Call me crazy, I like the sieges.

[Osbot]

I've been around since the beginning. I bought Shogun when it came out, and I've played every title in the series. I've been disappointed with siege difficulty and ai capability since the beginning. The siege AI in Rome wasn't very good, at launch it didn't even work in M2. In Empire they circumnavigated some of the problems by letting guys just climb walls, although Empire wasn't exactly siege heavy. In Shogun they continued the tradition and the AI was able to navigate sieges, though it was still pretty boring and terrible. In Rome 2 we almost saw a siege system as bad as M2 was at launch. In Attila sieges were working better, but the AI was often barely able to offer a coherent defense.

Warhammer? Complain about the narrowed scope all you want, but this is what assaulting a city is supposed to be like. A slog. It's supposed to be brutal, fighting for choke points and taking horrific losses in the process. A lot of people will say "why can't they just get the AI right", well they've been trying for a decade and they still haven't gotten it right. I welcome the simplified map, because the AI is doing much better with these mechanics. In past total wars, yea the cities were big and beautiful, but they were a total drag to play because the AI would have its army split up defending different quadrants if the city, and all you had to do was bum rush one section and overwhelm the AI in that area, if it even was in that area. After that, if the AI even reacted to you, it came in piece meal and it was just a big anti-climactic bore.

For me, gameplay trumps the aesthetic of a huge city, ai capability trumps the veneer of player tactical choices in assaulting a city too big for the AI to adequately cope with the myriad of possibilities.

Now, what they should do, is make dwarven holds a two stage battle. First stage is to take the outer walls, and the second stage is to assault the inner hold itself, facing off against a second garrison in a straight up choke point slogfest!

[Johnadiw26]

I like your thread

Sent from my Smartfren Andromax AD688G using Tapatalk

[the_mango55]

After the tower nerf mod (actually since I made another mod that changes the projectiles I had to nerf tower range and damage myself) I like the sieges. With the vanilla game artillery was useless in sieges because arrows were destroying steel siege engines almost instantly from 500 yards away.

I don't know who the hell is in those towers, but they should make those guys available on the campaign map, it would be the best unit in the game.

[Yerevan]

Siege were not boring in S2. As a matter of fact I had very epic siege battles in RTW, M2TW and S2TW. The ratio of 1 defensor for 3 attaquant worked in every of them and even if the AI wasn't always brilliant it was doing its job. So I suppose it's a matter of taste. Sieges in Empire and Napoleon were terrible though.

I'm open to Warhammer sieges, I've heard good and bad things likewise. The ultimate test will be to play them I suppose. But what I see is that the only way of dealing with the difficulties of rendering siege warfare for CA have been to circumvate them. I don't find it particularly impressive.

[Grayser]

If you like sieges and think it was worth the sacrifice... destroy a tower then spend 20-30 minutes shooting / using magic to slowly kill off the AI while it sits there, big sieges were sacrificed for absolutely minimal gain. Go ahead try.

Create a few breaches in the walls while you have a siege tower docked and watch your 120 man unit split into 3+ groups taking whatever path they choose.

In previous games we had epicc and vast sieges with derpy AI, now we have tiny sieges with slightly less derpy AI, the slightest testing will show that we have taken one step forwards and seven steps back.

But if you like them then good for you.

[Humble Warrior]

There are just some people who simply don`t care for realistic sieges- or realistic warfare at all- Warhammer was made for those people.

[gyabo]

Woot Woot siege in this game is awesome (sarcastic dialogue option in FO4) LOL

The only good thing w/ sieges the defenders can only use small amount arrow towers but arrow towers are too OP. CA also improved the garrison in the game but the siege map is boring. I think tier 5 castle only upgraded its tower than expanding the siege map.

[Yerevan]

Ok, so when you upgrade your castle you get more towers ? Do you get catapults and other battlements or extensions ?

[Pachinko]

I've been around since the beginning. I bought Shogun when it came out, and I've played every title in the series. I've been disappointed with siege difficulty and ai capability since the beginning. The siege AI in Rome wasn't very good, at launch it didn't even work in M2. In Empire they circumnavigated some of the problems by letting guys just climb walls, although Empire wasn't exactly siege heavy. In Shogun they continued the tradition and the AI was able to navigate sieges, though it was still pretty boring and terrible. In Rome 2 we almost saw a siege system as bad as M2 was at launch. In Attila sieges were working better, but the AI was often barely able to offer a coherent defense.

Warhammer? Complain about the narrowed scope all you want, but this is what assaulting a city is supposed to be like. A slog. It's supposed to be brutal, fighting for choke points and taking horrific losses in the process. A lot of people will say "why can't they just get the AI right", well they've been trying for a decade and they still haven't gotten it right. I welcome the simplified map, because the AI is doing much better with these mechanics. In past total wars, yea the cities were big and beautiful, but they were a total drag to play because the AI would have its army split up defending different quadrants if the city, and all you had to do was bum rush one section and overwhelm the AI in that area, if it even was in that area. After that, if the AI even reacted to you, it came in piece meal and it was just a big anti-climactic bore.

For me, gameplay trumps the aesthetic of a huge city, ai capability trumps the veneer of player tactical choices in assaulting a city too big for the AI to adequately cope with the myriad of possibilities.

Now, what they should do, is make dwarven holds a two stage battle. First stage is to take the outer walls, and the second stage is to assault the inner hold itself, facing off against a second garrison in a straight up choke point slogfest!

Call me crazy too... it so much better than last Rome II.

[Incontinentia]

I'm watching GreenleafTotalWar's Let's Play and he has some pretty epic siege battles. Let's be honest, it's not that often that you get open field battles in Warhammer - unless you can catch their rapidly-moving armies on the campaign map. They always seem to move just out of your attacking range. You can use spies to hinder their movement, sure, but the chances are low even with an experienced spy...

[alQamar]

The first time I played sieges I was also stunned. They feel so much more immersive compared to Rome 2. AI is really trying to defend correctly, whilst having still minor issues, but this would be claiming issues on a high level.
Not only the gameplay is great but also they look great! Towers have a very high range and you cannot sit there with artillery (at least not early game) and shoot everything down before approaching. In addition 2 of 5 siege towers got destroyed before reaching the walls. The broader walls make it much more easy for the AI and also the player to use the space and fight.

Even though towers are strong I would not like a nerf as this adds enough thrill which of the units will make it too the wall. If towers would have less range the player could play ore with deploying after start but well.. I really think it is very much ok like it is.

[gyabo]

Ok, so when you upgrade your castle you get more towers ? Do you get catapults and other battlements or extensions ?

Nah!! When you upgrade the castle same castle map but w/ better garrison and arrow tower. Worst will be town w/ walls w/ one battlement. Personally it is far more easier defending a town due i can put some unit manning the arrow tower but my garrison is not good than my capital.

[alQamar]

Siege were not boring in S2 [...] The ratio of 1 defensor for 3 attaquant worked in every of them

to be honest this was pretty much awkward till a certain balancing patch. I was specialized to play MP battles with sieges with a friend of mine and we won nearly every siege with some matchlocks and other units.
It was fun to see masses dying while trying to capture the castle. But Takeshi's Castle was always a place of weirdness, wasn't it ?

I never liked the 1 to 3 ratio as the defender often enough had not much more than 3-5 units to defend which caricatures the term "Total War" by a lot. Suum cuique. I really disliked S2 sieges for that even when I've won them a long time.

[Ataegina]

meanwhile the layout was simplified, the sieges are better now. AI is more agressive and really tries to defend (however isn't flawless). only issue that needs to be addressed is the towers, they're very OP. but its a major improvement over past sieges, in special for the brain dead rome 2 siege AI behaviour......... you could win by just using your catapults,onagers..... pound them to death from distance because they just sit still .... rome 2 ^^ but this time around you must make a move, act fast, move on.... or get your ass handled to you........

[Yerevan]

It was fun to see masses dying while trying to capture the castle. But Takeshi's Castle was always a place of weirdness, wasn't it ?

OI don't know, I just know his cousin : Takeshi Kitano. Yeah, he is full weirdness.

(weird pun)

Sorry, I don't know, what is Takeshi Castle exactly ?

to be honest this was pretty much awkward till a certain balancing patch. I was specialized to play MP battles with sieges with a friend of mine and we won nearly every siege with some matchlocks and other units.
I never liked the 1 to 3 ratio as the defender often enough had not much more than 3-5 units to defend which caricatures the term "Total War" by a lot. Suum cuique. I really disliked S2 sieges for that even when I've won them a long time.

Well, if you go into multiplayer, you really can see the limits of balancing, for sure. But somehow history is full of stories of lightly defended places that would hold against all ods. So, yes, it can be bad in a competition context, but it never bothered me so much in my campaigns. Especially since the AI in S2 knew how to take a castle.

I think that canons in FOTS brought much balance to the siege battes.

[petertel123]

There are just some people who simply don`t care for realistic sieges- or realistic warfare at all- Warhammer was made for those people.

Please tell me when total war has ever properly simulated realistic combat, or even pretended to try. I'd rather have fun siege battles than half-assed attempts at realism that the AI cant handle and result in the boring siege battles we've had since Rome.

[irisheagle]

You know, I do love people who both praise the S2 seiges, but hate the magic ladders, when they are essentially the exact same thing, and are precisely why the AI could actually attack a castle in S2 effectively, where they just craped themselves in Rome and M2 (and R2 and A they just.. let's not speak of what they did there).

That said, they needed to be at least more variety, attacking soley one side or corner is fine as it's essentially all you ever did, barring the almost exactly the same but more tedious two wall method. But couldn't we have had some that maybe jut out more in places, or have a side with more room for mele depth in one side, and more varied terrain scatter in the area infront of the castle?

[Magni]

Same here. Between the ability of the attacker to get up the wall quick and the pressure generated by the towers, siege assaults are now frantic, brutal slugfests for both sides, as they should be.

There are just some people who simply don`t care for realistic sieges- or realistic warfare at all- Warhammer was made for those people.

If you think sieges in any TW were ever realistic, you are simply deluding yourself.

[Markas]

Please tell me when total war has ever properly simulated realistic combat, or even pretended to try. I'd rather have fun siege battles than half-assed attempts at realism that the AI cant handle and result in the boring siege battles we've had since Rome.

Yep Total War games- those famous warfare simulators! People have no problem with half your troops not dying to dysentery before they even get to the battlefield, battles not lasting half your day, or a giant disembodied eye floating thousands of feet in the air giving out commands, but focus the action in siege battles (that we have all previously loved and admired...), and you've gone too far!

There's an awful lot of selective realism certain members use as an argument, many of which don't even have the game they are commenting so frequently on.

[Påsan]

Sieges are better than R2/Atilla. They lack the strategy of the Med2 ones. Infinate tower range is lame.