Civilians in sieges

[West3634]

Should civilians be shown in the battle ?
Should some try kill enemies ?
Or would they stay in houses ?
Maybe there could be a dynamic where civilians can get killed, in a bloody siege maybe the population can be cut down
However maybe this will be too much for the game to handle

What do you all think ?

[Rasic]

I believe they have said the city would look like it was under siege, and an example given was dead civilians in the streets. I'm not sure about them running around and doing things though.

They have the militia units in the games which only come out when there is a siege to represent the civilians who have taken up arms for you. The ones who are left are sort of deemed non-combatants in the sense that women and children aren't going to go head on to a formation of enemy soldiers.

[Bobz]

It would be extremely realistic to have civilians running around inside besieged cities. Not quite sure if it should be a priority though, it'll probably be a lot of work creating the AI behaviour for non-combatants for something that will mainly be a distraction. Still I'd like to see it one day.

[zg0301zg]

I think it would only lag the machine with secondary effects like this, I mean the game should be concetrated on the fight and planning, killing or dead civilians secondary thing, better destrucatble enviorment then dead civilians

[Lord Baal]

I would like to hear them. They most probably will be hiding inside their houses or in temples and the like. I wouldn't mind the occasional civil running from a building to another, but is not a must. Now, people screaming as buildings collapse, insulting and crying as enemy troops passes or cheering up for your soldiers once the city is clear from enemies would be a rather nice feature.

[Scorpionet]

I would like to see .... would be collateral damage ....

I do not think that inclusion is the problem. And secondary animations seen in Shogun 2 during the battle with animals.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Lord Baal]

Those animations could be just that, animations, without any body so they wont be able to collision or need much physics. They will be just part of the scenery, not units you should worry to protect or kill.

[Omar Nelson B.]

When I siege every one in the city will die anyhew. No need for extra people running around that I have to kill.

Showing some extra dead Civs wouldn't be a bad idea though.

[Maklodes]

Taking it as a given that we're distinguishing between officially authorized levies and civilians who spontaneously take up arms, what if the civilians are on the side of the attackers? If Pontus occupies Ctesiphon and the Parthians are taking it back, maybe the civilians could find various little ways of sabotaging the city's defense? (Make it easier for spies to open the gates? )

Or civilians could be on neither side. If the Romans are attacking Carthaginian-occupied Syracuse, the civilians could just be on neither side and hide and try to survive -- or there could be pro-Carthaginian and pro-Roman factions among the civilians.

Or maybe if it's a real grind and the Romans and Carthaginians are both down to a few men fighting it out in the streets of Syracuse, the Syracusans could wait it out, until the last remnants of whichever side wins are left standing triumphant but bloodied and exhausted, then bum rush pyrrhic victors and reclaim their city for themselves! (And promptly get taken over by a sadistic local tyrant, but hey, at least he's not a Carthaginian or Roman.)

I doubt CA would implement all of these possibilities, but I'm just brainstorming here.

[Asgaroth]

They have the militia units in the games which only come out when there is a siege to represent the civilians who have taken up arms for you.

That's good. Just it was in Empire TW.

Showing some extra dead Civs wouldn't be a bad idea though.

Agreed. I would bring up the atmosphere.

[Hazelnut]

Not sure about simulated people running about, but your units could stop obeying your orders to ransack the local brothels. An annoying feature but accurate.

[Rorarii]

Well civilians could hide in houses then ambushes attackers with fire-brands and 2 handed weapons.

Around 500 BC, with Rome besieging the city of Cora, the citizens decided to change tactics and attack - racing out of the city armed only with fire-brands they killed many romans, set many of the siege equipment afire, killed one general and caused major mayhem. The romans were forced to retreat.

So .. should civilians be in the game - YES!, and armed with deadly weapons .

R

[Semper_Fidelis]

i like the idea but the only way they should be in the game is looking out windows occasionally or running to their houses or settlement before the battle starts. otherwise they could hinder the battle.

[ImperatorofRome]

To see cilivians attack the attackers would be very cool but taxing on the graphics and would make lesser computers lag big time. Maybe a few people running in the streets bursting out in flames or with a spear in them.

[Vioras]

look here for for my idea about civilians in Total War Rome 2
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...236#post356236

[Rorarii]

look here for for my idea about civilians in Total War Rome 2
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...236#post356236

yeah that's agood idea, but not only against "you" but also your faction. it would even be better if each faction had 2 different class of populations - rulers (aristocrats) and ruled (commoners). For example, The common people of a enemy state might like you alot but the aristocracy hate you (because your a democratic Hero). You could hold secret negotiations with the leader of the commoners to revolt once you invade. once terms are set, you invade in a given season and the commoner rise up to help you - filling your army with commoner soldiers, and the enemy only has aristocatic troops to fight with - cavalry, triarii etc

R

[ImperatorofRome]

You mean (at least for the romans) the phlebians (lower class) and the Patricians (upper class).

[HappyGoodVibes]

I don't think that civilians would have fought against anyone in a battle, and if they did they would be very ill equipped to fight trained soldiers. There are plenty of examples of cities with massive populations being sacked by an army that is much smaller numerically. If "civilians" fought back, they would likely be old veterans or something like that and there wouldn't have been very many of them, considering the old veterans should have been recruited into the local army to defend the city anyway. Civilians don't operate under a command structure, don't know where to go in a battle, and would likely only clog up the streets for actual troops trying to get through.

There was one battle during the siege of malta in the medieval ages where the turk army decided to not attack a city because they thought it was garrisoned with many soldiers when in reality, the commanders in the city had virtually no soldiers and decided to make every civilian stand on the walls and look intimidating, even making straw soldiers in some places and mixing them in with the people standing on the walls, so that it appeared the city would be the most intense fighting out of any place on the island.

But even in this case, if the turk army had recognized that these were civilians, they would have stormed the city and slaughtered the inhabitants even more than they would have otherwise because they would consider these people "fighting men," instead of innocents caught up in violence.

A few civilians running around might be an interesting addition, or perhaps civilians resupplying arrows to troops on the walls, but civilians were non-combatants. They might have been recruited to build defenses or to do other manual labor jobs, but they wouldn't have been sent into fighting because most regular civilians are worthless in a fight.