Please can you fix large siege towers

[Corsair831]

is there any way we could have large siege towers fixed pls? it's becoming rather impossible to attack castles on strat with the siege towers refusing to go where you tell them

thanks, Corsair

[CrazyCracka420]

Hmm I thought large siege towers are moveable now?

They don't respond to voice commands, you did know that right?  Right?

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Corsair831]

Hmm I thought large siege towers are moveable now?

They don't respond to voice commands, you did know that right?  Right?

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

they're moveable but you need a magic 8 ball to guess where they will go when you move them, they have a complete mind of their own

[Haboe]

Its a logic system. It takes ground where it is, so on a slope thats not even, it turns even without steering.
The fact that they heavily defy gravity while doing is is a bit of a bitch, but realistically speaking when we push it down the hill, would be odd if you could push i t back up (not that realism and crpg really match) 

They are just not build for moving over hills, they work fine on flatground.


Love how this kind of things only get attention when you guys attack, but when you see it happen as defender  :-|

[Vermilion]

The fact that they heavily defy gravity while doing is is a bit of a bitch, but realistically speaking when we push it down the hill, would be odd if you could push it back up (not that realism and crpg really match) 

Realistically yes, but this is a game with castles which don't have a flat strip leading a wall. So, it would make for a better game experience if there was a 'move forward' and a 'move backwards' option instead of just 'switch brakes'.

Love how this kind of things only get attention when you guys attack, but when you see it happen as defender  :-|

Everyone notices it as a defender.. but its a (feature/bug?) which works to your advantage so you're not going to go bitching on the forums

Personally I like the way siege towers become useful in wooden castles/towns.. but think it's boring for both attackers and defenders when they are moving erratically across the map.

[Corsair831]

Realistically yes, but this is a game with castles which don't have a flat strip leading a wall. So, it would make for a better game experience if there was a 'move forward' and a 'move backwards' option instead of just 'switch brakes'.

Everyone notices it as a defender.. but its a (feature/bug?) which works to your advantage so you're not going to go bitching on the forums

Personally I like the way siege towers become useful in wooden castles/towns.. but think it's boring for both attackers and defenders when they are moving erratically across the map.

this^

 also, there should be a rule (at least until siege towers are fixed), where defenders can't manipulate the (broken) controls for siege towers, because as soon as they touch the brakes on the siege tower (which takes about 3 seconds), the tower is then worthless, as it is usually impossible to get it back in to position (because of the broken movement mechanics).
 If you want an IRL justification, in a real siege attackers wouldn't be jumping off the wall to switch the brakes on a siege tower =) ..

(?)(?) New Rule - no defenders manipulating attacker's siege towers (?)(?)

[Rebelyell]

agree
also I bumped my superold ideas

[Strudog]

this^

 also, there should be a rule (at least until siege towers are fixed), where defenders can't manipulate the (broken) controls for siege towers, because as soon as they touch the brakes on the siege tower (which takes about 3 seconds), the tower is then worthless, as it is usually impossible to get it back in to position (because of the broken movement mechanics).
 If you want an IRL justification, in a real siege attackers wouldn't be jumping off the wall to switch the brakes on a siege tower =) ..

(?)(?) New Rule - no defenders manipulating attacker's siege towers (?)(?)

Its either we move them or we 2 shot them with a catapault, its not our fault if you decide to use Siege towers on a cliff, learn the terrain

[Vermilion]

Its either we move them or we 2 shot them with a catapault

No one complained about you shooting them with catapults...

Just the poor mechanics means it takes you a second to move a siege tower into a position which is next to impossible to return from.

So either make them more usable in their movement or stop enemy being able to move them...

Personally I think the first option is the most suitable. Enemy not being able to move them at all could be abused.

[Strudog]

No one complained about you shooting them with catapults...

Just the poor mechanics means it takes you a second to move a siege tower into a position which is next to impossible to return from.

So either make them more usable in their movement or stop enemy being able to move them...

Personally I think the first option is the most suitable. Enemy not being able to move them at all could be abused.

you guys are complaining when you are using siege towers on a ma with huge hills and cliffs, this is where the siege tower is not a very effective weapon, Siege towers are meant to be used on flat area, not on a side of a hill.

Adopt a  new tactic and stopp QQing saying its unfair, you are probably using the worst tactic on a very tough castle to take, there are plenty of other options that are viable that you can use

[Haboe]

No one complained about you shooting them with catapults...

Just the poor mechanics means it takes you a second to move a siege tower into a position which is next to impossible to return from.

So either make them more usable in their movement or stop enemy being able to move them...

Personally I think the first option is the most suitable. Enemy not being able to move them at all could be abused.

Easier solution:

Make it require 4-6 players to move it. Hard for enemy to move it that way, more realistic, and you really have to conquer the area around to tower before you can move it away.

If it can register teams apart would be even better (so it takes 4-6 members of your team next to the tower to move it)

[Corsair831]

you guys are complaining when you are using siege towers on a ma with huge hills and cliffs, this is where the siege tower is not a very effective weapon, Siege towers are meant to be used on flat area, not on a side of a hill.

Adopt a  new tactic and stopp QQing saying its unfair, you are probably using the worst tactic on a very tough castle to take, there are plenty of other options that are viable that you can use

there are no other options, you utter fool

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

you guys are complaining when you are using siege towers on a ma with huge hills and cliffs, this is where the siege tower is not a very effective weapon, Siege towers are meant to be used on flat area, not on a side of a hill.

Adopt a  new tactic and stopp QQing saying its unfair, you are probably using the worst tactic on a very tough castle to take, there are plenty of other options that are viable that you can use

Yeah guys use a catapult on the wooden castles instead... oh wait....  why don't you starve out the castle garrison instead of attack castle with the awesome food system we got in strat?.. Why don't you wait for about a year for the garrison to run out of gold? It's not like a one man hundred horses army could slip into the castle tightly locked down and reinforce it with several millions of gold, right?

[Osiris]

Siege towers are large heavy chunks of wood and as such should be damn hard to move.

I agree with haboe about needing 4-6 people to move it but at the same time if its on a hill it should roll down the hill

[Herkkutatti666]

only thing mecrs can do is to post useless provocations