Sieges...

One of the major disappointments in Empire for me is the siege. I am not thinking of the spidermen attacks (though I don't like it), or the buggy walls where men just refuse to cooperate with orders (this seems to be a problematic area for all the TW games). What I mean is that sieges are only a single fort. What happened to the awesome cities of Rome and Medieval II? When did this become Medieval I with more guns? The graphics, when turned down to the lowest settings, makes the soldiers resemble MTW soldiers when not zoomed right in to their faces (zoomed in they resemble Rome soldiers).

Is Napoleon going to bring back my beloved urban fighting first shown in what is my favourite TW game, Rome, and expanded upon in Medieval II? I have no intention of getting NTW until it is cheap and *hopefully* has less bug problems (but by this point, DarthMod Napoleon or something similar will have long since been released and made the game bearable). But something that would make me more eager to get the game would be if there are actual cities, not just the 10 building villages and forts we only ever see in Empire. I was saddened by the portrayals of Rome and Venice, in particular, in Rome and Medieval II, respectively (where are the hills of Rome and why is Venice not on water?), but I didn't mind, really. But when Empire took even those away... my heart sank...

Does anyone else care about the urban aspect of sieges from RTW/M2TW or am I alone and just puffing hot air?

~Kanzler

One problem is that the options for how you siege will be way different, even if they're implemented. Siege towers, for one, aren't necessary anymore because of the genuine availability of cannons. (The spidermen too!) Sapping Points could still work, mining under the walls still seems reasonable despite outdated at that point.

To answer your question, though, yes I do miss them. If you're talking about fights actually happening inside a walled area, I don't know how common it would be to wall off all cities in this time period, considering the cannons would tear them all down, anyway. (Phased out, like heavy mail was by gunpowder) I'm sure the walls existed, but they wouldn't be much benefit to the defenders because of the developments over the previous centuries. If anything, it'd make more sense for the defenders to sally forth out of the city so that they had more flexibility and weren't sitting ducks for long range cannons.

Unless, of course, you just mean having the majority of the PF being inside one city, where you could just wait in the streets and duke it out, as well as use the buildings to allow about 1/20 of your force to actually shoot a weapon. That would be interesting but messy, I think..only one unit of ranged units would be firing at any given intersection, so it would pretty much just be melee fighting in closed spaces.

Originally Posted by Kanzler_Andreas

One of the major disappointments in Empire for me is the siege. I am not thinking of the spidermen attacks (though I don't like it), or the buggy walls where men just refuse to cooperate with orders (this seems to be a problematic area for all the TW games). What I mean is that sieges are only a single fort. What happened to the awesome cities of Rome and Medieval II? When did this become Medieval I with more guns? The graphics, when turned down to the lowest settings, makes the soldiers resemble MTW soldiers when not zoomed right in to their faces (zoomed in they resemble Rome soldiers).

Is Napoleon going to bring back my beloved urban fighting first shown in what is my favourite TW game, Rome, and expanded upon in Medieval II? I have no intention of getting NTW until it is cheap and *hopefully* has less bug problems (but by this point, DarthMod Napoleon or something similar will have long since been released and made the game bearable). But something that would make me more eager to get the game would be if there are actual cities, not just the 10 building villages and forts we only ever see in Empire. I was saddened by the portrayals of Rome and Venice, in particular, in Rome and Medieval II, respectively (where are the hills of Rome and why is Venice not on water?), but I didn't mind, really. But when Empire took even those away... my heart sank...

Does anyone else care about the urban aspect of sieges from RTW/M2TW or am I alone and just puffing hot air?

~Kanzler

We had a long talk about this. I hate sieges in ETW, but love them in MTW2 and RTW.

However, apparently, 18th century fans feel that sieges shouldn`t even exist in this time because soldiers never fought in cities...

Looks like we must have crap sieges or no sieges at all. Now i know why the 18th century was never my favoured period of warfare. I give up.

Yes, valid points about artillery and walls. This, of course, has been true for centuries. However, walled cities and fortresses still existed and sometimes terrain made it difficult for large artillery batteries to be used and thus ladders, "spidermen", tunneling, or simply assaulting a given door/gate would be called for. What was the battle in the US Civil War that the movie Glory is based on? If memory serves me, that battle had some sort of a fort that the Confederates controlled and the only approach to it was so narrow that only one regiment could attack at a time? Or something like that, I think. Not to mention the Franco-Prussian War was determined, I think, by the fact that the Prussians had superior artillery and could have bombed the forts surrounding Paris into submission, hence the French simply surrendered, as the war was lost by this point.

The campaign map also shows walls surrounding the city after they are built, which led me to believe it would be a Rome/M2TW siege, not some dinky fort in the middle of nowhere. I realize that most major cities tended to have forts outside of them, rather than a wall around the city (unless it was a pre-existing one), but TW games do not equal historically accurate. Roman ninjas, to name just one ridiculous item.

My current problem with the siege system is that the AI is non-existent (as it is lacking in every aspect of the game). I've finally given up with Empire in its current form because two days ago I was playing as Prussia with Darth Mod Ultimate and Additional Unit Mod. Austria declares war in 1705 or so; big surprise, I know. They besiege Berlin with two stacks, breaching in ONE place, causing ALL soldiers to RUN to this ONE breach, lagging the hell out of the game. Finally, I win. Next turn comes. ANOTHER stack attacks and the breach is still there, so right from the start, without more than a dozen dead from the wall defenders, some 5000 Austrians rush into this one hole, met by my first wave of defenders, some 2000 firelock militia (there to soften and tire the enemy out). I never completed the battle, despite it being almost certainly a victory (even on VH/VH). Why? Because the AI rushed into this one hole and lagged the game so much that I couldn't even reach a 20 minute time limit without the battle taking several hours. I even refought it on the lowest of the low settings (except for lowering unit sizes, which is the problem, I know, but I wasn't sure if the units that were already made would downsize and resize after the battle). Lag still killed my faith in Empire, especially in sieges.

Well, I just wondered if anyone else is displeased with the sieges in Empire. I started playing Rome with Darth Mod today. Infinitely better. I will stick to the old goodness of the Total War series and pray to the gaming gods that someday they will bless Empire with an actual patch, if not for sieges, then at least for the rest of the game.

One final thought before I end my long and boring rant: sapping has potential. You could make a tunnel that comes out inside a wall and the attackers would then work their way out until they reach a door and they exit the wall (inside the fortress, that is) inside the parade grounds or whatever you would call inside the walled area (where the flag, armoury, etc are). It would be similar to troops going down the tower to the base of the wall in Rome/M2TW, only they would dig under the wall and up into it. Those walls have doors and what not on them, so they are a fortress, not just solid rock, or do my eyes deceive me (I know, I shouldn't trust them!)? But that would be a lot of coding and the AI would NEVER work with it. Ah, well. I have the game, I had fun with it for a while. Nothing left to do but shelve it and enjoy an Empire TW free life.

Take it easy everyone,

~Kanzler

They did so have city fights, they put up sand bags and barriers, and fought in the streets. Anyway, Humble Warrior, sieges are different to city fighs, sieges should be huge walls with about 20 corners around a huge city with a river flowing through it.

Many cities still had their walls in the 19th century. For example York in England, Maastricht in the Netherlands demolished it's wall in 1860, way after Napoleon.

Sieges were not a thing of the past, I don't even get the idea of not having sieges. Maybe it's because peoples knowledge is based on movies where it was to expensive to do a siege battle rather than stand in a field and burn gunpowder.

But NO sieges were not a thing of the past. They were avoided but if it had to a siege would be had. Now why it was avoided will be shown by Napoleons Campaign in Italy. At the FORTRESS (as in huge stone structure only able to be taken by siege) of Mantau about 30000 Austrians had been crammed into it by Napoleon. These were all survivors of previous Austrian defeats that made their way to the fort and the Garrison. What followed was a series of Battles fighting with the reinforcements that came to break the siege and trying to starve out the 30000 soldiers inside.

This was a costly, long and difficult process because taking the fort would require man power not available to him and just sitting around waiting for the occupants to starve would lead to reinforcements being organized against him.

So besieging made you vulnerable with little gain and you had no other option besides wait unless you had a large enough force (real soldiers are not all spidermen like Empire) to take the settlement. Thus it was usually avoided in favour of field battles where a loss was simply decided with whomever ran away first.

So yes besieging better bloody be done well in this game because it was a Generals nightmare so it should also be our nightmare FOR THE RIGHT REASONS!!!

The Napoleonic wars were filled with sieges. Looking at the war in Spain I can count at least 10 major sieges from the top of my head involving thousands of troops, siege train, sapping, trenches, street fighting etc, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Saragossa_(1808)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Gerona_(1809)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tarragona_(1813)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...Rodrigo_(1810)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...Rodrigo_(1812)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badajoz_(1812)

Etc, etc, etc...

Plus..with the Egyptian Campaign part of the release how do you think they will show this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre_(1799)

Originally Posted by Ebusitanus

The Napoleonic wars were filled with sieges. Looking at the war in Spain I can count at least 10 major sieges from the top of my head involving thousands of troops, siege train, sapping, trenches, street fighting etc, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Saragossa_(1808)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Gerona_(1809)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tarragona_(1813)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...Rodrigo_(1810)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...Rodrigo_(1812)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badajoz_(1812)

Etc, etc, etc...

Plus..with the Egyptian Campaign part of the release how do you think they will show this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre_(1799)

+1 rep.
Finally, someone with actual facts rather than the responses of people who don`t actually know. Thankyou. It was clear to me that there has to be more to 18 th century fighting than just standing out in fields!

If CA could`ve made sieges even just slightly realistic, i would`ve been happy, but I choke every time I see a `siege` in ETW. It`s that bloody awful!

Originally Posted by Ebusitanus

The Napoleonic wars were filled with sieges. Looking at the war in Spain I can count at least 10 major sieges from the top of my head involving thousands of troops, siege train, sapping, trenches, street fighting etc, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Saragossa_(1808)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Gerona_(1809)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tarragona_(1813)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ciudad_Rodrigo_(1810)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ciudad_Rodrigo_(1812)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badajoz_(1812)

Etc, etc, etc...

Plus..with the Egyptian Campaign part of the release how do you think they will show this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre_(1799)

I could add

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_of_Lyon
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_de_Mayence_(1792)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mainz_(1793)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Toulon(1793)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mantua_(1796-1797)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mantua_(1799)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jaffa (1799)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Genoa_(1800)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Gaeta_(1806)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Kolberg_(1807)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Danzig_(1807)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_de_Metz_(1814)

This is what our sieges should be looking like in NTW:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Originally Posted by Marshal Beale

This is what our sieges should be looking like in NTW:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

*head explodes*

I can already imagine my Grenadiers getting stuck behind the first fence, while my officer screams "open fire!" at a small tree in the distance.

But isn't the argument about cannons just completely obsoleteing fortresses a little false?


- The swedish fortress of sveaborg withstood even with cannonfire (however the general gave up soon after...)

- during world war 1 and 2 you still had fortified positons and even real forts like emben emual (The belgian fort, don't remember the name) which was mostly abandoned or taken by other means then well removal by artillery/cannon fire

-Numerous fortresses/cities has withstood sieges with cannons

To be quite realisitc, the "siege" battles should involve forts, but the forts should be much, much different.

First, the individual forts should be very much smaller (as in 1-3 full strength "Huge" infantry regiments shold be enough to garrison a single wooden or artillery fort, with the most advanced for able to hold slightly more). Second, the forts should act as artillery platforms, primarily, with the majority of the infantry, in most cases, defending outerworks. Thirdly, as the forts increase in strength, they should also increase in number, so that the second level fort really shows up as 2 small forts, and the most advanced fort shows up 3 medium sized forts, possible with fixed field fortifications linking them. In any case, it should be possible to adaquately defend any fort or group of forts with less than a full stack.

I want sieges to not have ninja grappling hooks, I want ladders, engineers that build trenches to approach siege, ladders, sappers to knock down fort gates, and inside, stables, traning areas, housing for the soldiers, or it could be a city inside, with detailed streets, buildings, etc...

Originally Posted by Marshal Beale

I want sieges to not have ninja grappling hooks, I want ladders, engineers that build trenches to approach siege, ladders, sappers to knock down fort gates, and inside, stables, traning areas, housing for the soldiers, or it could be a city inside, with detailed streets, buildings, etc...

Sir, if your mod contains all these things and the Darthmod AI for NTW, I will happily eat my own words and buy that game outright.

My attitude is this.....

I accept that it would be impossible for CA to create historically accurate sieges or for that matter even open battles however I believe that it is possible to use the strategic game play to mimic the value of a fort, perhaps a simply 3 to 6 turn delay before you can assault a fort would suffice.

When it actually comes to a tactical battle of any type the terrain should be more imaginative, unfortunately Warscape from the onset was designed to generate maps that have no real reference to the strategy map and those maps it does generate are repetitive and not very interesting for the player.

You would really need an expert on Map Modding to comment but I believe that ETW made a fundamental shift away from previous total war map design and the tactical maps we have in ETW rely heavily on the imagination of a program and not a map designer. The foundation for the maps seems to be basic and the input rather small to generate anything worthwhile.