Infantry Chopping through Walls with Swords? = NO SALE

[Armandeus]

In every past iteration of Stronghold, including the first which I otherwise liked very much, infantry could just hack at your stone or rampart walls with swords, spears, and axes and eventually cut through them. In such a universe, castle walls only exist to slow the enemy while you fire arrows or whatever at them.

However, unless we are simulating sand castles, that does not simulate castle walls in this universe, and it also makes seige weapons meaningless because it is cheaper to wait for the soldiers to chop the walls down. I would prefer to play a castle simulation game that tries to simulate castles in this universe.

(Of course sappers and miners are different because they tunnel under or otherwise sabotage the walls.)

I would like to hear from the developers when I ask: will infantry be able to breach castle walls with melee weapons in Stronghold Crusader 2?

[Psyco]

Wish people would look at the trailer they put out or just use the search on the forum

But anyway yes they do...its even more stupid then that in this one they pull out a pickaxe out of nowhere and they use it to justify it /facepalm....im sure it was common in medieval time to arm every soldier with additional weight with a pickaxe /doublefacepalm

you know in stronghold 1 and 2(being the first 1 but with bad 3d graphic) it make sense to keep it viable to breach i guess cause you have attack and defense map since it was very limited...but in crusader it never made sense since you can resupply your siege with rock...its just a dumb mechanic that they should have removed a long time ago and didin't cause...i don't know they don't seem to know what people like and dislike about this game they seem totally disconnected and keep remaking the same game over and over again...which is imo counterproductive

So quick answer YES THEY STILL DO

[Holden]

They don't use swords anymore they use Pickaxes, watch the E3 demo, but still I agree infantry shouldn't be able to break through the walls.

[iEuro]

This is true, OP is right. Also, pickaxes were used in Medieval times but only against thin walls, and took days to make a small hole through it. I quote.

"Pickaxes.
Pickaxes were used against older castles in which the wall were very thin. They could make a hole through a wall in a matter of days. Even though effective against timber and thin stone, they were useless against bigger castles."
Source[medieval-castles.org]

Also the fire effect looked very cheap, but it was Alpha footage. We'll see.

[Hans Worst]

Infantry *not* Chopping through Walls with Swords? = NO SALE

[RazingHel]

Oh look it's the total realism role playing crowd, again. Here's another bone for you to pick, technically the 'pikemen' should use halberds not pikes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halberd

In the end what difference does it make? Not much really, pretty pedantic overall, like the total realism physics crowd not to mention the fact that the Strong Walls option should exist in multiplayer regardless.

[Fang]

Lmao, walls only used to slow down enemies? How about you put some units up on top of those walls, see if it makes a difference. ;)

[PvtBalls]

Well okay then - so lets assume the devs disallow soldiers from break walls with hand held weapons. Shall we also assume the devs will make the attacking army camp out the front of your fort effectively embargoing trade for 10-30 days first? make all your lads hungary, angry and infected wth disease as they cant leave the fort for a bath in the local river also?

[ArcticCheetah]

i always found this style of siege warfare charming for the series, although i admit i stopped after the original crusader due to poor/broken reviews. its not realistic but its kinda funny and i cant help but smile seeing an army chip away at a castle. the no sale for me though is the price, the game looks and feels like a remastered crusader and not a true modern sequel. so i dont see it being worth $50, maybe $20 or $30.

[Lord Benevolent]

Yes, infantry is still able to chop down walls.
Yes, there will be an option to disable this for skirmish and multiplayer matches.

[Glorious Tachikoma Overlord]

There is one main reason infantry can slowly chew through walls: so that sieges not automatically end with one player just bringing a bunch of Trebutchets, sniping all the walls without resistance and then marching his army in, pretty much invalidating the whole building walls (or putting archers on them) part of the game. This is especially true of the AI, I remember the sieges in Stronghold 2 being extremly boring because all you had to do is use some sacrifical knights to kill the AI's catapults/trebutchets and the rest of the army would sit outside of your castle till the end of days (also frustrating as hell for the player because the archers on your walls, your intricate defenses and well placed traps would see absolutely no action because you had to sally out with an army after all because the enemy would just sit there outside range if no siege engines were left).

I'd take destroyable walls with hordes of infantry charging your walls while crossbowmen and archers rain death on them and breaches then being reinforced by meele troops over a trebutchet/catapult snipefest (which just makes you leave all your walls deserted and question why you wasted resources getting stones in the first place if you could just have build more troop supplying buildings instead) any day. Yes, even with troops destroying walls the trebutchet strategy still works but at least there are some alternatives and early game action (why focus on rushing the enemy if he has undestroyable walls? Just build up an armies and trebutchets like you are forced to, end of the match)). I can understand the people that want uber realism, but stronghold never was a even 80% realistic depiction of the middle ages to begin with (especially true with Crusader 2 containing units like falconers and derwishes) and gameplay should come first.

And, as Lord Benevolent has pointed out, you can disable it for multiplayer and skirmish, so plz stop ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

[Marksteele]

wow, guys THIS ISN'T A HISTORICAL SIMULATOR. Stop trying to make stronghold realistic people.

[12Spartan]

it is not good that infantry can break down walls makes the walls pontless and weak kills the game
the should of made it so catapults and other seige wepons could be counterd or could only fier if in range of archers

[Marksteele]

Originally posted by MK13:

it is not good that infantry can break down walls makes the walls pontless and weak kills the game
the should of made it so catapults and other seige wepons could be counterd or could only fier if in range of archers

That's stupid, its not STRONGHOLD. Stop tying to ruin the feel of the game with your realism

[chaotix14]

Originally posted by MK13:

it is not good that infantry can break down walls makes the walls pontless and weak kills the game
the should of made it so catapults and other seige wepons could be counterd or could only fier if in range of archers

Skirmish had to option you want. But walls were never useless, walls and towers increase the range of archers and crossbowmen, and play an integral role in keeping the enemy out even if it's just delaying them enough so you can kill them. Just try to go through the campaign of crusader without building any walls and towers(afterall if they are pointless why even bother building them), I don't know if it's possible to beat it that way(maybe it is), but it sure as hell will make it a lot harder.

[Armandeus]

Well, it seems the consensus here is that even semi-realistic castle walls are unnecessary in a so-called castle building game. Oh, well. I was hoping I could play a semi-realistic (meaning: still fun) simulation of castle building and seigecraft with the other elements of the Stronghold series that I liked, including the campaign, but everyone here is satisfied with "walls" made of paper mache in their "castle" campaign. Anything closer to realism than that is too much, right?

I suppose if it sells, then fine. Enjoy. Sorry to have caused a disturbance.