[en] Edain Mod > [Edain] General Suggestions
Wait a second: Catapults?
Smeargollum:
Hi guys,
just one little question whitch came into my mind while reading this text.
Shall it be that a unmicroed wallcatapult can defeat a "well-microed" atacking catapult? Because wallcatapults are not the only thing that you have to distroy atacking catapult: You have also you powerful cav.
So what do you think about it?
P.S. sorry for my bad English.
Goodfella:
I would say:
1. The 'well-microed' mobile catapult will not have as much 'micro-potential' anymore. Because it will be forced to be stationary, making the 'micro-balance' between the two more equal.
2. An 'unmicroed' wall catapult will lose to a 'well-microed' non-wall catapult. Unless, by luck, the unmicroed wall catapult hits the mobile one. Imagine, the un-microed wall catapult will be auto-shooting all over the place and therefore will very likely not be hitting the enemy catapults. Whereas the 'well-microed' non-wall catapult will be directly targeting the wall catapult and therefore will win.
3. In a 1v1, assuming perfect micro from both sides (which will be easy, literally just set up and right click for both) the wall catapult should win. In a 1v1. Beacuse in a real game it will not be a 1v1. There's potential for the enemy to get multiple catapults to fire at the 1 wall catapult simultaneously.
Not quite sure what you mean about the cav. If you mean cavalry attacks on the mobile catapults, this can be solved through pikes defending against cav flanks.
Hope that answered your question xD
Walküre:
--- Zitat von: Goodfella am 23. Aug 2018, 20:31 ---I respectfully disagree with you Walkure. I would argue that with the BFME1-style fixed build system, we are more, not less focused on sieging than in aoe2. Simply put, sieging HAS to occur in this game, to get through a castle (granted, mordor and isen are the exception) whereas many games in aoe2 can end without a siege, without siege weapons because of its free build system.
--- Ende Zitat ---
It's not that BFME1 is more or less focused on siege than Age of Empires; my point is actually that Age of Empires is on a totally different league than the BFME universe, whether it be the first or second chapter.
As you've fairly pointed out, the next patch will bring a new breath of fresh air in its attempt to revolutionise siege and spells altogether, thus avoiding more and more the risk of the famous/infamous pre-determined games. Notwithstanding that this shall happen and be a remarkable feat for the Mod, I still believe that this founding premise does not really detract from the fact that Age of Empires is governed by different laws and another general logic.
In previous words of mine, this iconic RTS series is the quintessential epitome of skirmishes, embodied by a basically endless succession of advance/retreat clashes, which is what mediaeval and modern tactics exactly consisted of (aiming to conquer specific objectives to use later as a persuading lever against the enemy), made even more fluid by the canonical free-building system; nevertheless, while we don't have a real central and vital point to defend here (like fixed fortresses or camps), lest we be destined to perish, the game itself offers a vast variety of siege weapons and options which goes simply beyond imagination, ranging from ballistae or trebuchets to mobile cannons or cannon-armed vessels. Tonnes of siege possibilities, as many as what you dispose of in terms of traditional troops.
Therefore, in such aforementioned context, it's not that siege occupies a more or less relevant spot in every possible strategic plan; it's rather that siege itself runs in the game's veins as one of its integral and pervasive souls, whether games end with siege or not (with the latter eventuality being quite rare, by the way). To put it in a briefer manner: think about siege weapons as you would think about standard infantry, cavalry or archery. This is what I'm trying to say.
Said that, I would then argue that BFME's specific case presents a stark difference, in that siege weapons are rightly confined in a more contained dimension, where the entire concept of siege is structured to serve more defined purposes; and, without a doubt, if it's true that siege weapons don't fulfil a mere supportive function, they're not granted the same level of prominence as normal units nonetheless. And it's a good thing that the logic behind differs, because BFME favours major decisive battles instead (following, now, in the footsteps of ancient warfare).
So, I do believe that stationary trebuchets would not suit the Edain Mod, since they fare well in Age of Empires, but wouldn't likewise in BFME: major battles would not allow their full potential to be used effectively, the whole battle scenario is not enough spread throughout the map to give them a proper margin of action, the very weapons would be left at the mercy of cavalry (far more versatile and faster than that of Age of Empires) and so rendered useless. Not to mention, as I've written in my previous reply, that, in order to give such kind of static (when assembled) trebuchets a fair advantage and differentiation, range and damage would necessarily have to be increased (with the risk of frustrating any wish to counter overpowered catapults).
My overall thoughts and personal impressions, of course.
Goodfella:
--- Zitat von: Walküre am 24. Aug 2018, 18:44 ---
So, I do believe that stationary trebuchets would not suit the Edain Mod, since they fare well in Age of Empires, but wouldn't likewise in BFME: major battles would not allow their full potential to be used effectively, the whole battle scenario is not enough spread throughout the map to give them a proper margin of action,
--- Ende Zitat ---
Yes I agree that the two are very different games. Also, that siege functions differently in the two and that siege in edain serves are more specific function: solely to destroy buildings. As you rightly said their are multiple siege units in AoE2, including those that have anti-infantry roles (e.g. scorpions, organ guns).
So yeah you can make siege that functions quite similar to any other unit, in that it is anti-infantry. Which is not really the case in edain. Siege is designed to be anti building (as it should be imo).
However, my point was never that catapults (or just trebuchets) should have an immobile & firing stance because that feature is in AoE2. Whether that feature was in AoE2 or not, i would still argue for it. TBH i hadn't even realised trebuchets did this in AoE2, i never played it that regularly (i used to play the 1st when i was a kid XD )
The reason I suggested it being that there is a huge micro imbalance between mobile catapults and immobile catapults. This change would fix that micro imbalance.
Just because AoE is a different game with different mechanics to BMFE and has imobbile catapults, does not automatically mean that immobile catapults will be ill-suited to edain imo.
--- Zitat von: Walküre am 24. Aug 2018, 18:44 ---
the very weapons would be left at the mercy of cavalry (far more versatile and faster than that of Age of Empires) and so rendered useless.
--- Ende Zitat ---
It's true that immobile catapults will be vulnerable to cavalry, but so are mobile ones, the cavalry is always faster than catapults. So you would have to protect your catapults with pikes, whether they are immobile when shooting or not. In fact, infantry in general is faster than siege, so you always have to protect your siege, again immobile shooting or not.
--- Zitat von: Walküre am 24. Aug 2018, 18:44 --- Not to mention, as I've written in my previous reply, that, in order to give such kind of static (when assembled) trebuchets a fair advantage and differentiation, range and damage would necessarily have to be increased (with the risk frustrating any wish to counter overpowered catapults).
My overall thoughts and personal impressions, of course.
--- Ende Zitat ---
I don't think mobile catapults would require a damage and range buff because of their lack of mobility. I think they are strong enough as it is and, as previously mentioned I think they should be weaker than wall catapults because of the outnumbering issue. You could however argue they could use a health buff vs infantry and cav, i'm not sure if it's necessary but you could debate it.
Thanks for your reply (as ever :) )
Smeargollum:
Thanks for the answer Goodfella!
First: I meant that we could discuess about the question, "Why should it not be that someone as attacker with good micro can destroy the defender's wall-catapult? So that the defender needs only tell his wall-catapults to attack the attacking catapults and destroy them on that way."
And my questinon (or at least what I wanted to ask) was: shold that be so?
Personally, I would say: No! Because the defender does not have to do more than a click on the enymys catapult while the attacker microed his catapult carefully.
And at this point, I thought it would be nice if the defender needed a second element to destroy the attacking catapults. And at first I thought that this could be cav. But...
--- Zitat --- this can be solved through pikes defending against cav flanks.
--- Ende Zitat ---
that is correct. And so the defender, who makes a failure, would need some archers to kill the pikes and then destroy the catapults with the cav, which would be much more interesting than just catapult battles.
--- Zitat ---3. In a 1v1, assuming perfect micro from both sides (which will be easy, literally just set up and right click for both) the wall catapult should win. In a 1v1. Beacuse in a real game it will not be a 1v1. There's potential for the enemy to get multiple catapults to fire at the 1 wall catapult simultaneously.
--- Ende Zitat ---
On that point I do agree with you.
So I hope that the google translater helpt me enought so that you was able to understand me^^
Navigation
[0] Themen-Index
[#] Nächste Seite
[*] Vorherige Sete
Zur normalen Ansicht wechseln