I love the idea of removing butt ladders. Itll make attacking settlements more difficult. Walls will actually mean something. Granted (and unfortunately) the go to will still be using mass ranged units... but it'll still be harder to conquer than having some jacked up melee army and just yeeting them at the walls. And itll make siege DEFENSE more fun because the A.I can't just go "hippaty hoppity i have more units so your city is my property."
AI: Prepares to defend the walls. Me: Cute, meanwhile let's smash the gates! CA: Hey! You're not supposed to do that! Now the AI would have done a lot better had they tried to hold the gate chokepoint, but that would just result in a slot of a battle between my heavy units and theirs. Until someone inevitably won. You may talk about "balance" but no siege battle is going to be "balanced".
The thing is sieges aren't SUPPOSED to be balanced. The reason I loved defending sieges in ME2 was because I could hold a city/castle/etc with a smaller garrison fighting off an army far larger than me. Even multiple times my size on rare occasion. The reason I loved attacking was because it was a bigger challenge than regular battles
@@spiffygonzales5160 Blocking the unit in Med2 on the gate meant the oil kept pouring on the 'higher quality' unit meaning the defender would win that fight, alas titles like WH and Troy has nothing like that, guess that what happens when the talent is keep leaving the company and no brains left :( (read my full comment if you want to enjoy more siege insights).
@@DeadLikeMeJ Agreed. When I was younger I thought we'd end up getting oil pots, multi tierd gates with various defenses, various manned wall emplacements, even digging. Now I'm surprised Bretonnia can actually form their units into a triangle lol
@@spiffygonzales5160 Wouldn't that be a thing? The lack of multi-tiered defenses really is a bummer except Shogun 2. That said Med 2 sieges weren't great, not when you consider the AI was really good at killing a lot their own units through dumb tactics. I remember a minor settlement battle where a small militia army held off the entire might of France. Because they kept charging in to get killed.
@@spiffygonzales5160 Yeah the game is going backwards in terms of tech, in Med2 you could go down ladders, you could pick them up and place them in a different spot, now units are only going one way. CA figured out that they can just resell shallow content to cosutmers who aren't aware of what was or what could be and that is what they are doing since they figured it out. For fuck sake the AI in pharaoh didn't recognize something as basic as gates being breached and not a single threat to walls in proximity ... and they have the nerve to sell this shit for 60$.
not having poketladders means that actually the walls have some use because IA can't rush from every point and have to focus were the ladders/rams are, i think is a good change on sieges and makes the walls actually usefull
@@Costin_Gaming IA loves holding the sieges until the have like 2 or 3 times your power and by that point is mostly a lose battle 🥲 still from time to time i have to fight some siege battle on TWW3 and defensively sucks, holding the walls is pointless you have to hold the capture point or the IA gonna rush you from everywere and if they leak you're doomed
Why they dont learn from the best? The best siege gameplay was in stronghold. 1) why you cant push whole arny in one gate or breach? - becouse enemy will destroy your ram and all your troops with oil from walls. Thats why you want to atack from as many directions as you can 3) why you want to use siege towers? Becouse enemy can ezpz destroy ladders and heavy troops in this game cant climb. 4) why you dont use only artillery? Becouse it cant destroy frkn everything, and it is useless against troops. Just download this game and you will see how to make sieges goin 6) why you cant just kill whole enemy army with archers? Becouse high ground gives absurd advantage to ranged units
@Costin Gaming I know you said you are veteran of TW, but some of your statements really don't make sense ... 1) In some of the titles the ONLY way to attack a gate was with a siege equipment, so if you didn't had it, you couldn't attack it. 2) In some of the titles you had gate defenses (oil for example, other forms can also exist). 3) Towers in previous titles shot flaming arrows, why does it matter ? cause they a chance to burn the equipment down ... you brought 2 slow rams and there was nothing that was potentially risking it ... only proves how much of a joke design Pharaoh have compared to previous titles. If the equipment was burnt down and you can't attack the gates with infantry/do next to no damage to the gate for ages then your attack was just foild. 4) Deployment in newer TWs is so damn close compared to the older titles, making the time of effectiveness for the towers / defenders to react really low even to defende vs siege equipment. 5) The AI in Pharaoh is worse than in older TWs for not being ready to block the choke ... the whole point of being in a siege! are you trying help demote Pharaoh compared to previous titles, cause you are doing a hell of a job ! 6) Have you ever played multiplayer? have you ever played Rome/Medieval 2/Rome 2/Attila/ToB in multiplayer campaign ? because what you are suggesting is a losing tactic, my bet is that you never played with any decent player in the titles I have mentioned. 7) you mentioned WH, the same game who implamented some of the worst designs into TW the one which had : horrible Tower angles that can be easy avoided by side stepping an inch, the close deployment we are experiencing in Troy, the fact that archers on walls have more limited range & angle of fire compared to archers on the ground ! (they only tried to change it with the recent blunt buffs to no avail in WH3 after 3 'games'), the fact that walls barely block any of the shots because of the way the archers angle their shots in that game, the game that could have flame throwers as gate defenses (GCCM maps had that feature, was neat) yet instead gone to zero gate defesenes, the game that removed the artillary from the walls as an option, and so much more ... In general the whole point of sieges is that they are risky and painful endeavor for the attacker, the idea of attacking walls is obviously risky, but when you need to get in and you don't have the tools then you either use what you have or wait till you have it - This is the Whole Point of sieges(not to win). If you sieged a city 5 turns(equivelant of the 5 months you talked about) to have enough equipment to assault instead of 1 the settlement did it's job because in 5 turns : Reinforcements could have arrived, enemy could recover his forces, the economic cost on the attacker can be substantial, enemy could push faster on his assualt, and so on ... The only reason you didn't spend 5 turns sieging or took massive casaulties on your assualt is because of bad design : No fire arrows, no gate defenses (like rocks used to be thown from the top), towers seem to be the weakest I have seen(3K towers would have left you running with your army), very close deployment, AI fails to defend the choke, and so on ... basically you just walked into the city something that wouldn't have happened in ToB. So despite you saying that you built this army for sieges (not organically built for campaign one that will force you to be creative vs the defender), you gave yourself better units, and the fact the AI really failed worse than in older titles in defending a basic one location, you are concluding that Ladders aren't the issue... While you are calling out people like that are saying ASS LADDERS are talking out of our asses ... really ?! So no ... ASS Ladders weren't the only issue with sieges, the entire list above and more are just a glimpse of who bad the design became, and not that it was perfect (for example Rome 2 had fire arrows but they aimed for the soldiers not the equipment - was only improved in Attila) but they are a huge problem cause there is a difference between defending 10 'breaches' to 5 to 2 and if you played vs a player who would position his troops to block those 2 entrances or god forbid burn your equipment down before you reached the gates .... you would have lost the fight, meaning you would need to wait longer on the campaign and THAT is the Real Victroy of the Defender! Last but not least, already wrote about AR, but as I stated in the previous video about it, AR is like cheats - the AR doesn't simulate the battle... having 8 breaches with only 2 equipment pieces and only 3 gates to the settlement just mathematically doesn't align, and it didn't change in Troy:Reskin. So yeah you can use siege cheats, don't get me wrong with how shitty they were in WH1/2 I did use it as well and with the Autoreplenishment I didn't even care if it took 50% of cause it is so easy to replenish all of this in one turn in WH, spreading the casualties is a gift because of this XD.
Think you missed the point actually. My view was that ass ladders meant zilch really. Having to build rams also means zilch. Towers in TW Warhammer can destroy siege equipment too you know. Nor am I trying to portray Pharaoh in a good light or Sieges in general: They are ass and have always been so: What you think it was better in Rome 1? Honestly the only sieges worth a crap existed in Shogun 2 and even then mass ranged/artillery would slaughter any defender there. In older titles, but really we're talking here Rome 1 and Med 2, catapults and the like could and did attack gates, it was the best way to win. As for MP or having a stronger army in defense or how sieges are supposed to be costly: Yeah sorry those are dumb arguments. You talk about sieges as if they are in their self-contained universe. I talk about sieges in the context of a campaign. A proper way to play a campaign is to always engineer campaign situations so you have the overwhelming advantage in the vast majority of battles you fight: Settlements, sieges, open fields. It's a damn stupid thing to ever attack a full stack in a siege, a great way to kill a lot of your army too. If you have no choice but to do so? Sure you cheese, you abuse things, this has always been the case. You give yourself openings to attack as many as you can. Or you smash together heavy infantry to break through defender lines. The fancy cinematic siege battles I see a lot on YT? They are a load of crapshit that has no relation to what's ideal to fight, in EVERY game. Quite frankly a lot of people who talk about sieges in ToB or anything like that are talking out their ass about proper tactics.
@@Costin_Gaming oh yes I know, I know the exact timings, the fact that if you didn't instantly had at least 2 towers targeting the same siege tower in WH2, before one could give targets to towers in pre-battle and one sec to late would mean the tower 100% reached the walls (talking about tier 1 towers).... so yeah I probably know about sieges more than most people. And no I didn't and you can take your time to re-read what I wrote and think it through cause even what you mentioned now plays into what sieges are: In ToB catapults were late game tech and expansive tools at that as they should be, In 3K only the strategies could have artillary pieces meaning you lost on a combative general for that equipment, and in the older TW games equipment wasn't that accurate like the new games acting like modern artillery pieces with insane accuracy to the fact that they are useful to mow down infantry in field battles, no on the campaign they slowed your armies and they weren't great for open field, expansive to build (getting the infrastructor and paying the upkeep and recruitment costs). So no, I didn't miss your point at all. As I wrote to the other guy who commented you, a basic spear in Medieval 2 would hold the choke against feudal knights under the gate house as oil is destroying them as it should, so the higher doesn't mean squat and the basic spears will win the day. This is why attacking gates and the walls was crusial especially before artillary is available. As you are aware I have always been very respectful in my comments and replies to you, even in disagreement, I won't lie that you calling out people like me as 'talking out of their asses' in a thing that you seem to indicate yourself as less of your field robes me the wrong way. Its ok if you don't play sieges as you wrote, its ok if you skip them, but trying to preach in a field you aren't an 'expert' on comes off the wrong way. Ass ladders = potential breaches. breaches = choke points. choke points can be utilized if the defender has tools (oil rocks arrows spears, pikes and so on). A basic spear and pike units in attila can hold for ages on a choke (even a narrow street) while the defender flanks with a cavalry unit he hid in the forest and devestate with charges the enemy. You seem to never experienced it and its ok, but trying to say it isn't a thing comes off bad. As I said, go online, play a campaign and try to rush a settlement or don't just siege it untill its fine to attack, knowing you enemy captures 4 settlements while you are sieging 1.
I love the idea of removing butt ladders. Itll make attacking settlements more difficult. Walls will actually mean something. Granted (and unfortunately) the go to will still be using mass ranged units... but it'll still be harder to conquer than having some jacked up melee army and just yeeting them at the walls. And itll make siege DEFENSE more fun because the A.I can't just go "hippaty hoppity i have more units so your city is my property."
AI: Prepares to defend the walls.
Me: Cute, meanwhile let's smash the gates!
CA: Hey! You're not supposed to do that!
Now the AI would have done a lot better had they tried to hold the gate chokepoint, but that would just result in a slot of a battle between my heavy units and theirs. Until someone inevitably won.
You may talk about "balance" but no siege battle is going to be "balanced".
The thing is sieges aren't SUPPOSED to be balanced. The reason I loved defending sieges in ME2 was because I could hold a city/castle/etc with a smaller garrison fighting off an army far larger than me. Even multiple times my size on rare occasion.
The reason I loved attacking was because it was a bigger challenge than regular battles
@@spiffygonzales5160 Blocking the unit in Med2 on the gate meant the oil kept pouring on the 'higher quality' unit meaning the defender would win that fight, alas titles like WH and Troy has nothing like that, guess that what happens when the talent is keep leaving the company and no brains left :(
(read my full comment if you want to enjoy more siege insights).
@@DeadLikeMeJ
Agreed. When I was younger I thought we'd end up getting oil pots, multi tierd gates with various defenses, various manned wall emplacements, even digging.
Now I'm surprised Bretonnia can actually form their units into a triangle lol
@@spiffygonzales5160 Wouldn't that be a thing? The lack of multi-tiered defenses really is a bummer except Shogun 2.
That said Med 2 sieges weren't great, not when you consider the AI was really good at killing a lot their own units through dumb tactics. I remember a minor settlement battle where a small militia army held off the entire might of France. Because they kept charging in to get killed.
@@spiffygonzales5160 Yeah the game is going backwards in terms of tech, in Med2 you could go down ladders, you could pick them up and place them in a different spot, now units are only going one way.
CA figured out that they can just resell shallow content to cosutmers who aren't aware of what was or what could be and that is what they are doing since they figured it out.
For fuck sake the AI in pharaoh didn't recognize something as basic as gates being breached and not a single threat to walls in proximity ... and they have the nerve to sell this shit for 60$.
not having poketladders means that actually the walls have some use because IA can't rush from every point and have to focus were the ladders/rams are, i think is a good change on sieges and makes the walls actually usefull
Yeah they do.
In killing an enormous amount of AI troops!
Personally I almost never fight a defensive siege in any of my campaigns.
@@Costin_Gaming IA loves holding the sieges until the have like 2 or 3 times your power and by that point is mostly a lose battle 🥲 still from time to time i have to fight some siege battle on TWW3 and defensively sucks, holding the walls is pointless you have to hold the capture point or the IA gonna rush you from everywere and if they leak you're doomed
Why they dont learn from the best? The best siege gameplay was in stronghold.
1) why you cant push whole arny in one gate or breach? - becouse enemy will destroy your ram and all your troops with oil from walls.
Thats why you want to atack from as many directions as you can
3) why you want to use siege towers? Becouse enemy can ezpz destroy ladders and heavy troops in this game cant climb.
4) why you dont use only artillery? Becouse it cant destroy frkn everything, and it is useless against troops.
Just download this game and you will see how to make sieges goin
6) why you cant just kill whole enemy army with archers? Becouse high ground gives absurd advantage to ranged units
Absolutely stronghold was an amazing title.
They removed the makeshift ladders because of the pathing.
@Costin Gaming I know you said you are veteran of TW, but some of your statements really don't make sense ...
1) In some of the titles the ONLY way to attack a gate was with a siege equipment, so if you didn't had it, you couldn't attack it.
2) In some of the titles you had gate defenses (oil for example, other forms can also exist).
3) Towers in previous titles shot flaming arrows, why does it matter ? cause they a chance to burn the equipment down ... you brought 2 slow rams and there was nothing that was potentially risking it ... only proves how much of a joke design Pharaoh have compared to previous titles. If the equipment was burnt down and you can't attack the gates with infantry/do next to no damage to the gate for ages then your attack was just foild.
4) Deployment in newer TWs is so damn close compared to the older titles, making the time of effectiveness for the towers / defenders to react really low even to defende vs siege equipment.
5) The AI in Pharaoh is worse than in older TWs for not being ready to block the choke ... the whole point of being in a siege! are you trying help demote Pharaoh compared to previous titles, cause you are doing a hell of a job !
6) Have you ever played multiplayer? have you ever played Rome/Medieval 2/Rome 2/Attila/ToB in multiplayer campaign ? because what you are suggesting is a losing tactic, my bet is that you never played with any decent player in the titles I have mentioned.
7) you mentioned WH, the same game who implamented some of the worst designs into TW the one which had : horrible Tower angles that can be easy avoided by side stepping an inch, the close deployment we are experiencing in Troy, the fact that archers on walls have more limited range & angle of fire compared to archers on the ground ! (they only tried to change it with the recent blunt buffs to no avail in WH3 after 3 'games'), the fact that walls barely block any of the shots because of the way the archers angle their shots in that game, the game that could have flame throwers as gate defenses (GCCM maps had that feature, was neat) yet instead gone to zero gate defesenes, the game that removed the artillary from the walls as an option, and so much more ...
In general the whole point of sieges is that they are risky and painful endeavor for the attacker, the idea of attacking walls is obviously risky, but when you need to get in and you don't have the tools then you either use what you have or wait till you have it - This is the Whole Point of sieges(not to win). If you sieged a city 5 turns(equivelant of the 5 months you talked about) to have enough equipment to assault instead of 1 the settlement did it's job because in 5 turns : Reinforcements could have arrived, enemy could recover his forces, the economic cost on the attacker can be substantial, enemy could push faster on his assualt, and so on ...
The only reason you didn't spend 5 turns sieging or took massive casaulties on your assualt is because of bad design : No fire arrows, no gate defenses (like rocks used to be thown from the top), towers seem to be the weakest I have seen(3K towers would have left you running with your army), very close deployment, AI fails to defend the choke, and so on ... basically you just walked into the city something that wouldn't have happened in ToB.
So despite you saying that you built this army for sieges (not organically built for campaign one that will force you to be creative vs the defender), you gave yourself better units, and the fact the AI really failed worse than in older titles in defending a basic one location, you are concluding that Ladders aren't the issue... While you are calling out people like that are saying ASS LADDERS are talking out of our asses ... really ?!
So no ... ASS Ladders weren't the only issue with sieges, the entire list above and more are just a glimpse of who bad the design became, and not that it was perfect (for example Rome 2 had fire arrows but they aimed for the soldiers not the equipment - was only improved in Attila) but they are a huge problem cause there is a difference between defending 10 'breaches' to 5 to 2 and if you played vs a player who would position his troops to block those 2 entrances or god forbid burn your equipment down before you reached the gates .... you would have lost the fight, meaning you would need to wait longer on the campaign and THAT is the Real Victroy of the Defender!
Last but not least, already wrote about AR, but as I stated in the previous video about it, AR is like cheats - the AR doesn't simulate the battle... having 8 breaches with only 2 equipment pieces and only 3 gates to the settlement just mathematically doesn't align, and it didn't change in Troy:Reskin. So yeah you can use siege cheats, don't get me wrong with how shitty they were in WH1/2 I did use it as well and with the Autoreplenishment I didn't even care if it took 50% of cause it is so easy to replenish all of this in one turn in WH, spreading the casualties is a gift because of this XD.
Think you missed the point actually. My view was that ass ladders meant zilch really. Having to build rams also means zilch. Towers in TW Warhammer can destroy siege equipment too you know.
Nor am I trying to portray Pharaoh in a good light or Sieges in general: They are ass and have always been so: What you think it was better in Rome 1? Honestly the only sieges worth a crap existed in Shogun 2 and even then mass ranged/artillery would slaughter any defender there.
In older titles, but really we're talking here Rome 1 and Med 2, catapults and the like could and did attack gates, it was the best way to win.
As for MP or having a stronger army in defense or how sieges are supposed to be costly: Yeah sorry those are dumb arguments.
You talk about sieges as if they are in their self-contained universe. I talk about sieges in the context of a campaign. A proper way to play a campaign is to always engineer campaign situations so you have the overwhelming advantage in the vast majority of battles you fight: Settlements, sieges, open fields. It's a damn stupid thing to ever attack a full stack in a siege, a great way to kill a lot of your army too. If you have no choice but to do so? Sure you cheese, you abuse things, this has always been the case. You give yourself openings to attack as many as you can. Or you smash together heavy infantry to break through defender lines. The fancy cinematic siege battles I see a lot on YT? They are a load of crapshit that has no relation to what's ideal to fight, in EVERY game.
Quite frankly a lot of people who talk about sieges in ToB or anything like that are talking out their ass about proper tactics.
@@Costin_Gaming oh yes I know, I know the exact timings, the fact that if you didn't instantly had at least 2 towers targeting the same siege tower in WH2, before one could give targets to towers in pre-battle and one sec to late would mean the tower 100% reached the walls (talking about tier 1 towers).... so yeah I probably know about sieges more than most people.
And no I didn't and you can take your time to re-read what I wrote and think it through cause even what you mentioned now plays into what sieges are:
In ToB catapults were late game tech and expansive tools at that as they should be, In 3K only the strategies could have artillary pieces meaning you lost on a combative general for that equipment, and in the older TW games equipment wasn't that accurate like the new games acting like modern artillery pieces with insane accuracy to the fact that they are useful to mow down infantry in field battles, no on the campaign they slowed your armies and they weren't great for open field, expansive to build (getting the infrastructor and paying the upkeep and recruitment costs).
So no, I didn't miss your point at all. As I wrote to the other guy who commented you, a basic spear in Medieval 2 would hold the choke against feudal knights under the gate house as oil is destroying them as it should, so the higher doesn't mean squat and the basic spears will win the day. This is why attacking gates and the walls was crusial especially before artillary is available.
As you are aware I have always been very respectful in my comments and replies to you, even in disagreement, I won't lie that you calling out people like me as 'talking out of their asses' in a thing that you seem to indicate yourself as less of your field robes me the wrong way.
Its ok if you don't play sieges as you wrote, its ok if you skip them, but trying to preach in a field you aren't an 'expert' on comes off the wrong way.
Ass ladders = potential breaches. breaches = choke points. choke points can be utilized if the defender has tools (oil rocks arrows spears, pikes and so on).
A basic spear and pike units in attila can hold for ages on a choke (even a narrow street) while the defender flanks with a cavalry unit he hid in the forest and devestate with charges the enemy.
You seem to never experienced it and its ok, but trying to say it isn't a thing comes off bad.
As I said, go online, play a campaign and try to rush a settlement or don't just siege it untill its fine to attack, knowing you enemy captures 4 settlements while you are sieging 1.