Should the defending army in a siege battle be allowed to retreat? Also - offering terms and sally deployment

[Templar Spartan]

As far as I know, in every TW title (Haven't played much Shogun 2) if a settlement is captured it means the complete destruction of the garrisoned army. But why? I think that if a unit from the defending army makes it to the edge of the battle map they should be allowed to retreat. In the campaign map it makes sense, since the settlement is shown as encircled. But during an assault most players position their army facing only one or two walls.

I was thinking about how when I was playing Rome a few years ago, the Macedonians sieged Thermon and all of my units were wiped out except for my heir (not even my heir's bodyguard unit, literally just my heir himself), and for like 10 minutes I made him gallop back and forth avoiding those damn sarissas. He survived the whole battle (which ended when they captured the square) but the game killed him when I got back to the campaign map. It would have been an amazing story to have him ride out of the gates being pursued by a dozen units and be the only survivor of a defeat.

It would also serve as a legitimate defense strategy: If you're hopelessly outnumbered or the battle's going badly you could try to sacrifice some units to hold off the enemy in street fights while the rest of your forces escape through the back gate.

Additionally, besiegers would have to think about employing some light cavalry to prevent a high-value target from escaping the battle, or they would have to deploy their forces in a way that prevents escape (if they so wish it). This of course means their deployment zone would be all around the city and not just one half (that was ridiculous and made no sense anyway). You could even integrate the flight of generals and other units into the morale of the respective armies, just like in field battles. "The commander has abandoned us!"

About sallies - currently the besiegers are arrayed in the normal, default field formation during a sally. I propose that to actually give sallying out an incentive, the besieging army should be scattered or stretched out around the city (since making siege camp scenes at this stage would be impossible) thus making it vulnerable to a daring, fast, and risky sally. They should still be given no deployment phase as it's a "surprise attack" similar to an ambush battle.

Lastly, I know that besiegers can ask the garrison to surrender, but it would also be interesting to allow the besieged to ask for (and set) terms of surrender. Thoughts?

[Raikou]

I get what you're saying but I could see this being abused soooo much. The same could be said about catching up to an enemy army of say 200 infantry and you kill all of them but 1 and he escapes and then you gotta wait another turn to catch him yet again and basically killing every single person on the battlefield would be the only way to destroy an army which wouldnt be very fun IMO. I think this is just one of those things that should be left as is.

[Templar Spartan]

I get what you're saying but I could see this being abused soooo much. The same could be said about catching up to an enemy army of say 200 infantry and you kill all of them but 1 and he escapes and then you gotta wait another turn to catch him yet again and basically killing every single person on the battlefield would be the only way to destroy an army which wouldnt be very fun IMO. I think this is just one of those things that should be left as is.

Well, not exactly - In most TW titles, if a non-general unit, after a battle, has less than a certain amount of soldiers left, it automatically disbands after that battle. That's why you never see units with 2 or 3 soldiers in them even if you end up winning. In my idea, in terms of who actually survives the battle there's absolutely nothing changed from the way it works now, except siege battles currently have the retreat button greyed out.

Usually the sieging army is several times larger than besieged one, so they wont be at much an disadvantage against sallies. Unless you can incoporate that concept in the game (to force the sieging army to be larger for the siege to make any serious threat, which isnt true atm), i dont think your idea will work.

That's exactly what I want to rectify. Historically sallies were important, although risky and perhaps costly, and they had a great effect on morale. If the defending army does a quick sally the besiegers should be too spread out to respond effectively. Once the sallying army is back in the city the battle should end (as "inconclusive" most likely) unless either one army or the other is destroyed, or the besiegers have siege devices.

[kronpas]

Usually the sieging army is several times larger than besieged one, so they wont be at much an disadvantage against sallies. Unless you can incoporate that concept in the game (to force the sieging army to be larger for the siege to make any serious threat, which isnt true atm), i dont think your idea will work.

[Arcani 4 Ever]

I think a peace treaty should be always be done in the diplomacy menu. If all negotiations fail, the regular battle will happen.

[Templar Spartan]

I think a peace treaty should be always be done in the diplomacy menu. If all negotiations fail, the regular battle will happen.

Not a peace treaty, but terms of surrender for that specific settlement. For example, surrendering the settlement to the besieging army in return for safe passage to friendly territory, or sparing the commander, or something similar. You get what I mean?

[Argon Viper]

I like the idea of more options for a siege. Going off of what you've put on the table so far, here's the options I see.

All or Nothing Sally: The besieged army sallies out in an attempt to put the enemy army to flight. The besieger starts out spread around the city while the besieged army gets to deploy beforehand. If the besieged army loses, it can be chased back to the city where the besieger has a chance to take the gates. If it wins, the siege is broken. The losing army will only be able to recover a very limited amount of wounded.

Escape Sally: The besieged army sallies out in an attempt to escape (escape points can be marked). Any unit that reaches the escape point escapes with whatever force it has. The besieger starts out spread around the city while the besieged gets to deploy beforehand. Routing units of the sallieing force route away from the city. The army trying to escape will not be able to recover any wounded soldiers.

Raiding Sally: The besieged army sallies out in attempt to destroy part of the besieging force. The besieger starts spread out around the city while the besieged gets to deploy beforehand. If the besieged army is able to return to the city without enemy forces following them in (or is able to kill or expel those following forces) they can chose to end the battle at that point without further losses. In this case, the besieged army will not be able to recover any wounded soldiers.

Offering Terms: The besieging army can offer terms at any point. These can be standardized such as "safe passage to the nearest friendly city", "no looting" (prevents the destruction of faction or religious buildings for several turns), or some such. They can also offer terms to the city itself (which acts as its own AI) to convince them to open the gates and not man the towers. The besieged army would still need to be destroyed, but the city defenses wouldn't be as effective.

Could make siege battles really entertaining, great thread.

[Templar Spartan]

snip

Could make siege battles really entertaining, great thread.

Great ideas! Are you suggesting these as separate scenarios? I think they could all work well incorporated as a single battle type, "sally". The routing units could escape either back into the city or through the escape points you mentioned, and thus when the battle finishes they could either be outside or inside the besieged settlement in the campaign map. However since in a way that's splitting the army, it may conflict with how the "tradition bonuses" carry over

Your terms ideas are fantastic. I think the implementation of even a few of these ideas would make sieges much more dynamic and unpredictable!

[[N2]Kami]

I think in a siege, the enemy will most likely surround your entire city so No.1 point is not possible. But I like your idea about negotiation, it will save the attacker and defender time and man power, especially for the defender when the odd is too high ( say 1000 vs 100 ) so you can let's go of that city and save your army/ citizen from complete annihilation.
But I think in Rome 1, we can give that besieged settlement for another faction, thus, saving your troops at the same time

[Ichon]

I support this. Never understood why garrisons die fully while field armies can escape in large numbers. Plenty of sieges in history where men inside escaped for awhile but eventually the besiegers tighten their siege lines or drop the siege if it is that easy to get in and out.

I'd say the longer the siege continues though the less chance any of the defenders can escape as outpost and besieging lines/fortifications are extended. If on turn 1 of siege attackers have only choice of assaulting to rams/ladders or by treachery (agent actions) then the garrison has a pretty good chance to escape but if caught faces an ambush battle- however still if units make it off the field in good order they will survive. On turn 2 units can try to escape still but ambush battle is certain. On turn 3 the enemy besiegers have completely encircled and escape is impossible.

[Templar Spartan]

I support this. Never understood why garrisons die fully while field armies can escape in large numbers. Plenty of sieges in history where men inside escaped for awhile but eventually the besiegers tighten their siege lines or drop the siege if it is that easy to get in and out.

I'd say the longer the siege continues though the less chance any of the defenders can escape as outpost and besieging lines/fortifications are extended. If on turn 1 of siege attackers have only choice of assaulting to rams/ladders or by treachery (agent actions) then the garrison has a pretty good chance to escape but if caught faces an ambush battle- however still if units make it off the field in good order they will survive. On turn 2 units can try to escape still but ambush battle is certain. On turn 3 the enemy besiegers have completely encircled and escape is impossible.

Should turn number really matter? If the force is able to escape on the battle map it shouldn't make a difference what turn they did it in! If there were enough budget resources, however, it would be great to have siege camp fortifications appear on the battle map depending on how long the siege has been going on for.

[Sir Winston Churchill]

Alternatively look at it as your surviving general killed himself out of shame because he didn't want everyone else to think him a coward.