Why do I lose men every turn when I'm under siege?

[Magician Reversed]

There's probably already a thread on this, but I had no luck finding it. Anyway I'm just wondering why it is that when I'm under siege I tend to lose about three men from every unit in the city's garrison every turn. Combine this with an enemy army who is content to just sit there trying to starve me out while my garrison is slowly whittled down by unknown factors making the chances of a successful sally less every turn, and I have a serious issue on my hands. This doesn't always happen but it more often than not does. Is this meant to simulate the effects of being cut off from supplies or something like that?

[tudor93]

Is this meant to simulate the effects of being cut off from supplies or something like that?

yep

[Magician Reversed]

yep

I see. It's odd then that the general population (as far as I know) doesn't go down as well.

[Britannia's Finest]

It's really good when you're besiging a city though. Helped me out alot as Brits V Germans

Just keep 'em under seige for a few turns and they just die.

[Aymer de Valence]

Yep, death from hunger or disease

[OnlySleeping]

Also, a sieged town could regularly be bombarded by the besiegers throwing stones etc over the walls.

It kinda sucks how it's a set number every turn though and not a random variable, that'd be more interesting IMO.

[Vindictus]

Losing men during a siege is similar to starvation, etc etc. But that makes no sense IMO. Every city has a storage, and when a city is under siege, it says "6/5/4/3/2/1 turns until surrender". It somewhat tells me these people definitely have enough food, because each turn is 6 (?) months. Plus, what CA should do is make every single army in existence lose men over time to simulate diseases, accidents, etc.

[Chris Death]

Well - looking at newer TW games it seems that ca came to the conclusion that when besieging
a town and then finally attacking it, the garrison will be bigger because the population will
support at defending.

So see it as they have taken their mistake from RTW into consideration and will not make it again.

Don't expect a patch for this on RTW though - they're done with this game.

~S~ CD

[romanlegion]

Yes, the men your army is losing under siege is meant to be the effects of hunger/disease/etc.

[Chris Death]

Yes, the men your army is losing under siege is meant to be the effects of hunger/disease/etc.

Ok, i think it's pretty clear what it should simulate but think about it:

There is this town surrounded by walls which are again surrounded by an enemy force besieging it.
Now there are two types of people inside the walls; those with weapons and those without weapons.

The guys with the weapons die from hunger and those without remain alive because?

~S~ CD

[Artillery_Duck]

maybe the guys without weapons asked really nicely?