Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

What Sieging and Large Scale PvP Should Be Like....

2»

Comments

  • versulasversulas None of your damn business, WAPosts: 286Member Uncommon

    meh... DAoC had everything the OP made points about except sappers - and even then, they had classes that could climb walls and ensure the walls were cleared of enemy/pots of boiling oil so people could build/use a ram at the door undisturbed. Guild Wars 2 tries to replicate RvR and I think they come reasonably close, but I'm fairly certain most of us have given up hope on anything like DAoC 2.

    Oh... and interjecting the Romans into the conversation was funny. As if what's realistic ever has anything to do with the fun factor in video games. 

  • Caliburn101Caliburn101 LondonPosts: 636Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    I'm just going to grab this little detail...

    The barbarians didn't use "zerg tactics" against the Romans. Some had a pretty sophisticated military structure a good understanding of tactics, good generals and high culture. For example the Dacians (was it Dacians? -somewhere around the Northern Balkans) were unrivalled jewelers, only the Roman propaganda smeared them as uncivilized.

    There are plenty of instances where the Romans were outsmarted by their neighbours.

    Did I say ALL barbarians?

    As an ex-archaeologist I could trot out a fair number of barbarian battles - such as any number of Germanic or Celtic battles which qualify.

    I am of course talking about what a modern MMO player would look at and think 'barbarian' - there are not that many who would start wondering whether they spoke Greek or undertsood certain forms of 'civilised' literature before classifying them as barbarians or not.

    To Romans - Cathaginians were 'barbarians', Persians were 'barbarians' and for the purposes of this thread - your point is pointless.

    Most armies got rolled by Romans because of their fighting method, tactics and strategies. At the siege of Alesia Caesar beat a massive horde of Celts that vastly outnumbered his army. At the Battle of Watling Street Boudica's 'zerg' got ground into mincemeat by far lesser numbers of Romans because the Romans chose their ground well and used a saw-tooth formation when the attackers didn't use any formation at all.

    They were barbarians, they zerged and they lost.

    End of story.

     

    Caesar should've lost that battle. And Vercingetorix was hardly zerging. Being under siege or sieging is not zerging. Do us a favor: Don't use MMO terms for real life events. Or are you one of those lunatics who think there's "tanking" in real life too?

    No of course he wasn't... he just stayed in his fortification right...?...

    ... and Caesardidn't have to go into the front lines personally to rally his troops where the circumvalation was close to being breached by overwhelming numbers attacking hmm..?

    I suggest you review Wiki again - and if it doesn't mention the massive attack on Caesars position - you had better look somewhere more authoritative.

    To drag you back to the point... I merely think PvP should have more reasonable and realistic elements - at least those that eliminate or minimise the obviously impossible, and in addition, those which ADD to the fun and thinking elements of the game. Zergs are after all  commonly refered to as 'mindless' for good reason.

    That's all I posted about - but it is not what you are engaging on - you are nitpicking without an effective 'nit-picker'...

    Your comments - to most posts it would seem (having taken a quick look at your history) is to generally naysay and never say anything really constructive, regardless of the issue at hand.

    Whatever floats your boat I suppose...

    As for your last comment - tut tut - tangential insults of that kind are both lazy and lacking in any real wit - allow me to demonstrate;

    'Or are YOU one of those fools who thinks because he can read Wiki about a battle he can talk with authority about it?'.

    See - that took me seconds and I really didn't have to think about it at all!

  • Caliburn101Caliburn101 LondonPosts: 636Member
    Originally posted by versulas

    meh... DAoC had everything the OP made points about except sappers - and even then, they had classes that could climb walls and ensure the walls were cleared of enemy/pots of boiling oil so people could build/use a ram at the door undisturbed. Guild Wars 2 tries to replicate RvR and I think they come reasonably close, but I'm fairly certain most of us have given up hope on anything like DAoC 2.

    Oh... and interjecting the Romans into the conversation was funny. As if what's realistic ever has anything to do with the fun factor in video games. 

    It does in Total War.

    I don't think it is beyond the wit of humanity to combine the two to some degree - we shall see eventually I am sure.

    I wish I had been playing such games when DAoC was popular - I can't recall anyone saying it wasn't anything but pure quality in the PvP department.

  • SuprGamerXSuprGamerX Montreal, QCPosts: 531Member
    Originally posted by Caliburn101

    I have for a long time been irritated by a number of commonly accepted norms in sieging which actively create zergs and deter from tactical and strategic play.

    1. The Destructibility of Objects

    Here's a challenge - take a REAL great axe, give it to the powerlifting world champion and then get him to attack a barbican castle gate with it. You know what happens?

    The axe blunts and or breaks and he acheives precisely nothing.

    The idea that weapons (arrows, axes, swords etc.) or flash in the pan spells - withering necromantic attacks, splashes of flame or lighting strokes can seriously do any real damage to a proper fortress gate, never mind the walls - is crap.

    The fact is - only tremendous and repeated impact or the kind of explosions which produce a shattering shockwave even touch fortifications.

    Sieges would be so much better if you HAD to build siege weapons, or struggle up ladders or siege towers to beat enemy fortifications. Not just zerg the entrance for 5 minutes watching a health bar creep down from fifty people on auto-attack.

    2. I Am Legion - the Zerg At Work

    The reason the Roman Empire kicked the hell out of many times their numbers of barbarians in most battles was because the barbarians used zerg tactics.

    Zerg tactics in the real world get you dead against organised opposition.

    In the original dev chats about Age of Conan they talked about a system where formations of NPC troops could be assembled and 'soft capture' boxes placed within them where PC's could stand - where unless they made an active movement, they would then automatically follow the troop formations moves - which a PC commander controlled of course.

    They dropped the idea and gave in to the ease of zerg mechanics.

    Such a shame considering thay MMO has great combat and full impact...

    This should be looked at again by someone - adventurous dungeon skirmishing etc is fine for what it is - but the battlefield should be the province of armies aka Total War - not the hordes of 'chaos'.

    I zccept however that having larger armies and plots of PC's on screen is a technology problem at the moment - but the time will come...

    3. Artillery

    Artillery is usually far too weak. Anyone getting hit by a balista bolt should die. Anyone getting crushed by a catapult or trebuchet shot should die. heavy damage, aoe knockdown and stun should hit those around exploding shot.

    Artillery should be difficult to aim with a ranked skill for artillerists to increase accuracy based on training and practice.

    Fire rate should be reasonably slow, but no targetting reticle or other warning should be given to targets.

    You ran in front of the loaded and primed scorpion or didn't look up when it started raining capault shot - tough!

    4. Battlements

    Battlements should give proper cover, increase the range of attacks fired from them and not block LOS of defenders.

    Pretty basic stuff - but the number of games where hardly anyone goes on the walls and just wait for a breach to occur to face the zerg is shocking.

    5. Open Gates

    How many times have you had to defend a fortification whose NPC don't shut the gate, and there is no facility to shut it yourself?

    Ridiculous isn't it...

    If there is a 'defend x' quest at the location then the location should defend itself - not stand there with the gates open like clothes dummies with a deathwish.

    6. Summon the Sappers!

    Tunneling and counter tunneling. Sapper teams should be a resources - like siege weapons available to both sides. have a 10 min timer-limited sapper team build a tunnel under wall - then have it available as an access point which one person can go through at once into the fortification, or you can set a fire in it to damage or bring down the wall above.

    With a slight visual indication of the proceeding tunnel on the far side of the wall - counter tunnels can be dug by defenders sapper teams to allow a tunnel fight for ownership - the defenders (if they take it) able to collapse it and end the threat.

     

    Put these elements in then you have to fight smart, and zerging will be less than productive.

     

     Nice read , you do know that Devs are on a tight schedule.  So they have 2 choices , either focus properly on PvP or storyline.  They go hybrid , we end up with current titles being released.   Problem with this is that they focus a whole lot on graphics and making the water be able to reflect your image , all that time wasted on pointless graphics could of gone on amazing gameplay.   Oh well , you'll have to wait 6-7 more years before seeing such MMOs being released with proper sieges.  ArcheAge will deliver somewhat , if they push the release date by the end of 2013 start of 2014 , then ArcheAge will most likely be titled most awesome MMO in the past 20 years.

  • Caliburn101Caliburn101 LondonPosts: 636Member
    Originally posted by SuprGamerX
    Originally posted by Caliburn101

    Put these elements in then you have to fight smart, and zerging will be less than productive.

     Nice read , you do know that Devs are on a tight schedule.  So they have 2 choices , either focus properly on PvP or storyline.  They go hybrid , we end up with current titles being released.   Problem with this is that they focus a whole lot on graphics and making the water be able to reflect your image , all that time wasted on pointless graphics could of gone on amazing gameplay.   Oh well , you'll have to wait 6-7 more years before seeing such MMOs being released with proper sieges.  ArcheAge will deliver somewhat , if they push the release date by the end of 2013 start of 2014 , then ArcheAge will most likely be titled most awesome MMO in the past 20 years.

    I think the technology is almost there.

    What the genre needs in my opinion is the large all-encompassing hybrid with intelligent design throughout so it meshes well.

    The risks in this approach are as you point at, the development investment needed. One can shorten time with more devs, integration engineers and testers. But the lage number of subsystem teams would have to be very well managed and have a clear strategic vision of where the project was headed and in principle a map of how to get there.

    It would be a major undertaking - but would, if done right, command a monthly sub and be sure in the medium term onwards to make a bucket load of profit.

    WoW proved that there are a vast number of players willing to jump into one game and stay there, subbing for years - they just have to be inspired to do it again!

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member

    Interesting points. I am curious how you feel about re-spawning.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • Caliburn101Caliburn101 LondonPosts: 636Member
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

    Interesting points. I am curious how you feel about re-spawning.

    Respawning is basically a cardinal point in computer games that cannot really be tackled - it's fundamental to the fun of the game.

    As I said - I am not some fundamental 'simulationist' - I just find the more ridiculous elements as I have discussed to be immersion breaking and lazy damn implementation which could be done far better.

    I Shakespeare stage play can drawn you in if well acted with decent sets. But the moment Hamlet uses his mobile to call Ophelia, the immersion is ruined.

    So too stabbing a gate 'to death' with knives....

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     

    No of course he wasn't... he just stayed in his fortification right...?...

    ... and Caesardidn't have to go into the front lines personally to rally his troops where the circumvalation was close to being breached by overwhelming numbers attacking hmm..?

    I suggest you review Wiki again - and if it doesn't mention the massive attack on Caesars position - you had better look somewhere more authoritative.

    To drag you back to the point... I merely think PvP should have more reasonable and realistic elements - at least those that eliminate or minimise the obviously impossible, and in addition, those which ADD to the fun and thinking elements of the game. Zergs are after all  commonly refered to as 'mindless' for good reason.

    That's all I posted about - but it is not what you are engaging on - you are nitpicking without an effective 'nit-picker'...

    Your comments - to most posts it would seem (having taken a quick look at your history) is to generally naysay and never say anything really constructive, regardless of the issue at hand.

    Whatever floats your boat I suppose...

    As for your last comment - tut tut - tangential insults of that kind are both lazy and lacking in any real wit - allow me to demonstrate;

    'Or are YOU one of those fools who thinks because he can read Wiki about a battle he can talk with authority about it?'.

    See - that took me seconds and I really didn't have to think about it at all!

    I only needed to look the wiki to check how to correctly spell Vercingetorix. Some of us still read books. But nice try, bud.

    As for the topic, it is useless to try and approach a realistic simulation of a large battle of any kind.

    • Sieges took a lot of time: Players don't have that much time or lose interest
    • A lot of people were involved: Forgetting for a moment the all too obvious technical limitations, you cannot expect players to muster up any sizable force resembling an army. A raiding party yes, but not an army. Not without NPCs.
    • Attrition, fatigue, wear and tear have not been implemented in a fun way so far. They are a huge annoyance  - especially if applied to players (to a lesser degree when NPCs are involved)
    No I only see a real siege possible if the players would NOT play the part of a common foot soldier but a captain of a company of NPCs. But calculating the actions and positions of those NPCs would still be a significant technical hurdle. And even then a semi turn-based structure for the siege would be in order to avoid any kind of "timezone metagaming". Furthermore, the larger the battle grows the bigger nightmare it is to balance - unless big battles is the only thing you do in that game.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • kadepsysonkadepsyson sun prairie, WIPosts: 1,937Member

    Hey guys I shot a bunch of arrows from my short bow at a giant wall made of stone and it broke so i could capture a whole castle myself!  I love gw2

    El Psy Congroo

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by kadepsyson

    Hey guys I shot a bunch of arrows from my short bow at a giant wall made of stone and it broke so i could capture a whole castle myself!  I love gw2

    I swear the haters talk more about GW2 than the fans. image

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • kadepsysonkadepsyson sun prairie, WIPosts: 1,937Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by kadepsyson

    Hey guys I shot a bunch of arrows from my short bow at a giant wall made of stone and it broke so i could capture a whole castle myself!  I love gw2

    I swear the haters talk more about GW2 than the fans. image

    I want to bash WoW but I've never sieged a castle in WoW :P

    El Psy Congroo

  • Caliburn101Caliburn101 LondonPosts: 636Member
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     

    No of course he wasn't... he just stayed in his fortification right...?...

    ... and Caesardidn't have to go into the front lines personally to rally his troops where the circumvalation was close to being breached by overwhelming numbers attacking hmm..?

    I suggest you review Wiki again - and if it doesn't mention the massive attack on Caesars position - you had better look somewhere more authoritative.

    To drag you back to the point... I merely think PvP should have more reasonable and realistic elements - at least those that eliminate or minimise the obviously impossible, and in addition, those which ADD to the fun and thinking elements of the game. Zergs are after all  commonly refered to as 'mindless' for good reason.

    That's all I posted about - but it is not what you are engaging on - you are nitpicking without an effective 'nit-picker'...

    Your comments - to most posts it would seem (having taken a quick look at your history) is to generally naysay and never say anything really constructive, regardless of the issue at hand.

    Whatever floats your boat I suppose...

    As for your last comment - tut tut - tangential insults of that kind are both lazy and lacking in any real wit - allow me to demonstrate;

    'Or are YOU one of those fools who thinks because he can read Wiki about a battle he can talk with authority about it?'.

    See - that took me seconds and I really didn't have to think about it at all!

    I only needed to look the wiki to check how to correctly spell Vercingetorix. Some of us still read books. But nice try, bud.

    As for the topic, it is useless to try and approach a realistic simulation of a large battle of any kind.

    • Sieges took a lot of time: Players don't have that much time or lose interest
    • A lot of people were involved: Forgetting for a moment the all too obvious technical limitations, you cannot expect players to muster up any sizable force resembling an army. A raiding party yes, but not an army. Not without NPCs.
    • Attrition, fatigue, wear and tear have not been implemented in a fun way so far. They are a huge annoyance  - especially if applied to players (to a lesser degree when NPCs are involved)
    No I only see a real siege possible if the players would NOT play the part of a common foot soldier but a captain of a company of NPCs. But calculating the actions and positions of those NPCs would still be a significant technical hurdle. And even then a semi turn-based structure for the siege would be in order to avoid any kind of "timezone metagaming". Furthermore, the larger the battle grows the bigger nightmare it is to balance - unless big battles is the only thing you do in that game.

    You know - all habitual critics like to morph the matter at hand into something more resembling what they can easily criticise - especially when the original point isn't 'good enough' to them to get their teeth into.

    I have already stated I am not a simulationist - and wouldn't seek that either - merely wishing to remove those things which I beleive destroy any sense of immersion and adding those things which would make it more fun.

    You talking about simulationism thus belies your purpose. It should be perfectly obvious upon first reading I am not suggesting in the slightest that the 'sitting round and waiting for the defenders to starve' part of seiging isn't something I am suggesting. I am talking about assaulting of course... attrition, fatigue, wear and tear - where did I bring this up, or even talk about something these are relevant to?

    So why bring them up? <---- (rhetorical question)

    This is the last I will say on the subject as far as you are concerned - you really wish to naysay about something you are making up as you go and subsequently over-emphasise by tying in one or two minor tangential issues. So I'll be disregarding it from now on.

    I am not interested in pointless negativity, and it is clear you won't really want to engage with the issue constructively you just want to keep throwing in crap and then complaining it smells of s**t.

    If you really want to talk about whatever it is you are trying to say (if it is in fact anything with any relevant substance), then start your own thread - do stop camping this one.

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,211Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Wooden gates are not impervious to axes. The problem was standing there chopping away at a gate in clear view of the enemy was often fatal. If you wanted to be realistic about sieges until the advent of guns your options were treachery, intimidation or waiting out starvation and disease. None of which is particularly fun in a game. Cities were almost never taken by siege warfare. "Realism" arguments are weak at best. It's better start from the goal of making it fun. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of ways to make losing a city in which a great amount of time has been invested fun. If the outcome is essentially meaningless that's not much fun either.

    Wrong I'm afraid.

    The iron or bronze reinforcement of a sturdy gate would defeat an axe wielder entirely. There is not ONE case in history, ever, where a gate was opened with hand held weapons. Not one.

    If that had been the case at some point in history - people would have stopped building gates out of wood...

     Iron and bronze were so valuable they were almost never used as a complete skin except for church doors. Reinforcements were usually limited to bolts and other hardware. Vikings frquently broke into English Abbeys and country estates with axes. Barbarians did the same to some Roman forts. The first full blown castles in England weren't until William The Bastard arrived. Sieging of something the size of the City of Paris isn't practical in a game. So sieging a keep or outlying fortification, and the methods of doing so, are valid.

    Sieging in games is not going to be realistic. But let it be fun and somewhat believable. I've never seen anyone do scaling ladders properly and I would like to have an escalade.

     

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    No I only see a real siege possible if the players would NOT play the part of a common foot soldier but a captain of a company of NPCs. But calculating the actions and positions of those NPCs would still be a significant technical hurdle. And even then a semi turn-based structure for the siege would be in order to avoid any kind of "timezone metagaming". Furthermore, the larger the battle grows the bigger nightmare it is to balance - unless big battles is the only thing you do in that game.
    ...

    You should re-read this bit.

    I would have more, but since you're so thin-skinned, I'll not add more.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • BanaghranBanaghran HuisoPosts: 869Member

    Dunno, i rather enjoyed sieges in lineage 2, more a excercise in organisational skills, who can be in which place at what time rather than the individual provess.

    They also required effort beforehand (castle/guard upkeep, materials for siege engines, guild recruitment), even if siege engines were the weakest and most underused aspect of them.

    They took 2 hours every other week and the victor would have valuable advantages for him.

    What more can you ask for in terms of wanting to have some kind of massive meaningful territorial conflict while realizing that it cannot happen every hour?

    Flame on!

    :)

  • kadepsysonkadepsyson sun prairie, WIPosts: 1,937Member

    I like Ragnarok Online's War of Empyrium system of taking castles.

    WHAT NOW?!  :P

    El Psy Congroo

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,666Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kadepsyson

    I like Ragnarok Online's War of Empyrium system of taking castles.

    WHAT NOW?!  :P

    Shadowbane's city sieges and EVE's POS battles are my favorites. It always felt like a) there was something on the line that made winning important and b) it was part of something bigger than just that siege itself.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • NorseGodNorseGod Behind Enemy Lines, FLPosts: 856Member
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    I'm just going to grab this little detail...

    The barbarians didn't use "zerg tactics" against the Romans. Some had a pretty sophisticated military structure a good understanding of tactics, good generals and high culture. For example the Dacians (was it Dacians? -somewhere around the Northern Balkans) were unrivalled jewelers, only the Roman propaganda smeared them as uncivilized.

    There are plenty of instances where the Romans were outsmarted by their neighbours.

    Did I say ALL barbarians?

    As an ex-archaeologist I could trot out a fair number of barbarian battles - such as any number of Germanic or Celtic battles which qualify.

    I am of course talking about what a modern MMO player would look at and think 'barbarian' - there are not that many who would start wondering whether they spoke Greek or undertsood certain forms of 'civilised' literature before classifying them as barbarians or not.

    To Romans - Cathaginians were 'barbarians', Persians were 'barbarians' and for the purposes of this thread - your point is pointless.

    Most armies got rolled by Romans because of their fighting method, tactics and strategies. At the siege of Alesia Caesar beat a massive horde of Celts that vastly outnumbered his army. At the Battle of Watling Street Boudica's 'zerg' got ground into mincemeat by far lesser numbers of Romans because the Romans chose their ground well and used a saw-tooth formation when the attackers didn't use any formation at all.

    They were barbarians, they zerged and they lost.

    End of story.

     

    I have to save this post for my wife to read. The next time she comments about how I could love history so much and remember every date and detail, yet forget to check the mail for a week, I'm showing her this.

    Thanks dude.

    Censorship is intended to create an illusion that one side of the debate is correct and unopposed. Silence is not consent.

  • dave6660dave6660 New York, NYPosts: 2,543Member Uncommon
    You didn't address the ability of combatants to die and be back in the fight in under a minute with no ill effects.  Unless you remove that I don't believe you can get rid zerg type fights.

    “There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.”
    -- Herman Melville

  • Mr_CMr_C Tel AvivPosts: 112Member

    Vikings (means 'raiding') were effective just because of... tadaa: zergs!

    They were crazy maniacs who charged mindless into battles against opponents many times more themself. I am too tired right now, but read "Snorre's Kongesagaer" and you will be baffled how crazy they were. And effective too. Cosnidering how few we are in Norway (and just a few hundreds of thousands around year 1000), Vikings are by far the most effective warriors this planet ever has fostered.

  • Caliburn101Caliburn101 LondonPosts: 636Member
    Originally posted by Mr_C

    Vikings (means 'raiding') were effective just because of... tadaa: zergs!

    They were crazy maniacs who charged mindless into battles against opponents many times more themself. I am too tired right now, but read "Snorre's Kongesagaer" and you will be baffled how crazy they were. And effective too. Cosnidering how few we are in Norway (and just a few hundreds of thousands around year 1000), Vikings are by far the most effective warriors this planet ever has fostered.

    Reference literature about the Battle of Stamford Bridge - the Viking there, as in many battles (not coastal raid skirmishes et al) used shield wall formation.

    King Alfred had to adapt a version of the phalanx formation to push the Vikings back.

    The Vkings were not 'crazy maniacs' - they were traders and builders more than those that 'went Viking'.

    In addition - I would put any number of Viking up against Spartans or Athenian Sacred Band with iron weapons and armour without thinking twice about it...

    Vikings were a potent force - but your claims are not supportable.

  • Caliburn101Caliburn101 LondonPosts: 636Member
    Originally posted by dave6660
    You didn't address the ability of combatants to die and be back in the fight in under a minute with no ill effects.  Unless you remove that I don't believe you can get rid zerg type fights.

    Once again - I am not a simulationist - I accpe thtose things which cannot be changed.

    But there is plenty that can, and improve game experience.

  • Caliburn101Caliburn101 LondonPosts: 636Member
    Originally posted by NorseGod
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    I'm just going to grab this little detail...

    The barbarians didn't use "zerg tactics" against the Romans. Some had a pretty sophisticated military structure a good understanding of tactics, good generals and high culture. For example the Dacians (was it Dacians? -somewhere around the Northern Balkans) were unrivalled jewelers, only the Roman propaganda smeared them as uncivilized.

    There are plenty of instances where the Romans were outsmarted by their neighbours.

    Did I say ALL barbarians?

    As an ex-archaeologist I could trot out a fair number of barbarian battles - such as any number of Germanic or Celtic battles which qualify.

    I am of course talking about what a modern MMO player would look at and think 'barbarian' - there are not that many who would start wondering whether they spoke Greek or undertsood certain forms of 'civilised' literature before classifying them as barbarians or not.

    To Romans - Cathaginians were 'barbarians', Persians were 'barbarians' and for the purposes of this thread - your point is pointless.

    Most armies got rolled by Romans because of their fighting method, tactics and strategies. At the siege of Alesia Caesar beat a massive horde of Celts that vastly outnumbered his army. At the Battle of Watling Street Boudica's 'zerg' got ground into mincemeat by far lesser numbers of Romans because the Romans chose their ground well and used a saw-tooth formation when the attackers didn't use any formation at all.

    They were barbarians, they zerged and they lost.

    End of story.

     

    I have to save this post for my wife to read. The next time she comments about how I could love history so much and remember every date and detail, yet forget to check the mail for a week, I'm showing her this.

    Thanks dude.

    Better not admit that you forgot the mail and not the history because the mail was boring.... ;)

  • Caliburn101Caliburn101 LondonPosts: 636Member
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Originally posted by Caliburn101
    Originally posted by zymurgeist
    Wooden gates are not impervious to axes. The problem was standing there chopping away at a gate in clear view of the enemy was often fatal. If you wanted to be realistic about sieges until the advent of guns your options were treachery, intimidation or waiting out starvation and disease. None of which is particularly fun in a game. Cities were almost never taken by siege warfare. "Realism" arguments are weak at best. It's better start from the goal of making it fun. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of ways to make losing a city in which a great amount of time has been invested fun. If the outcome is essentially meaningless that's not much fun either.

    Wrong I'm afraid.

    The iron or bronze reinforcement of a sturdy gate would defeat an axe wielder entirely. There is not ONE case in history, ever, where a gate was opened with hand held weapons. Not one.

    If that had been the case at some point in history - people would have stopped building gates out of wood...

     Iron and bronze were so valuable they were almost never used as a complete skin except for church doors. Reinforcements were usually limited to bolts and other hardware. Vikings frquently broke into English Abbeys and country estates with axes. Barbarians did the same to some Roman forts. The first full blown castles in England weren't until William The Bastard arrived. Sieging of something the size of the City of Paris isn't practical in a game. So sieging a keep or outlying fortification, and the methods of doing so, are valid.

    Sieging in games is not going to be realistic. But let it be fun and somewhat believable. I've never seen anyone do scaling ladders properly and I would like to have an escalade.

     

    Oh indeed they were not - but laminate woods with bronze or iron reinforcement was heavy and relatively impenetrable by a hand held weapon.

    Yes - you could smash down a monastery or country estate door with heavy axes - eventually - but castle gates... not at all.

    Even wooden construction motte and bailey were not assaultable in this way - never mind later stone and metal reinforced structures.

    I'd lve to know which Roman forts you are speaking of... you may mean circumvalations, but they were temporary structures - and even then, I don't know of any examples.

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.