Can we somehow increase the amount of field battles?

[SirRobin]

It seems like most battles are siege battles, which has been a problem ever since the game was first launched.

Are you people happy with that, or should we try to change it by adjusting the mod, and if so - any ideas ?


Now with poll

(please note I am not blaming this mod for the over-abundance of sieges, just vote for what you would prefer, if we for a moment forget everything about hardcoded things and whether or not it could be done)

.

[Gnostiko]

What do you mean?
I don't have a problem with (lack of)field battles - if I have a stack in the field and the AI thinks it can take it, it will try!

[SirRobin]

Usually I only have a stack in the field if it is heading towards a settlement to take. At which point there will be a siege battle.

The AI will rarely attack my stack, since it will be, well, stacked.

And while waiting to stack up on my stack, I will endure plenty of attacks on my settlement, leading to, well, siege battles.

I love sieges, just not in this game, since it's not exactly done right

[Kolaris8472]

I agree, the vast majority of my battles seem to be Sieges. Most field battles are destroying recently spawned Rebels.

Expanded Zone of Control and moving resources out of cities and into outlying towns did quite a bit to help this issue in Empires imo, but we can't do anything like that here.

The only other thing I could think of would be lowered movement points, but they're already quit low...would it be possible to lower movement points only when in enemy territory? That way it takes a bit longer to get into sieging position, but defenders can muster troops from other regions to fight you in the field.

[Tuatha Mordred]

I agree, the vast majority of my battles seem to be Sieges. Most field battles are destroying recently spawned Rebels.

Expanded Zone of Control and moving resources out of cities and into outlying towns did quite a bit to help this issue in Empires imo, but we can't do anything like that here.

The only other thing I could think of would be lowered movement points, but they're already quit low...would it be possible to lower movement points only when in enemy territory? That way it takes a bit longer to get into sieging position, but defenders can muster troops from other regions to fight you in the field.

Increasing the zone of control is a brilliant idea! This should come first before decreasing movement points. I like the mobility of my star general and his stacked +movement ancillaries and traits. Maybe reduce movement points for captain armies only.

I usually avoid sieges. I consider the casualties from the inevitable melee to be unacceptable. And the pathfinding makes me pull my hair out. If ever custom settlements are possible, I advocate wider streets to alleviate this pathfinding problem.

As Hungary, my strength is HA. I prefer fights in open terrain. So I usually end up starving enemy settlements till the end (when I'm on the offensive) and I move out my attack to meet them on the field when I see them approaching (when I'm on the defensive).

I'm not so sure about that...the forces required to defeat the AI in siege battles are typically far less than what's required to beat them in the field. So sallying is out.

Really? It's the exact opposite for me. But I suppose you need to qualify what type of siege battles you're talking about; the kind where you attack a settlement or the kind where you defend against a larger force. When I'm attacking, I fare far better in the field. And I only choose to defend a siege when I don't have the means to meet them out in the field.

[Gorrrrrn]

As the point of the game is to capture territories, and you do that by capturing settlements, you can't complain if the AI tries to win by capturing settlements.
If you want more open field battles you'll have to amass armies and place them in the way of attacking AI armies - but that can mean a lot of bridge battles.
Or maybe create all cavalry armies that can move faster than AI armies?

[SirRobin]

As the point of the game is to capture territories, and you do that by capturing settlements, you can't complain if the AI tries to win by capturing settlements.

My good man (or is that you in your avatar picture?), if you read my post closely you will find that I complain about no such thing

If you want more open field battles you'll have to amass armies and place them in the way of attacking AI armies - but that can mean a lot of bridge battles.

Yes that would be one way of doing it, but since the point of the game is also to defend the gained territories, there is no reason for me as a player to do so, when I could defend from the comfort of my own home - castle or town.

If you don't find that your games contain too many siege battles, that's a valid thing to add to the thread, just let us know.

[storm20200]

My good man (or is that you in your avatar picture?), if you read my post closely you will find that I complain about no such thing



Yes that would be one way of doing it, but since the point of the game is also to defend the gained territories, there is no reason for me as a player to do so, when I could defend from the comfort of my own home - castle or town.

If you don't find that your games contain too many siege battles, that's a valid thing to add to the thread, just let us know.

Personally I get very bored of siege battles, almost makes me think why bother to have my cavalry other than archer cavalry. That's why I make an effort to siege an enemy to the last turn to force them to sally out on me. the plan works 99% of the time as they sally on the last turn unless their force severely out powers me, but I have once been SO strong for a rebel settlement they actually starved to death

[Asterix]

It seems like most battles are siege battles, which has been a problem ever since the game was first launched.

Are you people happy with that, or should we try to change it by adjusting the mod, and if so - any ideas ?

well, historically, there were very few pitched battles in the medieval era. most battles were sieges and the like. knights probably got very little big-time battle action because major battles where their horses were of use were so rare. they happened, of course, but not often.

[Gnostiko]

I'm confused, I don't see what the problem is; I dread field battles because I know at the least, if the AI is attacking my stack it believes it has a fair chance of annihilating my army...if not, the AI has another stack waiting to do the job. I use spies and gank enemy settlements so I'm not caught by double-stack attacks.

Are you picking on 1-3 region factions, or something?

My good man (or is that you in your avatar picture?

On an unrelated note, I don't think that's Rozzie. His last avatar picture, to me, looked either like Jack Black with a hangover, or a Serbian.

[Ichon]

I don't get what SS or MTW2 can change about siege battles. If you don't go out and fight that is on you- not the engine. There is little reason to always wait for a siege unless you are not confident in leading field battles. Personally I find siege monotonous but also there is the penalty of losing trade income, population growth, and building/recruit time to encourage to fight more field battles.

AI is not like a human player building up a garrison and in nearby town and then launching a blitz attack. With a few spies/watch towers you can almost always spot its incoming invasion stack and meet it in the field or worst case lead a sally out against the attacking force.

There is nothing else to capture in MTW2 that doesn't lead to a siege. Even in ETW with smaller towns etc it eventually turns into sieges when their defenses are built up. The reasons for field battles are in the game similar to in real life though not as important. Deny enemy mobility, crush enemy army to make eventual capture of their regions easier, strategic positioning to draw out enemy armies to terrain where they are easier to defeat etc.

[Kolaris8472]

With a few spies/watch towers you can almost always spot its incoming invasion stack and meet it in the field or worst case lead a sally out against the attacking force.

I'm not so sure about that...the forces required to defeat the AI in siege battles are typically far less than what's required to beat them in the field. So sallying is out.

Meeting them in the field would be nice, except AI General-led armies can typically move a much greater distance than you can. It's not usually possible to bring up reinforcements in time.

Maybe it's possible in the east (but then your own reinforcement time is greater...), but in Italy/Holy Land it's just not feasible.

[Ichon]

I'm not so sure about that...the forces required to defeat the AI in siege battles are typically far less than what's required to beat them in the field. So sallying is out.

Meeting them in the field would be nice, except AI General-led armies can typically move a much greater distance than you can. It's not usually possible to bring up reinforcements in time.

Maybe it's possible in the east (but then your own reinforcement time is greater...), but in Italy/Holy Land it's just not feasible.

In the Holy land if you use the sea its quite easy to shift troops around and advance out of the cities to meet armies in the field. Also while the AI led armies usually get some movement bonus player can accumulate similar or greater movement bonus on a veteran general however that does take some time.

The main reason if you are using CS as an example is pure numbers why siege battles happen more often. Fatimids alone have 2-3x the numbers of starting CS. Turks or Jihad get involved its even more. No real way around it given current mechanics. I'd prefer AI only siege assault when it had 4-1 advantage and the rest of the time lay siege then back off or send its armies to sit on port to blockade trade etc to really cause havoc with CS economy as is more similar to history. The way CA designed the game 75% of the economy is in the cities for most of the game. If the economy was more dispersed there would be other targets for the AI to raid but then the extra numbers of Fatimids for example would be even more apparent.

For other factions this isn't as much a problem if you aren't playing on more than M settings. If you play on more than M its probably not worth complaining about.

[Kolaris8472]

Increased Zone of Control would be ideal imo, but afaik it's hardcoded.

[merocaine]

Pick on big factions, thats a sure fire way to have lots of field battles, I've never found it to be a problem.

[SirRobin]

Just to clarify - of course I could just play my cards foolishly and ride out and attack the incoming armies, but the way the game is set up, it punishes me a lot for doing this. We all like to play the game "well", I don't micromanage a lot, and I don't only care about winning, but it would just seem completely foolish to abandon the walls, because that's how the game rules are laid down.

If you remember Medieval: Total War (1), the game forced the player to first either fight the invading army in the field, after which battle the survivors could retreat to the castle if the battle was lost, or retreat the defending army to another province after filling up the castle with defenders.

The latter option was dangerous, because a full castle ran out of supplies much faster, and when they ran out of food, they didn't sally out, they just all died and the castle fell to the enemy.

Castle attacks were rare in MTW1, but were great when they happened. The developers then must have thought "starving out a garrison is boring, let's make sure there will be LOTS of castle assaults in MTW2. Unfortunately, due to poor design, castle attacks suck, because there's very little actual tactics involved.

I set up my troops in almost the same fashion every single time. And the same things happen in every single siege - the ram breaks through, the grind happens on the walls, the oil pours and if the line holds, the day is saved. If the fight at the gates is lost, the settlement is usually lost too.

If you disagree with the above, fine, more power to you, I hope you enjoy the game

But if not, then here are some things we could change to improve the situation:

• No auto-sally, when supplies run out, the castle falls.
• Castle assaults be made much much more dangerous for the attacker.
• AI be made much more patient to starve out settlements.

But will this make life for the already weak AI? No, I think it would make it harder for the player, who would not be able to just turtle in his cities as wave after wave of attackers hit the walls. I remember a game as the HRE where I held on to two anatolian provinces for years and years, with every single turn, a new stack laid siege and was smashed in assault the next turn. With the above rules, the AI would have starved me out, or I would have had to sally, or endured the siege while I brought up a relieving force (which would have taken a long time to arrive from Germany)

Also, the player would find it much more difficult to assault the AI's cities, if the assaults were made more dangerous, so the player would have to try sieging, which would give the stupid AI some time to react and send support.

But I suppose again this is all hardcoded

.

[HellBojus]

Well I have no problem with that. Well officers if map would be bigger I can capture more my enemies.

[Cheomesh]

If you attack a field army near a settlement, the garrison will come out and help. Crush both, move in unopposed.

M.

[Marcvs Antonivs]

If you attack a field army near a settlement, the garrison will come out and help. Crush both, move in unopposed.

M.

Seemingly for me, that is pretty much where more than half of my field battles take action. If not, the game would be very very boring, since I almost ever assault a city/castle unless they have little garrison and let them starve to death.

I agree with SirRobin here, it would be much better if there were more field battles, but dunno to what extent or how it could be done +rep

[nibelungvalesti]

i agree with this sentiment and i think that it could be solved by making the AI more hesitant to assault cities unless it has a very significant advantage (say 2-1 or maybe more) otherwise he should try to starve out the defenders.

alternatively you could have the AI use multiple stacks to assault and maybe even assault from multiple sides though i am not sure that is possible.


btw i cant vote in the poll, anyone have any idea why?