POLL: Option to pause siege battles until next turn please

[Destraex]

Was just watching the new scripted demo battle of Carthage. I noticed the siege of that city looked like it would take hours a 1x speed to complete.
What annoyed me though is that the devs seemed to think they needed to "pretend" the city had been under siege and many assaults and siege weapons had already been built.
Waiting for siege weapons is fine... but if it is going to be years before you can build a siege engine and assault the city, why not be able to use tactics and play the battle the every turn. HArrassing
and preparing for the assault?

I remember medieval2 sieges with three walls taking forever. Its fun the first couple of times around..... but after that can be a chore.

What I want to see to alleviate this is one of three things:

* Allow us to save the battles mid way through whenever we want
This would mean your forces would be frozen in time until you return. They start from exactly the same positions.

* Make siege battles timed and instead of winning or losing on the
bell as it was in previous total wars, simply have the tactical game frozen and saved until the next turn is played.
This simulates the limited time to play each turn and will prevent the siege getting stale.

* Enable the player to ask the enemy for a truce like in close combat to pause the action until next turn.
A truce would mean both forces would hunker down and fortify and perhaps allow some changes in battle order and\or troop placement.
Essentially allowing for a change of tactics.

I guess a little like sword of the stars with the player determining the time limit. Perhaps 30mins to 3hrs.

I am really hoping that siege mechanics are more interesting this time around. I am pleased that their is more focus on allowing armies to avoid fortresses.
However if we are to do this then rome2 will need a supply mechanic to indicate that an enemy strong point has been left in the rear and probably affecting supply.

[General George S. Patton]

This is a great idea +rep

[Destraex]

Thanks. You replied before I finished the post proper

[General George S. Patton]

Thanks. You replied before I finished the post proper

lol its just such a great idea

[Sir Furlong]

It really is, I think even just having it be a draw if you have to quit part way through as the attacker, but the defender can't really be given the option to delay for another turn, so instant saving would have to be used here.

[Destraex]

I see yes.
I had not really thought about a human player defending.

I think this would either mean instant save OR the AI running over the time limit (simulating day light) and having to wait until the next turn and hunker down. If the AI was smart enough to recognise that it needed re-enforcements from outside the battle on the campaign map or simply needed the opportunity to take the night to redeploy then I guess it could offer a truce. The AI often did this in close combat usually if you asked. IF you asked it would often allow it. You would press truce to indicate you were open to an agreement to ceasefire. The AI would then evaluate this and decide right away to take the truce or when the battle started to go really bad for it.

I am also just asking myself how many cities took days to capture.
IIRC Carthage was about three days to fully subjugate once they got inside the defences??

[atheniandp]

I've long wanted battles to be savable. That way, they can be a lot longer without becoming a problem for players who cannot spend long intervals playing the game.

What can also solve the problem of siege battles becoming a chore (which I agree does happen) is for a system of chance to be implemented.

A chance that a siege weapon breaks or malfunctions, a cord breaks, a siege tower gets stuck in uneven terrain or a ditch, a chance a ram is ineffective, a chance that neither side takes any casualties in an attempted assault.

I believe if that applied to combat as well the game would altogether be a lot more replayable and fun. Imagine a chance, however small that a unit of levies could possibly stand to fend off disciplined troops. It is possible and it has happened throughout history. As it stands now, we can simply predict, usually correctly, which unit will win against the other.

[Tankhive]

I was under the impression this particular siege was a historical battle/scenario battle, not that of the campaign map, and thus would be slightly different from what we see in the campaign.

Either way I like the idea of at least offering the enemy a truce mid siege, adds an extra layer of diplomacy - but I fear that could be abused by humans pretty easily.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

It seems a little.... I don't know, cheap, to me.


I already save before every battle, and that's easy to exploit already.

If I could save during the battle, it would take all sense of danger out of things.

"Oops, didn't see that enemy unit hidden in the trees. Now I know where it is, though. RELOAD!"

[Destraex]

tophatzebra I liken your comments to wanting console style save points rather than real PC save when you like features. This to me becomes a bit more like you would reload the sieges anyways if you were not true to yourself and play them until you perfected them. As you do in console games.
Personally I do save because of crashes before a battle but have a house rule that does not let me reload if I lost.

I don't think the devs would impliment "chance" because their are too many players out there that would be babies about it and all it would amount to for them was a temporary setback while they reloaded and played it again as I have described above.

[Meraun]

It seems a little.... I don't know, cheap, to me.


I already save before every battle, and that's easy to exploit already.

If I could save during the battle, it would take all sense of danger out of things.

"Oops, didn't see that enemy unit hidden in the trees. Now I know where it is, though. RELOAD!"

YOU SHALL NOT RELOAD :-)

[Sir Furlong]

Ooh, you bring up a good point @Top Hat Zebra, perhaps it should be instantly saved when you leave the battle, so there is no way to do something then load back to an earlier point in the battle.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I would prefer that you weren't able to save at all during battles. The way it's always been.

But that's just me, personally. Once I start a battle, I finish it.

Saving in the middle of the action just takes all the sense of danger out. Unless you don't reload the save, in which case, why do you need saves anyway? Battle take, at most, an hour. Rarely does the game crash, and even if it did, starting the entire battle over is preferable to just starting in the middle of it, to me.

[Diglytron]

Great idea!

[emptw1]

Nice ideas, maybe the truce could be declined if the other side felt they were winning and didn't want to give the other side a chance. Also, just personal preference, I'd like the time limits to remain optional(Like having the time limits but also having the option of unlimited time during battles like in other Total Wars) I just feel rushed by any sort of time limit; I just prefer taking my time through things rather than feeling like I'm being rushed.

[Timotheus]

Great idea! I rather see that you can cancel your assault anytime! Because you are the general

[Destraex]

Yeah thats another thing that should be possible. A real retreat option.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

I do agree with that, certainly. A real retreat option would be nice. Not the current withdraw, which is really just a controlled rout, but an organized, fighting retreat.

[oppaiO_O]

i like the idea of having multiple assaults on a siege and having a save option in the middle of the siege would be an awesome way to implement this so i like it and lets say if you're the attacker and you pushed your way past two walls but you ran out of time in the real world and you need to go i would like to save then come back and have everything fortified that i had previously captured like close the gates, deploy spikes, man the walls and stuff ... and i would like a since of passage of time in a battle like say you deploy in the morning and as the battle last longer and longer you see the time around you pass like from morning to mid-afternoon to late afternoon and then at night you have a chance to save and re-attack the next morning building camp or keep pressing forward but your troops would be tired since they have been fighting all day and i think this along with the save battle option would make it feel like you really did struggle to take a city over multiple days

[hanbarc]

Nice idea but far too exploitable, and also gives arise to wierdness. Imagine, two units fighting each other, time limit for that turn's battle elapses, battle pauses, a turn (however many months) pass and you come back to the battle with the same two troops still engaged in exactly the same way. Highly un-immersive.