Siege towers - do you actually use them?

[Silver]

Introduced since Forgotten Empires, they apparently act as a transport ship when docked to a wall, allowing you to "ferry" your infantry units past the wall without having to waste time breaching them. Sounds good on paper, but many of us have been so accustomed to trebs and rams that we overlook this.

Also because the AI never seems to use it? Build a wall and youre safe from the AI, at least.

So how do the towers compare to rams in terms of movement speed, recruitment time, recruitment cost and carrying capacity? Have you had better success with them than with rams?

[The Icecream Snowman]

Those of us who only play single player have no need of siege towers: the AI builds no walls.

Those of you who play multiplayer will just dump a couple of poor sods into the no-man's land between the other players two layers of wall.

They only let foot soldiers through, not other siege weapons, not cavalry, so what do you plan on doing in the enemy town?

There are one or two uses: a couple of campaign scenarios and pre-walled random maps like Arena. It might allow a castle age rush but by the time you've built a siege workshop, built the siege tower, rolled it to the enemy wall and massed enough troops to be worth it, the game is over.

Rams will tear through a wall in no time, then continue to tear through the enemy town, disgorging their payload of pikes to keep themselves safe and clog up enemy troops for long enough to deal significant damage.

So, in answer to your initial query, no I don't use siege towers.

[Kampfschwein Fjonda]

Siege Towers are #1 candidate for worst unit in the game.

If you have top level skills, you can micro Gebetos or other fragile sniper units safely through enemy castle land, BUT: for 99% of players the resources spent on a ram / trebuchet / bombard cannon will be 10x more usefully spent. It's not only that the tower is hard to use / borderline useless, but it's insanely expensive for what it does. Hence worst unit in the game.

[Silver]

Originally posted by The Icecream Snowman:

Those of us who only play single player have no need of siege towers: the AI builds no walls.

In Random Map i think you can select AI to be the original CD AI from 2001 in which case the AI will build walls.

Originally posted by The Icecream Snowman:

They only let foot soldiers through, not other siege weapons, not cavalry, so what do you plan on doing in the enemy town?

I was thinking it would be a viable strategy for civs with good infantry units like Teutons, Goths, Aztecs or Malians. Transporting units 5 or 6 at a time inside each ram or flooding 60 units over the wall with a single siege tower within seconds. But you're right, once inside, the infantry are on their own.

There should have been a "capture the flag" type of mechanic where having more of your units than your foe's standing near the "inner portion" of a gate (compared to the outer side's proximity to the nearest town center) for let's say 10 seconds would hand control of it to you.

[Kasbfaäfad]

arena to punish hard boomers on pocket. Viable strategy that often works

[mmmcheesywaffles]

There are some occasions in the Campaigns where siege towers are useful. There are even some scenarios where it is part of the plot. So... I use them sometimes.

EDIT: I avoid MP unless I really know my fellow players very well.

[Flakstruk]

Perhaps it needs an upgrade allowing it to capture towers and castles.

[chaoticbalrog]

Originally posted by Flakstruk:

Perhaps it needs an upgrade allowing it to capture towers and castles.

Towers yes, but capturing Castles would be essentially be converting them, so that probably will never happen. Castles are supposed to be impossible to convert even with Redemption researched anyway

[Flakstruk]

Originally posted by chaoticbalrog:

Originally posted by Flakstruk:

Perhaps it needs an upgrade allowing it to capture towers and castles.

Towers yes, but capturing Castles would be essentially be converting them, so that probably will never happen. Castles are supposed to be impossible to convert even with Redemption researched anyway

Redeption is a based on religion. A siege tower, is guys storming the joint. I'm my mind, it'd be a question of reducing the castle to a level of vunerability first (a siege) and only making an attempt that may or may not be successful. If it is, at substantial effort and cost, you capture the castle and thus the battlespace.
It could even be an optional thing "allow castle capture"

Certainly it'd gove you reason to build them and reason to snipe them

[chaoticbalrog]

Even then, I highly doubt that the developers will make it possible for Siege Towers to capture Castles. Regular Towers yes, Bombard Towers yes, Donjons yes, Kreposts yes, but not actual Castles, especially since any captured Castles would be at low health and more or less be in enemy territory where a swift reprisal is guaranteed.

[Flakstruk]

Originally posted by chaoticbalrog:

Even then, I highly doubt that the developers will make it possible for Siege Towers to capture Castles. Regular Towers yes, Bombard Towers yes, Donjons yes, Kreposts yes, but not actual Castles, especially since any captured Castles would be at low health and more or less be in enemy territory where a swift reprisal is guaranteed.

Thats great immersion.

I quick google search suggest Edinburgh castle has been besieged 23 times. Castle's changing hands is a thing.

As i said, could be optional, could also simply be engineered to be a non-viable multiplayer strat (cost, time, audio warning)
My question is why you would want an easter egg type inclusion that got a tangible historical justification and can be made a competitive non issue

[chaoticbalrog]

Maybe restrict the castle-capturing tech to certain civs like Britons, Celts, Aztecs then. Basically, any civ that does not get Bombard Cannons can get the tech that lets Siege Towers capture Castles.

[Bob of Mage]

I would like to see them able to carry any foot unit instead of just infantry.

Personally I rarely use them because I prefer to to siege from a safe distance. I only play vs AI, so when I start attacking the outer edge of their base, the units idle at their base come pouring out. So sending melee troops in results in them getting swarmed. On the other hand the AI will blindly charge into my prepared killzone if it is next to something that poked a building.

[chaoticbalrog]

Originally posted by Bob of Mage:

I would like to see them able to carry any foot unit instead of just infantry.

Personally I rarely use them because I prefer to to siege from a safe distance. I only play vs AI, so when I start attacking the outer edge of their base, the units idle at their base come pouring out. So sending melee troops in results in them getting swarmed. On the other hand the AI will blindly charge into my prepared killzone if it is next to something that poked a building.

They can carry villagers, but maybe Archers inside a Siege Tower can give it a ranged attack.

[Flakstruk]

Originally posted by chaoticbalrog:

Maybe restrict the castle-capturing tech to certain civs like Britons, Celts, Aztecs then. Basically, any civ that does not get Bombard Cannons can get the tech that lets Siege Towers capture Castles.

Fair compromise

[sam.pidgeon]

i never use siege towers in any mp game pointless better to use few rams or even petards if in castle age when imperial just use trebs