Siege should only be broken by sallying forth

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Would it not be better that if in Rome 2 Total War you would have to sally forth and actually rout the enemy army to break a siege? With the current system the enemy automatically flees after a failed assault which isn't particularly realistic and means just a few units is enough to hold the AI off.

If instead it was actually possible for the besieging army to make one assault each turn to probe the defenses and weaken them without having to go all in or die, then it would be a much more realistic siege-flow. Becuase historically it seems like a rule rather than an exception that initial siege assaults failed.

Basicly I am asking for the attacker's "Assault" to be able to end in a draw just like the defender's "Sally Forth"

[Adamat]

You already can. In M2TW at least.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

You already can. In M2TW at least.

Eh no, in M2TW the enemy flee if their siege assault fails...

[Adamat]

Pretty sure you can break off your attack if no units are engaged etc. It then gets called a "Draw" on the casualties screen and the siege is still in effect.

[TheRomanRuler]

Pretty sure you can break off your attack if no units are engaged etc. It then gets called a "Draw" on the casualties screen and the siege is still in effect.

...

AI cant. In RTW you can also do things like decimating legion, or moving people from "cityX" to "cityY", but its not the same...

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Pretty sure you can break off your attack if no units are engaged etc. It then gets called a "Draw" on the casualties screen and the siege is still in effect.

You can do it if you are the defender and sally forth, but there is no such option for the attacker.

[Adamat]

In RTW you can also do things like decimating legion, or moving people from "cityX" to "cityY", but its not the same...

Not sure what you are saying here.

[TheRomanRuler]

Not sure what you are saying here.

You can dispand every 10th unit in legion, and with cheats you can add population to other cities. But its not supposed to happen.

[sobchack]

if they do implement something like this they would have to balance artillery since there would be nothing stopping you from bombarding the city every turn and completely destroying all the defenses before assaulting.

[Anna_Gein]

if they do implement something like this they would have to balance artillery since there would be nothing stopping you from bombarding the city every turn and completely destroying all the defenses before assaulting.

To be honest I would like to bombard a city I besiege with my artillery. So the longer I besiege a city the more its defence are damaged before my assault.

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

To be honest I would like to bombard a city I besiege with my artillery. So the longer I besiege a city the more its defence are damaged before my assault.

This in one thing I really hope they DON'T do. It looks as if they will, because of the ridiculous addition of many onagers to the fleet besieging Carthage (which seem to be doing most of the work in burning it down), but catapults and whatnot where not a big part of ancient siege tactics. This is a very Medieval notion that the defences would be whittled away and then stormed into a burning city. I can recommend certain books I have here, such as Adrian Goldsworthy's Complete Roman Army, orrrr Martin Dougherty's The Ancient Warrior, among others I'll post if they're wanted, as they dedicate large sections to siege practice. The use of the words Bombard and Artillery annoy me in relation to ancient sieges.
Cochrane

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

This in one thing I really hope they DON'T do. It looks as if they will, because of the ridiculous addition of many onagers to the fleet besieging Carthage (which seem to be doing most of the work in burning it down), but catapults and whatnot where not a big part of ancient siege tactics. This is a very Medieval notion that the defences would be whittled away and then stormed into a burning city. I can recommend certain books I have here, such as Adrian Goldsworthy's Complete Roman Army, orrrr Martin Dougherty's The Ancient Warrior, among others I'll post if they're wanted, as they dedicate large sections to siege practice. The use of the words Bombard and Artillery annoy me in relation to ancient sieges.
Cochrane

Ok, but it's part of MY tactics, so I would prefer to have the option.

[♠ Thomas Cochrane ♠]

Ok, but it's part of MY tactics, so I would prefer to have the option.

Fair enough, my good zebra, but I'm sure you'd agree that if there is a fundamental aspect of the ancient time period which differs to the medieval period in terms of warfare, it should be realised in game terms?
Naturally, I can't imagine a TW gamer where it would be impossible to do that in some way.

[Anna_Gein]

This in one thing I really hope they DON'T do. It looks as if they will, because of the ridiculous addition of many onagers to the fleet besieging Carthage (which seem to be doing most of the work in burning it down), but catapults and whatnot where not a big part of ancient siege tactics. This is a very Medieval notion that the defences would be whittled away and then stormed into a burning city. I can recommend certain books I have here, such as Adrian Goldsworthy's Complete Roman Army, orrrr Martin Dougherty's The Ancient Warrior, among others I'll post if they're wanted, as they dedicate large sections to siege practice. The use of the words Bombard and Artillery annoy me in relation to ancient sieges.
Cochrane

I only meant about the use of "artillery". If what I use can't breach the walls then it won't but I find it tedious to besiege a city for years in game doing nothing then only been able to artillery during the assault. If the artillery is able to damage the city defence it should be able to do so during the whole siege.

[Colonel Dax]

I don't know that I've ever actually sallied.

You see, I find that it's easier just to wait for the Rohirrim to break any sieges.

[Shea O'Gorath]

Isnt one of the big features of rome 2 that sieges are going to be decentralised and spread out over the city and thus over multible battles

[Ichon]

Isnt one of the big features of rome 2 that sieges are going to be decentralised and spread out over the city and thus over multible battles

Multiple capture points but where did you read multiple battles? That does not make sense if they try to reduce # of battles. I can't see how it would matter that sally is required to break siege. If attack is defeated there is no one left to sally against. Also turn length where a handful of survivors can't hold siege on entire city. Actually I hope siege requires at least half.a stack balanced by defenders only able to fit full stack inside very developed cities.

[Sir Furlong]

I really hope the sieges end up being better in Rome 2 compared to the last three titles, where sieges simply became a chore. I'd like to see sieges having multiple assaults, compared to the all or nothing we have been used to so far.

[totaltotalwar]

I agree. A sieging army should only retreat if it's totally killed or if there aren't enough men to attack the city anymore. However I'd like to see one more option: Besieging the sieging army like Vercingetorix did to Julius Caesar!

[oppaiO_O]

i'm not quite sure what the OP is talking bout but i like the idea of having multiple attacks on a siege or 'phases' like the first 'phase' will be to try to brake enemy morale, walls and gates by constant bombardment then the second 'phase' will be to try and take the walls or pass through the gates and the final 'phase' would be advancing through the city to those capture point we see in TW nowadays and to kill the rest of the enemy still struggling to fight...just my two cents ... but CA did say that they are trying to lower sieges so i wonder what they have in mind for Rome