Cool thing happened during a castle siege :)

[Fredster30]

I was defending my castle in a "standard" fight and I did fairly well as I managed to rout the enemy with mostly my archers and some close-quarter infantry.

The real kicker of this fight was the fact that when some of the enemy units shattered they retreated..THROUGH the castle. They actually climbed up the wall, ran across the castle courtyard and climbed down the other side in order to reach the other side of the map and the "safe point". Of course most didnt make it as they were cut down by my infantry.
This was the first time I've seen this behaviour as I usually do auto-play on sieges, but it was very cool . Needless to say there werent alot left of the besieging army afterwards due to this little retreat-fiasco.

[Bolkonsky]

Did you take any screenshots?

[Humble Warrior]

This actually illustrates how the AI in siege battles don`t see a castle, but only see a plain battleground with a couple of capture points.

Started a siege battle and I was told that the gates had been broken and not repaired- danger! Danger!

I thought, `So what?` They`ll just ignore the gates and climb the walls anyway.

Which they did. Pointless.

In MTW2 and RTW broken gates were a real worry, since the enemy would try flooding in. In STW2 it don`t matter.

[Fredster30]

Did you take any screenshots?

Nah sorry! If it happens again I'll put one up here.

[Largon]

I was defending my castle in a "standard" fight and I did fairly well as I managed to rout the enemy with mostly my archers and some close-quarter infantry.

The real kicker of this fight was the fact that when some of the enemy units shattered they retreated..THROUGH the castle. They actually climbed up the wall, ran across the castle courtyard and climbed down the other side in order to reach the other side of the map and the "safe point". Of course most didnt make it as they were cut down by my infantry.
This was the first time I've seen this behaviour as I usually do auto-play on sieges, but it was very cool . Needless to say there werent alot left of the besieging army afterwards due to this little retreat-fiasco.

Omg. Would love to see that

[Bolkonsky]

This actually illustrates how the AI in siege battles don`t see a castle, but only see a plain battleground with a couple of capture points.

Started a siege battle and I was told that the gates had been broken and not repaired- danger! Danger!

I thought, `So what?` They`ll just ignore the gates and climb the walls anyway.

Which they did. Pointless.

In MTW2 and RTW broken gates were a real worry, since the enemy would try flooding in. In STW2 it don`t matter.

Sieges definitely need to be improved, I agree. That might have been effective in the gunpowder era, but not in Medieval eras.

Nah sorry! If it happens again I'll put one up here.

Awesome!

[Davidicus II]

"Run towards the enemy. They'll never expect it!"

[kronpas]

This actually illustrates how the AI in siege battles don`t see a castle, but only see a plain battleground with a couple of capture points.

Started a siege battle and I was told that the gates had been broken and not repaired- danger! Danger!

I thought, `So what?` They`ll just ignore the gates and climb the walls anyway.

Which they did. Pointless.

In MTW2 and RTW broken gates were a real worry, since the enemy would try flooding in. In STW2 it don`t matter.

requote and +1. BAI doesnt take walls into account in battle as all units can climb wall, even cavs (dismount then climb, anyone?). I love the old siege battles of Rome/Med where enemy would try to flood through the breach on the wall It was much less 'clever' than current S2's BAI, but still more realistic in a way.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

There was this discussion a long time ago..supposedly when the routing enemy did this the gates miraculously opened from the inside to let them back out too..

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=471798

[Humble Warrior]

It was much less 'clever' than current S2's BAI, but still more realistic in a way.

Thanks.
The thing is sieges should be done as they were in real life, so if it`s less clever to turn gates into a meat grinder killing thousands of men, but that`s how it was done in real life, then CA should leave the real life aspect in. Besides it`s pretty epic to watch. More epic than watching men climb walls all the time ignoring open gates in a wholly unbelievable tactic.

Also, in real life it`s much harder to climb walls (even sloping walls) than to just try and fight through an open gate or gap in a wall (every one seems to either disregard or forget this). Once at the top men would be so exhausted that they would be slaughtered. The only way it could work would be part of a night surprise attack, not an all out assault.

That`s why it was easier to send men through gates. Of course, there were many other tactics used. CA knows all this, but have chosen the easiest to program `Empire` AI of just head straight forward to the capture points with a flimsy excuse of why clmibing walls is better than fighting through gates or blowing holes in walls. They just hope everyone is dumb enough to believe their climb the wall crap and then show us a few bits of evidence where men did climb the walls, which did happen once or twice in reality, but not in the context CA are using it in.

Just because it happened once or twice in reality isn`t an excuse to make it the norm or you skew the reality of how things actually happened in history. It`s the same with the `women fought in battles in wars`, sure, some did ib rare circumstances, but that don`t mean they had armies of thousands of women fighting in regular battles. It all has to be put into context or you end up re-arranging the truth of history to suit certain agendas.

In this case CA has the stupid wall climbing because they for some reason won`t, or can`t do authentic siege battles. In Empire it was because they broke sieges as everyone knows 18th century troops didn`t all grapple up walls- It was a last-minute emergency cop out. Look at it all in context with Empire and you easily see what CA have done.

Sorry for the waffle.

[Erwin Rommel]

I could have Akira Kurosawa's Kagemusha or even Ten To Chi and maybe Ran but its blocked. Damn. Kinda a recurring theme for a tactic that happened "once or twice in reality".

but that don`t mean they had armies of thousands of women fighting in regular battles.

Love the exaggeration. Dont you? Makes for an epic post conjuring images of onna bushi warriors. When in reality even I rarely face them and maybe only in huge castles. Wait. Maybe there is somewhere in the Kanto area of angry spiteful womenfolk of Edo rampaging around the lands the Sagara. I'll send a ninja to confirm.

but not in the context CA are using it in.

CA gave the player 4 options, bribe, which happens often in reality, starve them out which happens most of the time or assault, sally out, my favourite. If the game only allows assault then yes CA is wrong there but oh look, I have a wee Hojo metsuke named Daidoji who just happens to convince the Satomi garrison in Echigo to give up and switch sides.

[Humble Warrior]

Great way of completely circling around the point I`m making.

[Davidicus II]

Great way of completely circling around the point I`m making.

The point is you want clusters of thousands of men in one gateway to slow everyone's computers down, like in Rome or Medieval II (both of which you can still play). If the AI didn't ignore open gates, but instead tried to go through them as well as climb the walls, would you be so upset?

Don't get me wrong. I miss the trebuchets and the wall destruction as much as anyone, but I like the "they can swarm in from anywhere" risk introduced with Shogun 2 sieges. No longer can I send my elite infantry to a few chokepoints and go grab a drink, then come back to a nice victory. I have to monitor the walls, decide when and where to fight, what capture points to give up, etc. Is the AI always smart enough to exploit my weaknesses? Of course not - it's not a real player - but it does a better job than previous Total War games, and if it continues this way, I'm excited to see what the future BAI will be like.

Remember that, even in a historically-focused game, historical correctness must sometimes be sacrificed for gameplay purposes. CA decided they wanted something new (which is something everyone complains about, right? That CA never does anything new?), and they tried it with Shogun 2. Some people think it's great, most think it's interesting but it could use some improvements, and a few aren't satisfied no matter what happens. It's basically the same as it's always been, in that regard.

[Humble Warrior]

The point is you want clusters of thousands of men in one gateway to slow everyone's computers down, like in Rome or Medieval II (both of which you can still play). If the AI didn't ignore open gates, but instead tried to go through them as well as climb the walls, would you be so upset?
.

The frame rate has nothing to do with it. CA are always increasing the graphics and calculations of their games so even if you didn`t have loads of people squeezing into a gap in the wall, someone`s computer is going to be taxed somewhere and slowed down regardless! Also reducing settings and getting a reasonable PC would reduce such a problem greatly, even with my old PC of 5 years ago, i only needed to turn off shadows to get a stutter free game.

Don't get me wrong. I miss the trebuchets and the wall destruction as much as anyone, but I like the "they can swarm in from anywhere" risk introduced with Shogun 2 sieges. No longer can I send my elite infantry to a few chokepoints and go grab a drink, then come back to a nice victory. I have to monitor the walls, decide when and where to fight, what capture points to give up, etc. Is the AI always smart enough to exploit my weaknesses? Of course not - it's not a real player - but it does a better job than previous Total War games, and if it continues this way, I'm excited to see what the future BAI will be like..

But that`s just plain stupid. TW games have always been about replicating the look and feel and tactics of violent historical warfare. I buy historical wargames because they are based on historical warfare and tactics. If you throw out the historical warfare and tactics then youno longer have Total War, but Total Fantasy. If I wanted a fantasy game I`d buy an LOTR game with dragons in.

Remember that, even in a historically-focused game, historical correctness must sometimes be sacrificed for gameplay purposes. CA decided they wanted something new (which is something everyone complains about, right? That CA never does anything new?), and they tried it with Shogun 2. Some people think it's great, most think it's interesting but it could use some improvements, and a few aren't satisfied no matter what happens. It's basically the same as it's always been, in that regard.

I remember much and I know that there is no need to sacrifice anything. CA have proven they can do realistic sieges without the need to sacrifice basic realism and STILL keep them entertaining and fun while historically authentic. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for them to go backwards as they have here. They did it then with MTW2 is still a mighty popular game.

Why do you talk up for CA when the evidence is staring you in the face just how better things could be?

[Elta]

It's not even a historical accuracy thing for me, I just find it comical to have men climbing walls like that and dying simple trying to get up them.

Granted, I didn't live in Japan 500 years ago, but I am convinced they had ladders.

[bugulu]

A huge part of the besieging tactic was to starve the enemy out. You spare your own men and the opposing force is the one that need to make the next move.

Another thing to consider is that there weren't that many "Stone wall" castles that were besieged during this era, plenty of forts were just made out of wood and the few that were made of stone were so small that it wasn't a very dangerous feat to climb up.

Ladders weren't unheard of during the Sengoku Era but the tactic of assaulting a castle by force weren't widely used.

[Frei]

I like how a fun thread got turned into whining and complaining. Humble Warrior is good with his ability to turn every thread he posts in into something like that.

Make your complaints in your numerous complaint topics where it is actually being discussed instead of derailing people's threads because you just want to whine all the time.

[universalmind]

Can't believe people are actually trying to defend sieges in this game. No pun intended.

[Erwin Rommel]

I blame Utagawa Sadahide and Stephen Turnbull.

[Razor]

I was defending my castle in a "standard" fight and I did fairly well as I managed to rout the enemy with mostly my archers and some close-quarter infantry.

The real kicker of this fight was the fact that when some of the enemy units shattered they retreated..THROUGH the castle. They actually climbed up the wall, ran across the castle courtyard and climbed down the other side in order to reach the other side of the map and the "safe point". Of course most didnt make it as they were cut down by my infantry.
This was the first time I've seen this behaviour as I usually do auto-play on sieges, but it was very cool . Needless to say there werent alot left of the besieging army afterwards due to this little retreat-fiasco.

It's indeed cool and funny to see this happen the first few times. But seeing it happen more often after that gets pretty awkward and stupid.