Do you think sieges will finally feel epic?

**Dbx125** · July 05, 2012, 04:50 PM

Dont get me wrong sieges are fun but I feel there is just something missing about them in Rome and Medieval. The battles arnt as epic as I see in movies and stuff.

1.Sieges need to be radically different and longer. There needs to be more stages or whatever to a siege and they need to make the illusion that the siege has lasted/will last longer than just the 1 battle to take the city. In real life sieges lasted for days and weeks. Armies marched up to the walls and retreated back to come back another day. Armies camped outside and outlasted the city. Not just 1 battle like in previous games.

2. The "Streets" in Rome and Medieval. Now maybe this was just the old engine at the time and the limitations. But in real life cities/castles didnt have conveniant massive streets that armies could conveniently make their way through like in rome 1 and medieval 2. Cities and castles in real life have loads of small alleys in which individual fighting takes place little nooks and cranies. Imagine rather than fighting down 1 bit of the city like in previous games and having the rest of the place redundant, there was fighting ALL OVER the city. Troops littered in smaller groups literally everywhere defending different wards of the city.

**SonOfCrusader76** · July 05, 2012, 04:58 PM

Hell yeah!

I think you'll get your wish: cities have multiple 'capture' points. No more rushing to the square, then holding it for a few minutes. I predict extremely epically epic sieges.

**IGdood** · July 05, 2012, 04:59 PM

It'll only be epic if I can surf down the walls with my tower shields.

**Waiting for Rome 2 -_-** · July 05, 2012, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by IGdood

It'll only be epic if I can surf down the walls with my tower shields.

You will have to buy the DLC for this...

**Heart of Madness** · July 05, 2012, 05:04 PM

Oh hell yes! I think CA is getting used to sating everyone's individual desires one game at time. This game fulfills mine.

It's gonna be epic if you have your battered soldiers take a capture point and then see fresh defenders charging. Then you order your troops back into a semblance of formation to fight them off. Epiiiccc!!!

**InF3sTeD** · July 05, 2012, 05:05 PM

Yes having the multiple capture points will make it a lot more fun. It gives you many more options on how you want to attack a castle instead of rushing for the central square you will have to divide up your forces so we will see a lot of smaller skirmishes in choke points all over the city.

Hopfully the pathfinding for the calvery will be a lot smoother it was always really hard to manouver and get them into position during sieges.

**Dbx125** · July 05, 2012, 05:07 PM

Also imagine being able to set the whole city on fire. IT would be epic watching Carthage burn to the ground.

Or being able to sack the city during the real time battles.

Also it would be a nice touch if the city became more delapedated over time of a siege with crumbling walls. Dead bodies. Old siege towers/ladders. Arrows littered the ground. Smoking ruins.Toppled statues.

**Rasic** · July 05, 2012, 05:08 PM

Just looking at the concept art/screenshot the cities look like they're going to be huge so I wouldn't worry about that. Also if I remember correctly one of the previews was talking about dead civilians in the street and signs that the siege has taken place, as well as mentioning that sieges will be more important and you won't experience them as commonly as you have in the past because of the way they are doing the campaign map (provinces). Put that with no single capture point (different objectives) and I think the sieges are going to be way more fun than the past games.

**crunchyfrog** · July 05, 2012, 05:48 PM

As long as the make AI not suck completely in sieges(Empire and Shogun 2 was exceptionally bad), I'm good.

**JankoMega** · July 05, 2012, 05:50 PM

Only one word needed to describe with: epic.

**Asgaroth** · July 05, 2012, 05:59 PM

1.Sieges need to be radically different and longer. There needs to be more stages or whatever to a siege and they need to make the illusion that the siege has lasted/will last longer than just the 1 battle to take the city. In real life sieges lasted for days and weeks. Armies marched up to the walls and retreated back to come back another day. Armies camped outside and outlasted the city. Not just 1 battle like in previous games.

I agree on this and I think that this is an awesome idea. However I would like to add that it would depend on the city's size, because if you attack a city that has low or even no level of walls/defense then it could be one turn, while if it's a huge city it make a difference. So they should basicly make the difference in attacking a huge city or a town.

And for this idea I give you + rep sir !

2. The "Streets" in Rome and Medieval. Now maybe this was just the old engine at the time and the limitations. But in real life cities/castles didnt have conveniant massive streets that armies could conveniently make their way through like in rome 1 and medieval 2. Cities and castles in real life have loads of small alleys in which individual fighting takes place little nooks and cranies. Imagine rather than fighting down 1 bit of the city like in previous games and having the rest of the place redundant, there was fighting ALL OVER the city. Troops littered in smaller groups literally everywhere defending different wards of the city.

I can agree for the Medieval because that how castles were build in the medieval age. However for Rome it would depend on the city size again.

Could you imagine Rome with little alleys, or Carthage, Athens, Sparta ?, I think not. I think that the higher the city is the bigger the roads in it should be. Imagine Alexiandria in Egypt, such a big city in a good trade position with numbers and numbers of ships with merchandise coming every day. And that it has small alleys ?

**Stallownage** · July 05, 2012, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Asgaroth

I agree on this and I think that this is an awesome idea. However I would like to add that it would depend on the city's size, because if you attack a city that has low or even no level of walls/defense then it could be one turn, while if it's a huge city it make a difference. So they should basicly make the difference in attacking a huge city or a town.

And for this idea I give you + rep sir !

I can agree for the Medieval because that how castles were build in the medieval age. However for Rome it would depend on the city size again.

Could you imagine Rome with little alleys, or Carthage, Athens, Sparta ?, I think not. I think that the higher the city is the bigger the roads in it should be. Imagine Alexiandria in Egypt, such a big city in a good trade position with numbers and numbers of ships with merchandise coming every day. And that it has small alleys ?

All youre talking about there is the size of the biggest roads. But big cities like that still have side streets and alleys, an awful lot of them too because of the city size.

**Wowwars** · July 05, 2012, 08:24 PM

Yeah a siege that could last a couple of turns and battleswould be epic. The Harbour part of the city will never fall with my Aquaman abilties.

**The Useless Member** · July 05, 2012, 08:35 PM

ETW - S2FOTS sieges have been

'ing

I hope they finally bring back the fun in them.

**Foultrajik** · July 05, 2012, 08:46 PM

Dont worry guys, the rope climbing ninjas will be back. No need for battering rams,ladders,tunneling or towers. Just some guys with a bit of rope.

They will get rid of all that nonsense.

**AngryTitusPullo** · July 05, 2012, 09:38 PM

Someone already posted but I really hope sieges at least for the higher tier cities will take few turns of battles. First battle to capture outer walls, then middle and finally next turn the inner walls or something. Then it will be epic. While besiege the defender still have the chance to send armies from outside to raise the siege.

**saxdude** · July 05, 2012, 09:42 PM

Syracuse.

**Intranetusa** · July 05, 2012, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by IGdood

It'll only be epic if I can surf down the walls with my tower shields.

You mean like Legolas Greenleaf (portrayed by the actor Orlando Bloom), son of the Wood Elf King Thrandil of Mirkwood, at the battle of Helms Deep in Rohan, against the armies of Urk-hai of Saruman the White Wizard, servant of the Dark Lord Sauron, as portrayed in the movie The Lord of the Rings: Two Towers, as directed by Peter Jackson...???

**krisslanza** · July 05, 2012, 10:11 PM

Somehow some people's idea of "epic" seems to be more "longer". Given a single turn in RTW was half a year... and while, yes, it might be realistic that sieges in reality lasted months or even years, that was mainly because you never actually attacked the place. You just sat outside until they starved to death, then walked in and stabbed whoever didn't starve.

Not very exciting gameplay.

**IGdood** · July 05, 2012, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Intranetusa

You mean like Legolas Greenleaf (portrayed by the actor Orlando Bloom), son of the Wood Elf King Thrandil of Mirkwood, at the battle of Helms Deep in Rohan, against the armies of Urk-hai of Saruman the White Wizard, servant of the Dark Lord Sauron, as portrayed in the movie The Lord of the Rings: Two Towers, as directed by Peter Jackson...???

Wait that happened in the movies? Damn, I had no idea.

I was just drawing on some imagination from Final Fantasy but okay.