Seige - is this a new 'bug'?

**Orry** · February 09, 2010, 06:09 AM

I have not had this happen before.

As Prussia I am seiging Mysore (sp)

The Garrison sallied two turn in a row. I crushed them both times and the second time I occupied the fort with 2 inf Reg, 1 Cav Reg and my general - I was even using the fort guns to shell their last fleeing armed rabble.

When my turn started my troop seem to have sportingly given the fort back to the enemy.

I thought if you defeated the sally AND occupied the fort that was the end of the seige and you captured the city?

**HalfAssHorse** · February 09, 2010, 06:34 AM

If the enemy sallies out you can't caputure the settlement, even if you get your men to the centre of the fort. You have to attack them, or wait until they surrender.
Don't think it's a bug, just how the game works.

**Humble Warrior** · February 09, 2010, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by HalfAssHorse

If the enemy sallies out you can't caputure the settlement, even if you get your men to the centre of the fort. You have to attack them, or wait until they surrender.
Don't think it's a bug, just how the game works.

Well that`s backasswards and illogical.

In MTW2 you captured the Fort or castle if you won whether the enemy sallied out ot not, which of course makes sense.

**Langer Kerl** · February 09, 2010, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Humble Warrior

Well that`s backasswards and illogical.

In MTW2 you captured the Fort or castle if you won whether the enemy sallied out ot not, which of course makes sense.

Maybe the explanation is that you didn't capture the fort, you captured a fort. The description of the fortifications clearly states that you're building a complete ring of forts around your city, so if enough enemy soldiers escape, they could simply rally at the next fort, denying your access to the city again.

Or the mechanic is simply flawed. I mean, Empire siege battles.... c'mon.

**CharlestheShort** · February 09, 2010, 10:09 AM

Its the way its designed for better or worse. If you look carefully when the defenders sally there is not any flag in the center of the fort, in other words you can't capture it.

**Graphic** · February 09, 2010, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Langer Kerl

Maybe the explanation is that you didn't capture the fort, you captured a fort. The description of the fortifications clearly states that you're building a complete ring of forts around your city, so if enough enemy soldiers escape, they could simply rally at the next fort, denying your access to the city again.

Or the mechanic is simply flawed. I mean, Empire siege battles.... c'mon.

You make a valid point both ways

**Humble Warrior** · February 09, 2010, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Langer Kerl

Maybe the explanation is that you didn't capture the fort, you captured a fort. The description of the fortifications clearly states that you're building a complete ring of forts around your city, so if enough enemy soldiers escape, they could simply rally at the next fort, denying your access to the city again.

Well some might call this view optimistic. In my humble opinion it`s like being sold a porsche with 3 wheels and someone saying "maybe it`s meant to be a Robin Reliant."

No offence to you, at times like this, these weird analogies just throw themselves at me.

Originally Posted by Langer Kerl

Or the mechanic is simply flawed. I mean, Empire siege battles.... c'mon.

If it looks broken, acts broken and seems broken- it`s broken.

**Graphic** · February 09, 2010, 07:03 AM

Yeah its more of an oversight than a bug. If you capture the flag you should take the fort.

**Dodge** · February 09, 2010, 08:12 AM

I agree, the units move too quickly.

**SODK** · February 09, 2010, 12:09 PM

You can take the fort if you destroy your enemy utterly so that there is no one left to defend the fort. Like if you defeat someone in a land battle and all of them die.

**Jihada** · February 09, 2010, 04:34 PM

I agree with the ring of forts idea and if the fort has no flag you cannot capture it.Fortifications were an important defensive factor in 18th century waefare. For instance the British won the field battle at North Point but lost strategically because they could not go on to capture Ft McHenry or whatever it was called which protected Baltimore. To me the strategic situation of a fort simulates the difficulty of overcoming the defense however artificial it might seem. The silly grappling hooks could be replaced by ladders however. That does look silly.

**empr guy** · February 09, 2010, 08:43 PM

this has happened to me before as prussia, but it was when i sieged hannover. I crushed their sally and then the offered peace and some cash, i though they had another town so i accepted and it turns out they didnt so when i attacked again i had got negative diplomacy or whatever.

Even if it is the "you captured A fort not The forts" or whatever if your enemy is crushed and fleeing, why would they go to another fort to wait for a siege from an army that just kicked their butts? It seems pretty odd to me, especially since the holes your cannons punched in the walls will still be there....

**Langer Kerl** · February 10, 2010, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by empr guy

Even if it is the "you captured A fort not The forts" or whatever if your enemy is crushed and fleeing, why would they go to another fort to wait for a siege from an army that just kicked their butts?

Call it a second chance? It's certainly not impossible to regain some confidence after a beating and try it again.

Also, don't forget, they're all gonna die anyways (by in-game logic). The only alternatives are to fight or pray that you demand and then accept surrender.