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!

:)

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

WHAT NOW?!  :P

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.... ;)

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.