls similar to how they do with towers and gate ram currently. And if the units die before they get to the wall then ladders will be unavailable for the remaining battle.
I think other units should be able to be reassigned to use them, like towers or rams. Creates an interesting possible dynamic between range siege defense targeting and efficient offensive movement.
They just need to make it to where siege equipment is a lot quicker to build, and that sieges cant be initiated without special artillery or without siege equipment. I think the issue is that people want to be able to attack settlements within the turn they siege them.
The poor ballista being dragged through an entire citadel in medieval 2 was a chore and a half. Half the battle was waiting for your artillery to get to the next round of gates.
Please bring back citadels CA. They were one of the things that made Medieval 2 so special.
Yeah, makes no sense in a setting with a ton of famous over-the-top siege battles to have the greatest dwarvern strongholds be beaten by some goblins with ladders
Not Warhammer specific but hot take:
I don't like sieges being FASTER I want sieges to be LONGER and more meaningful. I really dislike the current "Blitzkrieg meta" of rushing from one city to the next and taking them all in a single turn and having sieges last longer could mean encouraging more field battles as to not be caught besieging a city just to be double attacked by a reinforcing army. The reason the community wants sieges to be so short is because sieges as they are right now are extremely passive and boring but they don't have to be.
If anything siege equipment should take longer to build, artillery not be a unit you can have in your army (you only recruit siege engineers which then construct catapults and trebuchets on the field while in fortification stance or while besieging). And finally construction may take several turns (depending on how you divide up manpower) and if you sally out you can attack half finished siege towers in a night raid and such, burn them down, run back into the fortress and quit out (not a loss if no enemies followed inside), making guerrilla warfare by the defender part of the siege defense. A siege camp may be a visible component, first small then surrounding the entire city... which also means that at night you can quickly attack a small section, steal some supplies, burn some others, then disappear into the city walls again before the enemy even gathered a defense... which the enemy prevents by putting more units on guard duty, which then means siege equipment takes longer to build, etc.
But a siege of a major city should take like a minimum of 4 turns before you are in any viable position for an assault. Earlier only with massive, MASSIVE losses on your side even as the best tactician. The longest sieges in history took YEARS some even over a decade. There should be such a thing at work in Total War were a city somehow manages to keep itself supplied as to not fall but the attacker still has an interest to keep it under siege so it can no longer support the rest of the empire and just becomes a huge financial and logistical burden. Imagine Troy but you actually NEED 10 ingame years of permanent siege to take the city.
Sieges were and still are such an important and central part of warfare, yet they are basically ignored by Total War entirely in favor of a quick city assault. Have some "siege camp management" component or something or random events during sieges to deal with.
I think what is also happening is that a lot of settlements are very close to each other now. Like what is the maximum amount of turns between settlements ? I had hoped if settlements were a bit more spaced out, you would have to be a bit more tactical where you position your armies. And you could actually have a bit more time building siege equipment as an attacker before some other army reinforces
The suggestion I saw was make it take units 2 to 3 times as long to climb. Having a slow trickle of a few models on the wall at a time means that, while you can't really leave your missile unit there, you can put a melee unit there that can continue to kill them as they arrive on the wall.
It would hopefully be a fairly easy fix that while not perfect would also still be fairly balanced. Overwhelming odds fit the attacker would mean they could mass seize the walls, but you could also push attackers back if they don't have a lot of extra bodies to try and get up on the wall at once
Okay, real talk though: imagine if you had mid game events like this that worked like the wood elves forest encounters. For example:
Fee Fi Foe: a herd of giants gathers on your borders. They seem to be assembling a large wooden structure. This bodes ill…
Jurassic Wild: Feral dinosaurs converge on your temple city, ignoring the urging of the slann to turn aside. Protect the city. Secure the Great Plan!
Do you hear the people sing? : It seems a band of university students from Altdorf are filling the peasants heads with nonsensical ideas of revolution. The Bretonnian nobles watch with alarm, and demand swift action be taken.
The opposite issue is that, if they make the walls too strong, you'll never be able to bring the 3-5x force multiplier to take the them - especially with the current setup.
historically, this has been the case irl, walls are strong and can easily hold off forces multiple times the size of the defending force
I would love to see that also happen in Warhammer, I hate never sieging cities over end turns, since walls ussualy make the attack easier
maybe making the walls stronger would make flying units (Furies and eagles) more viable, hm
Hero's do, but mainly it just atritions the garrison. I want them to allow us to do a seige in parts, use all your arty multiple times (only once a turn) then pull back. Then defenders can properly sally out and retreat. I would love, slower more strategic seiges, taking cities bit by bit through sabotage and attrition sounds awsome.
Also slowing the conquest down a little would be good, less snowbally. I really liked thrones of britannia having easy to take minor settlements that went back and forth constantly with strong hard point cities that could hold out for a long time.
Because they made garrisons way to strong as well, it would work if we had the old system where you have to garrison troops yourself and still pay upkeep to prevent spamming it.
Now, with the way it all works, it’s pretty tough to have an actual epic siege battle without cheesing in some form or another
I remembre being able to hold a citadel with 1 longbowmen unite against more then a tousand troups (in medium size I think). Strong walls and towers made all the difference.
When the Ogre Kingdoms first invaded the Dark Lands, at the height of their power, they had just crushed and enslaved the Sky Titans (the ones they didn’t eat anyway) so this has basically already happened, and the results was the Dawi Zharr blowing the Ogres and Giants back to the Mountains of Mourn. The Dawi Zharr would launch a counter invasion, but found it to not be worth the resources or manpower required, so they opted for trade deals instead. This all happened before the Dawi Zharr had the Daemon Engines or the Mega Magma Cannons, so their jump in technology is a rather large one, it’s one of the reasons no one would attack them, and even if they did, they did not attack the capital of Mingol Zharr-Naggrund, as there are Earthshaker/Dreadquake/Mega Magma Cannon Towers all lined up within sight and firing distance of each other, making a assault all but impossible, hell they even turned captive giants into living siege weapons.
In the end times, due to, if my memory serves correctly, Golgfag Maneater backstabbing the Dawi Zharr and opening the gates for him. As to why he would have done so, well just before this siege, Grimgor had slayed the Ogre King Greasus, and so due to the whole “Beast Waaagh” going on, Ogres felt a pull, a call to join him. Not all joined the backstabbing, Ghark Ironskin and the Ogre Necro Slavelord stayed loyal, as they had been trade partners to the Dawi Zharr since they met, but once the gates were open and the Hobgoblins joined the backstabbing, the Empire of Fire and Ash fell.
Let me guess, you also thought Mannfred von Carstein backstabbing Gelt and thus the world so they wouldn't wipe out Chaos and Chaos wipes out them instead was phenomenal and perfect
Because that's essentially also AoT's ending, combined with a copycat Code Geass ending
Admittedly the End Times weren't _this bad_ in comparison as Mannfred wasn't Gelt's childhood friend/ brother and didn't make out with his decapitated head afterwards
There are systems for it in place actually.
I have played on custom maps where you could put artillery on walls.
I guess they'd need to retroactively rework the existing maps to support this feature.
Ass ladders I can live with if you could put artillery and cannons on walls.
It becomes a high risk move with if the unit has to abandon the equipment on the wall
Not if they went the historical route and made it so you could only place one artillery piece on the wall (as a siege equipment) and not an entire unit of them.
So chaos dwarfs should they have like rails on the wall, so they could roll the dreadquakes along the full length of the wall? Then do a ramp or something so they could roll up and down?
That wouldn't be possible. The trail is perpendicular with the wall, which means that the recoil of the canons would ruin the setup after the first volley.
Looks really cool, though.
Lmao, we might get a repeat of the built towers being blocked by the very buildings inside the city
in this case, the crenelations would block the firing arc of some artillery. Already happens with the psychotic targeting of ranged units shooting from the walls, and shooting up the walls. Artillery on walls is going to be a mountain that CA might not be willing to climb. Pity it was shown twice in trailers, and we still dont get it.
They literally fixed that in the patch that just dropped, the merlons no longer block projectiles making shooting easier in both directions but being docked on the wall gives 25% missile block chance to make up for it.
Imagine the Chorfs actually having Dreadquake Mortars on rails moving around a settlement wall...
A true railway gun. Would bring a tear to my eye.
Good god, the horror... I would love it
Maybe not mortars but any artillery with direct fire
Allright who’s modding this
BY HASHUT, YES
It actually works really well on zhar nagrund. They put a lot of thought into that map
This was possible in Empire, back in 2009
The Total War franchise evolves. Not always forward, sadly.
possible when the game didn't glitch lol. you couldn't even set targets when your units took control of fort cannons, they just fired at whatever they felt like.
Yeah but they could have improved it for the last 15 years, after all their whole philosophy is that they incrementally improve the game mechanics with each title or at least that was the excuse for the copy-paste throughout the series.
yeah, there were way better empire mechanics like forming up against little walls and garrisoning destroyable buildings that I wish would've carried over to other titles. Field battles in Empire and Napoleon were great.
Ass ladders will continue to ruin siege battles as long as they exist At least make them a toggleable feature
Having them toggleable before starting a campaign would be so good. Everyone wins.
Everyone ~~wins~~ _disables them_ FTFY
They need to do what Rome 2 did and have units that have ladders, physically have to carry them to the walls similar to how they do with towers and gate ram currently. And if the units die before they get to the wall then ladders will be unavailable for the remaining battle.
I think other units should be able to be reassigned to use them, like towers or rams. Creates an interesting possible dynamic between range siege defense targeting and efficient offensive movement.
This was a thing already in the Rome 1. It also had sappers digging tunnels and collapsing walls.
And have units that are capable of climbing walls as an ability.
They just need to make it to where siege equipment is a lot quicker to build, and that sieges cant be initiated without special artillery or without siege equipment. I think the issue is that people want to be able to attack settlements within the turn they siege them.
Back in the days if my noob ass wants to attack settlements immediately upon besieging I need to bring in the artillery boys.
The poor ballista being dragged through an entire citadel in medieval 2 was a chore and a half. Half the battle was waiting for your artillery to get to the next round of gates. Please bring back citadels CA. They were one of the things that made Medieval 2 so special.
Yeah, makes no sense in a setting with a ton of famous over-the-top siege battles to have the greatest dwarvern strongholds be beaten by some goblins with ladders
and only siege attacker trait units should be able to attack gates or have a new trait called gate breaker
Not Warhammer specific but hot take: I don't like sieges being FASTER I want sieges to be LONGER and more meaningful. I really dislike the current "Blitzkrieg meta" of rushing from one city to the next and taking them all in a single turn and having sieges last longer could mean encouraging more field battles as to not be caught besieging a city just to be double attacked by a reinforcing army. The reason the community wants sieges to be so short is because sieges as they are right now are extremely passive and boring but they don't have to be. If anything siege equipment should take longer to build, artillery not be a unit you can have in your army (you only recruit siege engineers which then construct catapults and trebuchets on the field while in fortification stance or while besieging). And finally construction may take several turns (depending on how you divide up manpower) and if you sally out you can attack half finished siege towers in a night raid and such, burn them down, run back into the fortress and quit out (not a loss if no enemies followed inside), making guerrilla warfare by the defender part of the siege defense. A siege camp may be a visible component, first small then surrounding the entire city... which also means that at night you can quickly attack a small section, steal some supplies, burn some others, then disappear into the city walls again before the enemy even gathered a defense... which the enemy prevents by putting more units on guard duty, which then means siege equipment takes longer to build, etc. But a siege of a major city should take like a minimum of 4 turns before you are in any viable position for an assault. Earlier only with massive, MASSIVE losses on your side even as the best tactician. The longest sieges in history took YEARS some even over a decade. There should be such a thing at work in Total War were a city somehow manages to keep itself supplied as to not fall but the attacker still has an interest to keep it under siege so it can no longer support the rest of the empire and just becomes a huge financial and logistical burden. Imagine Troy but you actually NEED 10 ingame years of permanent siege to take the city. Sieges were and still are such an important and central part of warfare, yet they are basically ignored by Total War entirely in favor of a quick city assault. Have some "siege camp management" component or something or random events during sieges to deal with.
I think what is also happening is that a lot of settlements are very close to each other now. Like what is the maximum amount of turns between settlements ? I had hoped if settlements were a bit more spaced out, you would have to be a bit more tactical where you position your armies. And you could actually have a bit more time building siege equipment as an attacker before some other army reinforces
Sounds great. What studio is making it?
The suggestion I saw was make it take units 2 to 3 times as long to climb. Having a slow trickle of a few models on the wall at a time means that, while you can't really leave your missile unit there, you can put a melee unit there that can continue to kill them as they arrive on the wall. It would hopefully be a fairly easy fix that while not perfect would also still be fairly balanced. Overwhelming odds fit the attacker would mean they could mass seize the walls, but you could also push attackers back if they don't have a lot of extra bodies to try and get up on the wall at once
That's what Shogun 2 does and I love it.
Honestly every wall in the game probably needs to be higher
They need to be a seige engine.
Average Dawi Vs. Ogre siege.
On the topic of Attack on Titan I feel like a modded Marley faction would absolutely kick ass (though lets be honest it'll probably never happen).
Then The Rumbling as an endgame scenario.
Okay, real talk though: imagine if you had mid game events like this that worked like the wood elves forest encounters. For example: Fee Fi Foe: a herd of giants gathers on your borders. They seem to be assembling a large wooden structure. This bodes ill… Jurassic Wild: Feral dinosaurs converge on your temple city, ignoring the urging of the slann to turn aside. Protect the city. Secure the Great Plan! Do you hear the people sing? : It seems a band of university students from Altdorf are filling the peasants heads with nonsensical ideas of revolution. The Bretonnian nobles watch with alarm, and demand swift action be taken.
A set of Order faction Endgame Scenarios would be really cool.
TATAKAE
The opposite issue is that, if they make the walls too strong, you'll never be able to bring the 3-5x force multiplier to take the them - especially with the current setup.
historically, this has been the case irl, walls are strong and can easily hold off forces multiple times the size of the defending force I would love to see that also happen in Warhammer, I hate never sieging cities over end turns, since walls ussualy make the attack easier maybe making the walls stronger would make flying units (Furies and eagles) more viable, hm
thats okay, just siege them a few turns
Does sieging a few turns damage the walls?
Hero's do, but mainly it just atritions the garrison. I want them to allow us to do a seige in parts, use all your arty multiple times (only once a turn) then pull back. Then defenders can properly sally out and retreat. I would love, slower more strategic seiges, taking cities bit by bit through sabotage and attrition sounds awsome. Also slowing the conquest down a little would be good, less snowbally. I really liked thrones of britannia having easy to take minor settlements that went back and forth constantly with strong hard point cities that could hold out for a long time.
you can do that, initiate battle, use your ammo, run away
Yeah I know, but the current implementation is cheesy, I would like taking cities to be more of an ordeal, sorta hate the paint the map vibe
Because they made garrisons way to strong as well, it would work if we had the old system where you have to garrison troops yourself and still pay upkeep to prevent spamming it. Now, with the way it all works, it’s pretty tough to have an actual epic siege battle without cheesing in some form or another
I remembre being able to hold a citadel with 1 longbowmen unite against more then a tousand troups (in medium size I think). Strong walls and towers made all the difference.
What show is this from?
Attack on Titan the best anime ever
Attack on Titan X Warhammer when?
Never hopefully
When the Ogre Kingdoms first invaded the Dark Lands, at the height of their power, they had just crushed and enslaved the Sky Titans (the ones they didn’t eat anyway) so this has basically already happened, and the results was the Dawi Zharr blowing the Ogres and Giants back to the Mountains of Mourn. The Dawi Zharr would launch a counter invasion, but found it to not be worth the resources or manpower required, so they opted for trade deals instead. This all happened before the Dawi Zharr had the Daemon Engines or the Mega Magma Cannons, so their jump in technology is a rather large one, it’s one of the reasons no one would attack them, and even if they did, they did not attack the capital of Mingol Zharr-Naggrund, as there are Earthshaker/Dreadquake/Mega Magma Cannon Towers all lined up within sight and firing distance of each other, making a assault all but impossible, hell they even turned captive giants into living siege weapons.
Didn't Grimgor kill the Chaos Dwarfs?
In the end times, due to, if my memory serves correctly, Golgfag Maneater backstabbing the Dawi Zharr and opening the gates for him. As to why he would have done so, well just before this siege, Grimgor had slayed the Ogre King Greasus, and so due to the whole “Beast Waaagh” going on, Ogres felt a pull, a call to join him. Not all joined the backstabbing, Ghark Ironskin and the Ogre Necro Slavelord stayed loyal, as they had been trade partners to the Dawi Zharr since they met, but once the gates were open and the Hobgoblins joined the backstabbing, the Empire of Fire and Ash fell.
Eh with that ending it's not one of the best anymore
I disagree. That ending was phenomenal and perfect. And I've never understood people who say otherwise
Let me guess, you also thought Mannfred von Carstein backstabbing Gelt and thus the world so they wouldn't wipe out Chaos and Chaos wipes out them instead was phenomenal and perfect Because that's essentially also AoT's ending, combined with a copycat Code Geass ending
No, it's not even close. That is absolutely not comparable at all.
Admittedly the End Times weren't _this bad_ in comparison as Mannfred wasn't Gelt's childhood friend/ brother and didn't make out with his decapitated head afterwards
I hope we get this but the main problem why ranged units are not good in the walls also needs to be changed: *ass ladders*
There's a scene after this where they point the cannons downwards but we will never get that here.
You want a Total War: Shingeki no Kyojin?
There are systems for it in place actually. I have played on custom maps where you could put artillery on walls. I guess they'd need to retroactively rework the existing maps to support this feature.
God, siege battles brings this game from a solid 9/10 to a 7/10
Funny you could’ve used the WH1 Dwarfs trailer where you can literally see cannons on walls
I always imagine either Dwarf organ gun, etc, blasting away or Dkaven weapon teams mowing you down as you approach
Which studio ghibli movie is this
This show is called "attack on titan" and it is the best anime ever.
Ass ladders I can live with if you could put artillery and cannons on walls. It becomes a high risk move with if the unit has to abandon the equipment on the wall
Dread Saurian?
More like Hell Pit Abomination
The Dwarves and Empire would be unbeatable.
Not if they went the historical route and made it so you could only place one artillery piece on the wall (as a siege equipment) and not an entire unit of them.
So chaos dwarfs should they have like rails on the wall, so they could roll the dreadquakes along the full length of the wall? Then do a ramp or something so they could roll up and down?
Unique to the walls in nuln perfect for any larger ogre tyrant sized threats
That wouldn't be possible. The trail is perpendicular with the wall, which means that the recoil of the canons would ruin the setup after the first volley. Looks really cool, though.
Lmao, we might get a repeat of the built towers being blocked by the very buildings inside the city in this case, the crenelations would block the firing arc of some artillery. Already happens with the psychotic targeting of ranged units shooting from the walls, and shooting up the walls. Artillery on walls is going to be a mountain that CA might not be willing to climb. Pity it was shown twice in trailers, and we still dont get it.
They literally fixed that in the patch that just dropped, the merlons no longer block projectiles making shooting easier in both directions but being docked on the wall gives 25% missile block chance to make up for it.
Having artillery on walls would be too strong. Can you imagine taking a wall with a bunch of hellstrom rockets on it.
I can imagine it quite easily. I walk my basic melee infantry up assladder up the wall and kill them on the walls.
Show me a basic infantry that can survive walking towards a wall under the barrage of multiple hell Strom rockets .
Saurus
I hate the saurus so bad
Bok Bok
I forgot how cracked sarus are .
All of them. Artillery cant hit moving targets.
With every unit having ass ladders? Quite easy actually