Sieges in ETW/NTW and TW in general

So after reading the preview of Samsonov we all now that NTW's sieges will be just as awful as ETW's sieges. And IMO he's right about the amount of sieges in TW games.

But the way I see it it's not because cities/forts are too close to one another. It's because you have the ability to actually assault the city or fort right from the start in ETW/NTW and in RTW and M2TW it was every second turn (99% of the time) after siege equipment was built.

In RTW and M2TW everyone, including the AI, will assault the second turn after equipment is built rather than starve a city or fort garrison. This makes siege battles very boring and repetitive and lays too much emphasis on actual siege assaults, rather than the siege itself: sitting around the city/fort in tents, cutting the enemy off of its supplies and wait and wait and wait. Sieges slowed down a campaign heavily, but it's not represented as such in TW games. This results in the fact that a siege could be over without much delay for the attacker and with too little time to respond to the siege by sending reinforcements for the defender.

Why can't sieges just be played out on the campaign map and/or why can't the capability of assaulting immediately be deleted when besieging a city or fort? In reality the besieging army would, after arriving at the scene, be under heavy artillery fire and have to overcome various defences (depending on the types of defences built and the type of forts) before it could ever execute a direct assault.

The amount of siege battles could've been easily reduced if it would have taken like 3-4 turns before an army would be able to assault a fort/city. It would have been even nicer if the defenders are starved and surrender their fort/city before the attacker is even able to assault the city/fort, because of its good defences. Not every siege (even the successful ones) needs to result in an all out storm-the-fort battle.
Experience taught me that it makes siege battles quite boring after a while.

Any thoughts or opinions about this?

Well i agree on one and aspect and disagree on another.

I agree that the ETW sieges are awful and that they will for some inexplicable reason, continue to be awful in NTW, possibly because CA have no capable BAI programmer. Whatever, the reason, it`s incompetent.

But I LIKE sieges, always have and always will and I liked RTW and MTW2`s sieges most of all. When I play a war strategy game I expect ALL the stuff that comes with war and sieges are a nice change of pace and tactics from battlefield war. Instead of the attack or defend on an openfield 24\7, you get to think differently when it comes to sieges. neither do i think they are too much.

You probably didn`t play sieges enough in MTW2 to notice, but on at least VH or H, the CAI actually does sometimes just siege you until your men starve and surrender sometimes. I would often get another army close to my sieged city to force the AI army to attack my castle rather than siege everyone to death.

It`s one reason why I am still astonished at how CA screwed up sieges in ETW and continue to ruin them in NTW. They learned nothing at all since ETw was released 11 months ago.

I often starve the enemy out rather than risk a frontal assault. It all depends on the situation.

Do i need to take that town now? Do i need those troops elsewhere? Or can i bide my time and weaken the enemy for no real loss of my own?

One thing that would be good, and may be included thanks to NTW's attrition rate; would be that the besiegers also suffer the effects of staying in one place for such a long time. Disease and starvation was prevalent amongst besiegers as well as the besieged, as can well be imagined when thousands of men are grouped together in a set place with no real notion of sanitary conditions.

I always starve them out (in all TW games)
Unless I have artillery to make a siege a little bit easier.

Unless lack of time demands it, I always let a city starve or force them to come out and fight me in the open. Assaults can be costly and by starving or forcing them to attack I am bending the city to my will. I almost never find that I don't have enough time for starvation to become my ally.

I was also saddened to hear that sieges will essentially be the same in NTW as in ETW. I have never liked sieges so hopefully in NTW they will be few. The preview suggests that they will be in Italy at least. Hopefully that extends to the GC as well.

I call it "the city obsession" and this dangerous disease is unfortunately widespread among modders too. In previous TWs it seemed as if the more cities you placed onto map, the better modder you were considered to be.

Some of the most popular M2TW mods have city network so dense that practically EVERY battle is a siege. You can't move for 2 "steps" without bumping into some city or other.

I HATE that, it's completely unrealistic, but at least M2TW had somewhat decent siege battles compared to ETW.

In any case, in EVERY period of human history regular field battles were more numerous and more important than city sieges. This is especially true for 18th century.

I would applaud any mod, any TW game, any game mechanic that would reduce number of siege battles to some realistically low number. Especially if your siege gameplay mechanic is pretty bad to begin with, as in ETW.

Originally Posted by Samsonov

In any case, in EVERY period of human history regular field battles were more numerous and more important than city sieges. This is especially true for 18th century.

That's simply not true. Siege warfare in most periods of military history have outnumbered field battles. For example, in the medieval era major field battles were extremely rare, but sieges were commonplace.

And even in the 18th century, siege warfare was more common than field battles. The Duke of Marlborough, who unusually actually sought out field battles, still oversaw far more sieges than field battles during his long career (during the course of the entire War of Spanish Succession he fought just five field battles compared to his 26 formal sieges). Throughout military history, field battles have always been looked upon as being too risky to chance unlike sieges which were looked upon as being a much surer thing. Most military commanders are cautious types. Yes, field battles gave the allusion of being more "decisive," which is why certain commanders (Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Eugene, Frederick II, and Napoleon) actually sought them out, but that was more often an illusion than a reality.

However, as for a PC strategy game when historical reality comes up against fun gameplay then I'll take gameplay. I've never enjoyed any of the siege battles of the TW series, and I didn't play mods that added lots of new cities in order to avoid Rome: Total Siege or M2: Total Siege. And ETW's siege battles with their stupid ropes and rush for the flag are the worst yet. I had hoped that NTW would revamp the siege engine, but it appears that may not be true.

Originally Posted by MKeogh

That's simply not true. Siege warfare in most periods of military history have outnumbered field battles. For example, in the medieval era major field battles were extremely rare, but sieges were commonplace.

And even in the 18th century, siege warfare was more common than field battles. The Duke of Marlborough, who unusually actually sought out field battles, still oversaw far more sieges than field battles during his long career (during the course of the entire War of Spanish Succession he fought just five field battles compared to his 26 formal sieges). Throughout military history, field battles have always been looked upon as being too risky to chance unlike sieges which were looked upon as being a much surer thing. Most military commanders are cautious types. Yes, field battles gave the allusion of being more "decisive," which is why certain commanders (Gustavus Adolphus, Marlborough, Eugene, Frederick II, and Napoleon) actually sought them out, but that was more often an illusion than a reality.

However, as for a PC strategy game when historical reality comes up against fun gameplay then I'll take gameplay. I've never enjoyed any of the siege battles of the TW series, and I didn't play mods that added lots of new cities in order to avoid Rome: Total Siege or M2: Total Siege. And ETW's siege battles with their stupid ropes and rush for the flag are the worst yet. I had hoped that NTW would revamp the siege engine, but it appears that may not be true.

Very true indeed. Difference is i`ve always enjoyed a good TW siege, it`s like mash and bangers for me.

Originally Posted by Razor

I've played M2TW a lot and I've yet to see that happening. In my M2TW games the AI either assaults the second turn after siege equipment is built, or leaves after one turn. I've never had them starve my city.

.

They do. I have overdosed on MTW2 as i`ve played it solidly for years. I don`t know how else to convince you without going down your house and showing you. But maybe one day you`ll run a full game of MTW2 on H\VH Campaign settings and you`ll see it. I tell the absolute truth.

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

They do. I have overdosed on MTW2 as i`ve played it solidly for years. I don`t know how else to convince you without going down your house and showing you. But maybe one day you`ll run a full game of MTW2 on H\VH Campaign settings and you`ll see it. I tell the absolute truth.

Yes, I have seen that too numerous times. Usually they just attack at second turn but sometimes they will starve you. But I don't know what is the logic of it as sometimes they foolishly attack even if my garrison contains huge amount of elite heavy infantry and spearmen. In RTW (atleast mods) enemy waiting and starving seems to be more common.

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

They do. I have overdosed on MTW2 as i`ve played it solidly for years. I don`t know how else to convince you without going down your house and showing you. But maybe one day you`ll run a full game of MTW2 on H\VH Campaign settings and you`ll see it. I tell the absolute truth.

Originally Posted by Praefectus praetorio

Yes, I have seen that too numerous times. Usually they just attack at second turn but sometimes they will starve you. But I don't know what is the logic of it as sometimes they foolishly attack even if my garrison contains huge amount of elite heavy infantry and spearmen. In RTW (atleast mods) enemy waiting and starving seems to be more common.

Alright... how common would that be appr.? Let's say out of 100? Because I think it would help if they'd attack even less than what they do now, especially since I haven't experienced it myself, which is quite... strange apparently... .
Well either way I think the siege equipment is built too fast resulting too often in a siege battles/assaults and less surrendering from starvation.

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

Well i agree on one and aspect and disagree on another.

I agree that the ETW sieges are awful and that they will for some inexplicable reason, continue to be awful in NTW, possibly because CA have no capable BAI programmer. Whatever, the reason, it`s incompetent.

But I LIKE sieges, always have and always will and I liked RTW and MTW2`s sieges most of all. When I play a war strategy game I expect ALL the stuff that comes with war and sieges are a nice change of pace and tactics from battlefield war. Instead of the attack or defend on an openfield 24\7, you get to think differently when it comes to sieges. neither do i think they are too much.

You probably didn`t play sieges enough in MTW2 to notice, but on at least VH or H, the CAI actually does sometimes just siege you until your men starve and surrender sometimes. I would often get another army close to my sieged city to force the AI army to attack my castle rather than siege everyone to death.

It`s one reason why I am still astonished at how CA screwed up sieges in ETW and continue to ruin them in NTW. They learned nothing at all since ETw was released 11 months ago.

I've played M2TW a lot and I've yet to see that happening. In my M2TW games the AI either assaults the second turn after siege equipment is built, or leaves after one turn. I've never had them starve my city.

Originally Posted by Samsonov

I call it "the city obsession" and this dangerous disease is unfortunately widespread among modders too. In previous TWs it seemed as if the more cities you placed onto map, the better modder you were considered to be.

Some of the most popular M2TW mods have city network so dense that practically EVERY battle is a siege. You can't move for 2 "steps" without bumping into some city or other.

I HATE that, it's completely unrealistic, but at least M2TW had somewhat decent siege battles compared to ETW.

In any case, in EVERY period of human history regular field battles were more numerous and more important than city sieges. This is especially true for 18th century.

I would applaud any mod, any TW game, any game mechanic that would reduce number of siege battles to some realistically low number. Especially if your siege gameplay mechanic is pretty bad to begin with, as in ETW.

As is said sieges were very common. However what I was trying to point out is that sieges shouldn't always come down to storming the fort, but was more about camping and a few skirmishes here and there and after that a retreat or having successfully mad a breach an assault (only then). So if there should be an assault involved, it shouldn't be the next turn after you started the siege. This way you do indeed get the siege fest TW games tend(ed) to be when there are a lot of cities. If it could be modded that siege equipment take twice or triple the amount of building time than in RTW and M2TW sieges don't automatically end up in actual assaults and it leaves the defender with more time to actually react and send reinforcements.

The main problem of sieges in ETW is each infantry unit's ability to climb any wall in 20 seconds. I really hoped those awfull ninja ropes will be disabled in NTW and ladders will be returned, but it looks like nothing changed. Huge walls being crushed by 6 pounders in 5 minutes are not too realistic as well.

I believe that sieges in TW gunpowder era games might have been organized in better manner. For example, it could be divided into two parts. During the first part attacker could choose one of few parts of the wall to be breached. Then few turns ( depending on number of breeches) would have to pass untill those breaches were finished/trenches(actual trenches, which would exist on battle map and lead from attackers deployment zone to breach/breaches) were dug, and then an actual siege would be commited, in which defenders could deploy all those defensive stuff like mines, sharpened sticks, sandbags or even redoubts in and around the breach, and attackers could also deploy redoubts and batteries for guns to support their attack. Then actual battle would start, without any hooks and stuff, just climbing up the breaches or using ladders. That's what I would call a descent napoleonic siege.

In ETW i starved them out, because i hate siege battles and i wanted the AI to attack me!