Rome 1 vs Rome 2 siege!

[jamreal18]

Which do you prefer?

[s.rwitt]

Rome 1

[xjlxking]

The problem in Rome 1, even in mods was that when you start to steam roll, you have to go through non-stop siege battles. Siege battle were fought in mainly one method
1- You have more troop and you know you have the advantage, so you just starve them till they attack which will give you the huge advantage

I don't mind that most of the cities/towns aren't walled. In fact I like it, but I don't think like that they choose which region should be siege-able wrong

[jamreal18]

1- You have more troop and you know you have the advantage, so you just starve them till they attack which will give you the huge advantage

That is called strategy.

"To defeat the enemy without fighting them"

Remember that there are different types of strategies in order to win a war...

[xjlxking]

That is called strategy.

"To defeat the enemy without fighting them"

Remember that there are different types of strategies in order to win a war...

Yes, it's strategy. Congrats! IT's also easily exploitable and like I said, constant. It's not strategy if that is the only thing that happens. In Rome 1, (most mods I've played), I NEVER attacked a town. I started a siege and just let the time go town. By turn 1, the enemy lost 30% of their forces and I win.

I wouldn't mind this, but considering the towns were all nearly the same, when defending it was even easier. ALL you had to do was get on the wall. The second they get take, you hold the square knowing your units can't rout...

[s.rwitt]

Rome 1

[Lord Dakier]

Which do you prefer? I'm sorry I didn't realise Rome 2 was already out?

These types of threads are pointless, you don't know whether or not you'll like it until you play. Personally I'm in favour of halving the movement speed having 2 turns per year as it will increase distance between cities in a sense.

[jamreal18]

Then its the enemy's fault for not attacking...

Strategy doesnt always rely on winning a battle on battlefield...

[xjlxking]

Then its the enemy's fault for not attacking...

Strategy doesnt always rely on winning a battle on battlefield...

That's exactly why! WHy should you attack a guy who has more units? By going inside a town to defend yourself, you do the exact opposite....

I'm sorry, but I can't see the benefit of sieges in the game, especially the way they are designed. If a stronger force sieges you, you lose whether you attack or just wait out the turns. The AI is not and will never be smart enough to use relief force, and other such menuvers so don't ever plan on that...EVER

[General George S. Patton]

wow, 5vs5 close race...

[Oplitis]

We do not have played Rome 2 yet so it's unfair to vote in my opinion. Yes, Rome 1 all siege sounds reasonable but we do not have the feeling of the new game's "feel" in order to judge.

[Jester]

everything is better than the Rome1/Medieval2 system : P

[jamreal18]

There is a way to defeat the attacker, by ambushing him... I hope defender can also deploy outside the city without restrictions because its his territory that is being attacked... I hope AI can employ tactics in rome 2...

Aside from that, who general will not use walls to his advantage? I forgot, minor cities wont have walls... Sorry!

I hope we have capable AI this time....

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Well...since this thread has already been made, I'm going to say my piece.

I'm going to like Rome 2 sieges much more better. No more crappy path-finding when trying to go through the doors or holes in the walls. Guys will simply run in, get to their destination and form the hell up quickly before the defending forces come to attack you before you get into position. Also, in Rome 2 you can destroy every single part of the castle walls, not just chunks from Rome 1. This opens up a lot more tactics and makes it harder for defenders to actually defend.

So, instead of having to force yourself to fight through a chokepoint, you can now take an entire side of the wall down and just engage in straight up combat with the defenders. No narrow passage to have to fight through.

You can use line of sight to your advantage in the city. Send a crappy slinger unit around the corner and have one of their lighter units give chase to them. Your slinger unit will lead them back to you and you tell one of you cavalry units to go around that corner and ambush them. So many tactics this time around it's actually unbelievable. You can flank your enemy by sending a section of your army through different neighbourhoods without the enemy even knowing.

You still think Rome 1 sieges are better?

[Knight of Heaven]

Wich i prefer the hell do i know? i didnt played Rome 2 siege battle yet. But by looking at the siege of carthage, ill probably prefer Rome 2 anyways.

silly thread question if you ask me...

[sanbourne]

Maybe this thread would make more sense after people actually played Rome 2? This is a very empty question.

[Hadro]

^^ This. Have +rep

[Snizel]

That's such a tough call to make. I love defending a city when I'm massively outnumbered verses being forced to fight a field-battle where I will 100% lose. At least in a siege you have a better chance of winning as a defender. I think because of this, In R2 we will see cities change hands much more often than in R1. On the other hand, sieges become boring and frustrating. When you're playing more siege battles than land battles, it can become repetitive. Although I always enjoy beating off an attacker whose army is twice as large (or more) as mine. Felt so good in Shogun 2 winning against those odds.

[jamreal18]

That's such a tough call to make. I love defending a city when I'm massively outnumbered verses being forced to fight a field-battle where I will 100% lose. At least in a siege you have a better chance of winning as a defender. I think because of this, In R2 we will see cities change hands much more often than in R1.

The same opinion...
There should be different types of ai... Defensive and offensive...

[hospitaller13]

Field battle should be decisive, if you defeat the enemies army it should cripple them. As it did historically after a defeat the surrounding cities would probably surrender or even rebel (sensing your weakness), Only province capital cities (more loyal/ center of your power) should have to be besieged and captured. I like what they have done. Instead of fighting a hundred battles against the ai's stack spam. You can decisively beat them in a couple of battles and take the province.