Siege units should require man-power to work

[riklaunim]

From some releases some siege units (mostly those melee) are extreemely powerfull and it's not easy to destroy them. Bad for the oponent if he only has ranged atacks (no fire arrows?). In general such mechanical machines should require man-power to work, and should be disabled if that man-power is killed (even capture enemy siege unit). Attacking wepon operators and not the weapon itselt should be possible.

[WhiteTreePaladin]

It could be interesting if "garrisoned" units in siege weapons were grouped or propped to walk with the siege units. There is a risk of adding too much micromanagement though.

[Stan`]

I 'd like to see a push thing anim in the code so that when garisonned they switch to it depending on the thingy:)

[Sighvatr]

Can always try to see how well it would work to occupy siege units in order to use them. That and I would like to scale the siege units larger.

[KingAJ]

Can always try to see how well it would work to occupy siege units in order to use them. That and I would like to scale the siege units larger.

Its already difficult enough to get them though large crowds with the collisions.

This might be a good idea to slow rams down. The rams would take up 0 pop, and would spawn right next to the fort unable to move. The player would need to garrison 5 soldiers inside to make it move. That might help cut back on spam, since they would take more clicks to get setup. Big, expensive and powerful units should take some time and effort to get up and running.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I rather just see crews manning the siege weapons. Just actors though. No need to add more micromanagement. However, it would be good for modding to have the capabulity to do this.

[sanderd17]

Well, currently, rams are auto-manned. That is, if you create a ram, the man-power you need for it is also included.

Rams should indeed be very vulnerable to infantry attacks. When they can attack the ram directly, they should be able to destroy or capture it quickly. This could be done perfectly by making rams easily capturable.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Yes, the manpower is represented by the populaton cost. It is abstracted because it is a game.

[Andrettin]

I think that it would probably add too much micromanagement.

[Sighvatr]

You can always include an auto-garrison button for ground units to occupy siege units as well as assign a key function on the keyboard for it.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

You can always include an auto-garrison button for ground units to occupy siege units as well as assign a key function on the keyboard for it.

still additional management for little gains. By the point in game wherer you are using siege weapons you don't want to have to manage these things. As match continues and pop rises, it should be designed to decrease micro and go more macro IMHO.

Edited April 8, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Sighvatr]

Then to make up for the necessity of micro-management of siege weapons, make the siege weapons powerful enough to require the need of attention and slow the movement speed of units to allow players to micro-manage things in time.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Sighvatr

[Ayakashi]

I don't really play this game's multiplayer so I can't comment on the micro, but I do hope to see little people pushing/operating the siege weapons added in the future.

[historic_bruno]

I don't really play this game's multiplayer so I can't comment on the micro, but I do hope to see little people pushing/operating the siege weapons added in the future.

If someone makes the animations, you will see that

[RoekeloosNL]

I would love to see a PUSH Animation for siege engines, But i dont understand that " to mutch micro" comments. I mean common when you build a siege engine it would deploy with engineer units already connected to the object. And yes when they are killed you need to men it again but so what you got a army with you "Sending only a catupult is just dump"D" And it would add another layer of realism and gamplay.

You can add a total different play style to the game with a simple feature like that and new tactics to commit when encountering siege engines / or use. And that for the little more micro sometimes "only if the units are killed" i dont see the problem its a game about micro-managing and the new layers of gameplay it can add i only see the good but others always see the bad if it would add a little more management for units

Stuff like that sould be added even if it would only be for visuals.

[Lion.Kanzen]

@RoekeloosNL

Need animation, we can add this to animation list for the new models

[bouke]

I would love to see a PUSH Animation for siege engines, But i dont understand that " to mutch micro" comments. I mean common when you build a siege engine it would deploy with engineer units already connected to the object. And yes when they are killed you need to men it again but so what you got a army with you "Sending only a catupult is just dump"D" And it would add another layer of realism and gamplay.

You can add a total different play style to the game with a simple feature like that and new tactics to commit when encountering siege engines / or use. And that for the little more micro sometimes "only if the units are killed" i dont see the problem its a game about micro-managing and the new layers of gameplay it can add i only see the good but others always see the bad if it would add a little more management for units

Stuff like that sould be added even if it would only be for visuals.

With this idea it also would be allowed to cature a siege engines: kill the enemy units and man the equipment with own men. So the engine itself would be gaia, but the units belong to a player. After the units are killed the engine should stay on the field till it is captured.