An Interactive/Sensible Approach to Siege Escalation
Siege Escalation: Let's Do it RightSo, we've all heard about one of the brand new features which will be in Total War: Attila. Siege escalation. Is it an awesome new way to add to the theme, or a way to circumvent AI brain deficiencies? Probably both!
We can debate why it is that they are adding this feature to infinity and nobody will have an answer that most people can agree to. Either way, no matter why, Siege Escalation is a feature which we will see debut for better or for worse in the next Total War game. Let me be frank: I have no confidence whatsoever, given CA's track record with "innovations" and "streamlining" (see Empire and Rome 2), that CA will make the correct design decisions regarding this new feature without fan base guidance. From what I've seen so far, in fact, tells me that the way this feature is implemented is rather poor and does not involve the player or any in game factors. I may be mistaken, but it would appear that in its present planned state, all you need to do to bring enemy walls crumbling down, is click 'end turn.'
If that is the case, in my own opinion, it is unbelievably LAME. You may make be a CA apologist and think that no matter what CA does, Total War is amazing. Good for you if you think so: then you'll also love it if they add in the features I propose below. Now breathe, and understand that many players, myself included, like some kind of significant depth and realism to their game which requires player interaction or takes into account things such as troop numbers, army composition, and general's command rating. I am trying to propose additions which would not take away from streamlining or make the game any slower, but would add a sufficient amount of depth for players such as me to enjoy this new feature.
The information about siege escalation we currently have is limited, but it appears to boil down to destroying enemy fortifications by sieging for more than one turn. I believe that adding a campaign map UI with siege escalation options, similar to the way we would build siege engines in Rome or Medieval 2, would give us more flexibility in sieging and give the game depth.
First off, siege escalation should be limited according to the size of the sieging army. If you wish to sap, that requires manpower. If you wish to build siege towers, that requires manpower. Do you have a lot of cavalry that you want to send in at once? Sap! Do you have a lot of infantry to attack with? Build siege towers! Maybe the walls are already damaged and sapping is redundant, but it may still be a good idea to build towers. Give the player decisions and choices. Most players, I believe, like deciding and planning their own strategies. It adds immersion to feel like a real general directing a siege.
Second, siege engines should be buildable on sight. Armies didn't build trebuchets and then march them across half of Europe, board some transports, sail to Egypt, disembark, and siege Alexandria. Most siege engines could be built once the siege begun. I think that the really large siege engines should be built in a city, but smaller catapults or ballistae should be buildable at the siege. This is how it was done historically.
Third, walls should not automatically take damage. There should be several ways to damage walls during siege escalation. Unlike it is depicted in previous TW games, sieges weren't won by tearing the walls down within minutes. It would take months- sometimes years to bombard a wall into dust. In this regard, Attila is on the right path. However, I would like to see options for damaging walls. If an army brings or builds siege weapons, it should be able to inflict damage every turn proportional to the amount and type of siege weapons it has. There are several other ways I am thinking of, but a bit more on that later.
Fourth, supplies and attrition should be better represented. The besieged army wasn't the only one that suffered from casualties. As many sieges were lost to disease, exposure, or starvation as to reinforcements or failed assaults. I think that certain parts of siege escalation should have harmful effects on the attackers.
Fifth, the defenders should be able to somehow counter siege escalation or try to sabotage the attacking force. Perhaps, agents can be given new uses in sabotaging some siege equipment or obtaining sapping plans for counter-sapping.
Below, I am putting some more specific suggestions that I would like to see in Attila.
Building Siege Engines
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Siege Escalation Via Bombardment
Once siege engines are built, they should begin inflicting losses on enemy troops. In the case of heavy artillery like catapults, damage should also be done to buildings. Ballistae should be able to inflict some damage on enemy troops, while ballistae towers do even more. Catapults should be somewhere in between. Siege engines should be considered out of range of the defenders, and will only be vulnerable to sallies or agent sabotage. Damage done to enemy troops/walls will be determined by the amount of siege engines and the amount of enemies present. Damage to troops should be a percentage varying on the aforementioned factors- One siege engine against a stack should only do a tiny bit of damage, but a lot of siege engines should not be able to just wipe out a minor garrison of defenders. Catapults should also make a small dent in the civilian population. The defender should be given the choice of whether to attempt to repair the walls or not from bombardment or sapping damage. If they choose to do so, next turn the defender troops will suffer far more casualties from bombardment. If they choose not to, they risk having their walls collapse.
Siege Escalation Via Sapping
Every turn, the player or AI will be able to call for one or more attempts to sap the walls. This will work somewhat like a spy mission- the skill of the character (in this case, the general) will be compared against the size of the defending army and the skill of the enemy general. A successful sap will inflict heavy damage to walls, while an unsuccessful one, representing collapses or enemy counter-sapping, will inflict casualties to your army. The defending faction will have the ability to use an agent to attempt to steal sapping plans, which will decrease the chance of sapping success significantly and increase casualties should an attempt fail. The terrain and climate should also be a factor in determining the viability of sapping- Egyptian sands are not as great for sapping as Italian ground.
Siege Escalation Via Disease
Biological warfare is something which we know has happened many times in the past, and has been dangerous to both the attackers and defenders. This will obviously not cause damage to fortifications, but it should have a good chance to greatly increase the casualties sustained by the defending garrison and the civilian population, by inflicting plague to the city. The drawback would be that there should be a chance of a sieging army to contact the plague either while spreading it or by sieging an inflicted city. Should the sieging army catch the plague, casualties will be even worse than in the city. Of course, even if you are victorious, you inherit a plague ridden city.
Siege Escalation Via Fire
Fire arrows were not something used often in warfare, with one exception: Attacking settlements. This should not inflict damage to stone walls, but will be able to damage wooden ones and set fire to the town, creating large casualties to the defenders and civilian population. The defenders should also suffer a morale penalty if a battle ensues the following turn. Of course, this is not safe for attacking forces, so the attacker's archers should suffer casualties based on the presence of archers/slingers in the defending force.
Siege Escalation Via Starvation
This should be a hidden mechanic, which kicks in after the first few turns of siege. As the city continues to be under siege, it begins to run out of supplies. Both the civilian and military populations should be affected once starvation sets in. Morale and troop stats (stamina, especially) should begin to drop. The defenders will be given the ability to try to sneak out and steal supplies on the defender's turn- but it may result in losses. Should it succeed, starvation will be slightly mitigated for a turn, and the sieging army will instead suffer starvation for the following turn.
Loss of Morale From Siege Escalation
Credits to Caligula's_Horse for his idea. The defending army begins the siege with really high morale, especially the garrison. As the siege drags on and the settlement takes damage, morale drops and troops other than the garrison begin deserting. The less disciplined or loyal a unit is, the more of its men will desert. This means that militias or mercenaries will be the first to leave. You can read the original idea here.
Exposure
The sieging force should potentially suffer casualties from exposure to the weather, be it really hot or really cold. Northern factions should be affected less by cold while southern factions less by heat. The developers made a big deal of the climate change towards a colder time, and this could play a role.
In Conclusion:
These measures will give an unprecedented yet streamlined depth to the Total War sieges on the campaign map. Of course, not everyone may agree with these ideas, and that is fine. They are just suggestions that I wish CA would take a look at. I may make a youtube video to explain all of this better with some photo-shopped UI options to show how I see it working. The Attila sieges have a large amount of potential and I would hate to see that potential suffer from "siege escalation" due to lack of depth or poor design the way Rome 2 did.
Many of my proposed features would appear as really simple options in the UI but give players a huge amount of choices and improve immersion. It would force the attackers to decide whether to build up artillery, set fire to the settlement, and to sap resulting in a siege battle, or to wait out the battle and preserve the settlement, but risk casualties from exposure, starvation, or disease. Even within those, there are options for speed vs casualties, or damaging enemy morale and stamina vs sustaining losses to one's own troops.
I hope that many of you realize the potential that siege escalation done right could have, and I can only pray that enough of you like my suggestions enough that at least the most basic aspects can make it into the final product of Attila. I believe this is a system which, when done well, could be immensely enjoyed by both realism/immersion gamers and the more arcade game-is-a-game gamers.
Of course, the suggestions I listed are just how I would approach the problem. They are not perfect, and I would love to hear suggestions from the TWCenter community on how to give depth to the siege escalation system. Even if CA does not care enough about its fans, at least our efforts may one day inspire a better siege mod for us to enjoy.
I don't want to become the spearhead of demands for a better siege experience on the campaign map, but I am creating this thread because I firmly believe that with the right ideas and motivation, We the Fans of Total War, can make a difference and show CA that we want a deep, meaningful, gaming experience which really does involve the player and simulate history the way a real Total War game should- A way that goes beyond clicking End Turn.
You don't have to agree with my system or my dream for siege escalation, butI hold to my belief that siege escalation must be done right. It doesn't have to be my way, but I think that the fans of Total War should come together and create a better system together. If you can at least agree with this, help me- US, get Creative Assembly's attention on this issue.
Reply With Quote
Re: An Interactive/Sensible Approach to Siege Escalation
Originally Posted by Deepstrike101
