sieges

[Goatsie]

From what I've heard about sieges it seems like it may be too hard for the attacker to win, especially against large castles with multiple walls.

My suggestion is to make siege weapons part of the siege equipment selection like rams, towers etc. This means the attacking army will not need to spend slots on cannons/catapults etc and can have more troops. Would be good if you could also train them as normal units too, incase u want to use them in other battles instead of sieges.

What do you think?

[mike007]

nah not a fan. ill give you an E for effort though.

Trust CA, they wont let you down!

[hsimoorb]

Yes, I've been all for this idea since RTW came out. A minimum amount of seige equipment should be available to build before a seige. Most equipment wasn't dragged along the campaign trail, but produced on the spot, and then demolished afterwards. This would both make seiges a little less like a napoleonic artillery duel, but it would also swing the balence further to the attacker. In RTW the defender had jack to do, and could never win against organized defenders. While this was somewhat realistic, it meant you had to have 10-1 odds just to win a battle. Also, CA has commented on the .com boards, I quote.

"we've got a highly balenced way of handling seiges"

I think they protest too much. IMO this means "we've reintroduced the highly unbalenced system from RTW and modernized it. Instead of those overpowered MG42s on the walls they now have newer MG3s."

[Favre]

I think they should implement a way so you dont have to siege a city with a 20 unit army against a 1 unit army of peasents. the Peaseants should merely surrender for their lives

[Sitarus Originalus PM-30+]

I think they should implement a way so you dont have to siege a city with a 20 unit army against a 1 unit army of peasents. the Peaseants should merely surrender for their lives

that is a good idea, ... but would you really let them go?

[mark0701]

I think they should implement a way so you dont have to siege a city with a 20 unit army against a 1 unit army of peasents. the Peaseants should merely surrender for their lives

There should be a diplomatic option that allows the defenders to withdraw (with suitable payment to the attacker). Maybe taking a % of the population with them to the nearest settlement.

Sieges just need a bit more depth, rather than being a battle with walls.

As for 1 unit holding out against 20 without surrendering, didn't the templars hold out in a siege with just six knights against hundreds of Turks?

[Ewan]

There should be a diplomatic option that allows the defenders to withdraw (with suitable payment to the attacker). Maybe taking a % of the population with them to the nearest settlement.
Sieges just need a bit more depth, rather than being a battle with walls.

Totally agree with u here, it was a commen for thing attackin armies to give the defenders a chance to surrender . would be a nice option if you had the last of your royal family or a perticular unit u wanted to keep ( would also be cool if one of your charcters got a vice for surrendering)
Also i think if you have catapult there should be an option that every turn while you seige your artilary is firing at the citys . This would cause some deaths of the enermys army but would also damage the city, so you would have to measure the pros and cons

[Sir Matthais]

There should be a diplomatic option that allows the defenders to withdraw (with suitable payment to the attacker). Maybe taking a % of the population with them to the nearest settlement.

Sieges just need a bit more depth, rather than being a battle with walls.

As for 1 unit holding out against 20 without surrendering, didn't the templars hold out in a siege with just six knights against hundreds of Turks?

or perhaps the settlement makes terms like the attackers retreat and the defenders will make a payment or hand over one of there troops or other diplomatic solutions.

Putting these in field battles would be good too. If a large army is invading a country and a smaller army gets attacked the smaller army could negotiat there way out of a hopeless situation.

I doubt CA would spend there time with this but one can dream can't they

[Goatsie]

nah not a fan. ill give you an E for effort though.

Trust CA, they wont let you down!

I hope so, it seems to me that if two full stacks were in a siege, all the advantages lie with the defender as they have the same/similar number of troops as the attacker, several layers of walls and defences to fall back to. Seems like the only way the attacker can win is to have more troops than the defender or/and better quality troops. But even then surely the attackers won't get passed the second ring wall. In RTW I almost never lose a siege, but attacking is so much harder. With all the benefits the defenders will now have in M2TW I think its gonna be impossible.

I know my idea isn't great, but its all I could think of right now to give the attacking army at least some chance of hoping to win a siege.

[Bruticus the Steadfast]

nah not a fan. ill give you an E for effort though.

Trust CA, they wont let you down!

I totally agree, CA wont make them too hard or too easy. They know the game has to be playable.

[Lee1026]

Isn't the entire idea of castles to give a massive advantage to the defender? In real life, people starved out castles unless if the ratio is something like 10 t0 1.

[Goatsie]

Yes but this is a game. Do you want to have to wait for the defenders to be starved out everytime you besiege their castle? Are you really gonna raise 10 full armies to take one castle with a full garrison? I want to be able to attack a castle and at least have a chance of winning.

[Silver Guard]

Realisticly some castles could hope to hold off up to ten times the number of defenders, problem is, seeing your amy decimated infont of walls isn't very satisfying for the player...

[Lee1026]

Well, it is quite fun to kill a bunch of enemies in front of my walls. In RL, people left what, 500 men to hold a castle left behind? I want to simulate that. because it adds a new dimension to the game if we can't just blitz everything in our path.

Yes but this is a game. Do you want to have to wait for the defenders to be starved out everytime you besiege their castle? Are you really gonna raise 10 full armies to take one castle with a full garrison? I want to be able to attack a castle and at least have a chance of winning.

Well, a army in real life that is sized like one of our "full stacks" would be starved out in record time......

[Kanfoosh]

Are you guys forgetting the cannons?

[fatsheep]

Well obviously when cannons arrived on the scenes they tore down the 10-1 advantage of the defender. However before that time the largest of castles probably could hold off a 5,000 man army with a garrison of 500. However in Total War, assuming you're playing on normal unit sizes, the biggest a single army gets is 2400 and that's assuming you have 20 units of cheapo spearmen (or another unit that comes in sizes of 120).

So if you're going to have any hope of taking down one of these uber castles when it's fully garrisoned you'll have to call in like 10 fully stacked armies which is pretty ridiculous in the TW engine. In real life you could just rally people from the country sides to come and fight for you along your march to the castle but in TW only one unit can be made per city per turn. That's quite a difference so to make things balanced you can't have a castle that has a 10:1 advantage. However, if those type of castles only came along after cannons are available it won't matter much.

[Edvinsen]

Well obviously when cannons arrived on the scenes they tore down the 10-1 advantage of the defender. However before that time the largest of castles probably could hold off a 5,000 man army with a garrison of 500. However in Total War, assuming you're playing on normal unit sizes, the biggest a single army gets is 2400 and that's assuming you have 20 units of cheapo spearmen (or another unit that comes in sizes of 120).

So if you're going to have any hope of taking down one of these uber castles when it's fully garrisoned you'll have to call in like 10 fully stacked armies which is pretty ridiculous in the TW engine. In real life you could just rally people from the country sides to come and fight for you along your march to the castle but in TW only one unit can be made per city per turn. That's quite a difference so to make things balanced you can't have a castle that has a 10:1 advantage. However, if those type of castles only came along after cannons are available it won't matter much.

I think I have read something about that u can train more than one unit per turn in MTW 2, im not sure, think I read it somewere here on the forum..
But anyway, u need a massive computer to drive this thing with thousands of units on the map at the same time

[Fuji]

What I also want to see is unloyal cities opening the gates for you and surrendering, in stead of fighting to the death...

[Mathias]

Attacking cities with walls in RTW was way too easy, like it is with every other part of the game, you can easily expliot the stupidity of the AI.

[Hansa]

In medieval times, armies arriving at fortified cities or castles often just left a small force outside the castle in order to starve the castle out, then the bulk of the army moved on. The storming of castles appeares to have happened very rare, and in early times the western Europeans simply did not have either the castles or the technology, so during the first crusade they had to learn how to build effective siege equipment from the Byzantines. There were however other ways to take a settlement or castle, bribe the commander, negotiate other terms of surrender, bribe somebody to let in a ''crack commando'' unit of knights stealty taking out the men protecting the gates and opening it.

More options should be implemented, like the defender withdraws option. Anyway, MTW2 sieges will be far better than RTWs, they will of course implement difficult terrain around the settlements, which will greatly enhance the challenge for the player