Starting in Stronghold Legends (that game was one big flunk, no personal offense), WALLS AND TOWERS BECAME WORTHLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For example: I build some walls, place some archers on top and then, at the first enemy attack, watched as they were mowed down. In SH1 on the other hand, wall crenulations and the and the sheer angle attacking archers were at to the wall made many richocets and the wall actually provided cover. You have to fix this terrible detail. And another thing, it takes to little to make wall crumble down. It should take many more rocks then it does before a wall comes down. Joe

This is the reason why Men at Arms can take out archers on walls with spears in SH3. In previous Stronghold games, Archers were the ultimate unit.
Walls and towers add to the defence and create range for missile units on walls.
There isn't a visual miss from arrows SH3.

I absolutely have to agree with Joe.

The lacking defensive value of walls and towers is my biggest gripe about SH3 (bigger than a lck of base building AIs and even bigger than a missing "Siege that"-Mode).
Did siegers in real life clean up the walls with spear throwers and then just send their ground troops with pickaxes to tear down the castle?
No, of course not, because they couldnīt
Instead they used numerical superiorities, siege engines and earthworks.


You say that archers were overpowered on walls, Lucifer ...
yes, they were, as they were in real life.

So, why not, instead of making walls and archers weaker, do it like siegers in real life, i.e. use measures to render the walls useless, by hurling large stones at them (via catapults/trebuchets), digging under them (via sappers) or bringing enough ladders and men (maybe on a 10:1 ratio) so that the soldiers can climb the walls and defeat the archers in melee, before all troops are killed and/or they attack the gates and walls via battering rams.


This would work even for Multiplayer ...
yes, the players would not be able to attack each others walled base for a long time (that is, unless they managed to launch a successful surprise attack before the other player has built his walls.
But they would be able to do many other things, like attacking the enemy woodworkers and miners outside of the castle, with one player without doubts being able to cut off the other one from his supplies (at least with regards to wood, iron and stones) and then finally assembling an army big enough to storm the castle

(another way that would probably placiate everyone, me included, would be, to just have it as an option in the game, meaning before starting a battle you can chose between "realistic siege mode" and "easy siege mode" (with the easy mode being the game balance as it currently is, and realistic being a game where walls really have a defensive value and you really need a large numerical superiority as well as siege engines to storm the castle [and would also mean that normal troops arenīt able to destroy walls]).
This way everyone can chose how he wants to have his sieges )

This way (i.e. with the 2 mode-system I just suggested), you wouldnīt even have to change the campaign ... just make it easy mode only ...
the only thing you would have to change would be the historical single player siege maps (with giving the attacker far more troops or even, which is something I hope for, allowing attacker and defender to buy his own troops with a predetermined amount of gold [with the attacker getting much more gold than the defender]) and of course making the random encounter in single player base building mode much stronger

Praios wrote:

QUOTE:
I absolutely have to agree with Joe.

The lacking defensive value of walls and towers is my biggest gripe about SH3 (bigger than a lck of base building AIs and even bigger than a missing "Siege that"-Mode).
Did siegers in real life clean up the walls with spear throwers and then just send their ground troops with pickaxes to tear down the castle?
No, of course not, because they couldnīt :D
Instead they used numerical superiorities, siege engines and earthworks.


You say that archers were overpowered on walls, Lucifer ...
yes, they were, as they were in real life.

So, why not, instead of making walls and archers weaker, do it like siegers in real life, i.e. use measures to render the walls useless, by hurling large stones at them (via catapults/trebuchets), digging under them (via sappers) or bringing enough ladders and men (maybe on a 10:1 ratio) so that the soldiers can climb the walls and defeat the archers in melee, before all troops are killed and/or they attack the gates and walls via battering rams.


This would work even for Multiplayer ...
yes, the players would not be able to attack each others walled base for a long time (that is, unless they managed to launch a successful surprise attack before the other player has built his walls.
But they would be able to do many other things, like attacking the enemy woodworkers and miners outside of the castle, with one player without doubts being able to cut off the other one from his supplies (at least with regards to wood, iron and stones) and then finally assembling an army big enough to storm the castle ;)

(another way that would probably placiate everyone, me included, would be, to just have it as an option in the game, meaning before starting a battle you can chose between "realistic siege mode" and "easy siege mode" (with the easy mode being the game balance as it currently is, and realistic being a game where walls really have a defensive value and you really need a large numerical superiority as well as siege engines to storm the castle [and would also mean that normal troops arenīt able to destroy walls]).
This way everyone can chose how he wants to have his sieges ;) )

This way (i.e. with the 2 mode-system I just suggested), you wouldnīt even have to change the campaign ... just make it easy mode only ...
the only thing you would have to change would be the historical single player siege maps (with giving the attacker far more troops or even, which is something I hope for, allowing attacker and defender to buy his own troops with a predetermined amount of gold [with the attacker getting much more gold than the defender]) and of course making the random encounter in single player base building mode much stronger

I have to, in turn, agree with Praios. Also, in real life people couldn't attack wall with weapons and other. You took this out in SH2 and I loved it. Why'd you bring it back? In real life it wasn't an option, with archers on walls that protected them, raining death upon your guys. Please fix this. And in Heavens name, bring maybe the one good thing of SH2, the interior of towers and the keep. Joe.

I have to agree with joe and Praios I Hate it when my walls and towers are cleaned with spears and than troops like pikeman come and just knock off my wall with their weapons, I don't mind that spears can be thrown but i their range is just too big thats why SH2 is better from the point of siege in there to over take castle you need good plan and enough troops and sieage equipment

And in SH1, walls PROTECTED your troops on top. I'm not asking for you to make the archers easier to kill, I asking you to make the walls offer protection. That's the whole point of them. Joe.

Actually in the Crusader games the horse archers and fire ballistae were the ultimate units. No matter who I played I could build an army of these using virtually no walls and crush anyone. The ballistae would destroy incoming troops and the horse archers would clear the enemy walls. Finally, in an attack I just use a few siege weapons and footmen to finish the lord. Of course me and my friends banned ourselves from using these to keep it fun.