Minor cities not siegeable

[tono4850]

When a minor settlement is attacked, a normal land battle takes place with the settlement off in the distance.

This is non-sense, definately a big step backward

[nomercysniper]

Have you not really been following the game? This has been discussed to death. In summary:

Pro's:

Less sieges

Cons:

Cities unjustly represented.


This has been discussed to death and should be moved or closed really

[nhathoang94]

My friend, it's obvious that you're too late to the party...About a month ago or two, the Rome II subforum is filled with complaints about minor cities being non-siegeable.

[need help]

My friend, it's obvious that you're too late to the party...About a month ago or two, the Rome II subforum is filled with complaints about minor cities being non-siegeable.

this.

[tono4850]

sorry I dont read this forum every day

less sieges is a pro ?

Siege battles weren´t really challenging with dumb AI and possibility of a player´s exploits, but now taking settlements will be even easier and quicker!

[Fazotronic]

sorry I dont read this forum every day

less sieges is a pro ?

Siege battles weren´t really challenging with dumb AI and possibility of a player´s exploits, but now taking settlements will be even easier and quicker!

changes were made so the player does not have to fight 4/5 of the battles in a siege. imo one of the best news.
saying the game will be easier implying that the game was somewhat harder beacause of this fact is just borderline ridiculous.
esp considering that most sieges in older tw games were just boring and repetitive.

we not only get to see less sieges but on top of that, they're going to be way more epic.
crazy to think that ppl that acctually have played any tw game would be happy for this you come here and read stuff like, its to easy now.
WTF are you guys smoking?

[Modestus]

sorry I dont read this forum every day

less sieges is a pro ?

Siege battles weren´t really challenging with dumb AI and possibility of a player´s exploits, but now taking settlements will be even easier and quicker!

Your right it should be very easy to take a small region from the AI and without walls you will be able to attack on the same turn of course I don’t even know if you can attack on the same turn I am assuming that you can but waiting an extra turn before you could attack would make little difference unless the attrition was very high.

The AI will need to guard the capture points so even if we describe it as a field battle the AI cant really move from the centre of the Town so its room to manoeuvre is limited to a small area of the battlefield which is great for the attacker. The only problem with the streets will be path finding but overall having the AI defend a town without any walls has in all previous games been an advantage for the player.

You could even add that having the AI defend a fort (Defensive stance) is effectively the same situation as a Town but in this case amusingly the fort will have more walls then Syracuse either way it should make defeating the AI pretty easy.

The reverse of course is not the same and if the AI attacked a town or a fort with a similar sized army to the player it should be even easier to defeat the AI.

I have other reasons why I think CA came up with this scheme but it could also have been to make the game easier to play for new players.

[MathiasOfAthens]

sorry I dont read this forum every day

less sieges is a pro ?

Siege battles weren´t really challenging with dumb AI and possibility of a player´s exploits, but now taking settlements will be even easier and quicker!

You have not read anything... the new minor settlements have battlemaps with cities in them. They just dont have a wall surrounding the city. Watch some of the gamescon videos.

[Dominian]

This also isn't true. As we know from the Gamestar videos that came out this week minor settlements (ever settlement that isn't the province capital) will have a battle with the settlement on the map. But it will not have walls. It will be like the small settlement battles in the past, where you have some streets leading into the center, where the capture point is situated. We now also have abilities of barricading ourselves again.

With this new information we should all be resting easier. It is as it was in earlier games and honestly after Shogun 2 and Empire I am happy to have any city with walls again, but I am also glad that Rome gives us variety in siege battles again.

[blackheartz]

Here we go again...

Also this:

This also isn't true. As we know from the Gamestar videos that came out this week minor settlements (ever settlement that isn't the province capital) will have a battle with the settlement on the map. But it will not have walls. It will be like the small settlement battles in the past, where you have some streets leading into the center, where the capture point is situated. We now also have abilities of barricading ourselves again.

With this new information we should all be resting easier. It is as it was in earlier games and honestly after Shogun 2 and Empire I am happy to have any city with walls again, but I am also glad that Rome gives us variety in siege battles again.

[MrHenry]

Less sieges the better imo. Having a siege take place on a huge city with 50m walls is epic but shouldn't take place that often, and that's what this fixes. Less sieges, but epic sieges when there really should be a time for it.

[Coleus]

Less sieges the better imo. Having a siege take place on a huge city with 50m walls is epic but shouldn't take place that often, and that's what this fixes. Less sieges, but epic sieges when there really should be a time for it.

This.

[Mortarion]

This is definitely a pro! Shogun 2 was a stupid siege-fest all the time, like 8/10 battles where sieges. Got so boring, i want some cool battles on a proper battlefield. By doing it so only Provincial capitals have wallks, they will reduce siege battles by 2/3. You know, so we can actually fight on a normal battlefield and not just sieges lol.. when i heard this, it made my day

[Prof]

Actually...one of the Gamestar videos shows a battle for a minor settlement and it looks like there are siege battles, but no walls.

[Holger Danske]

While the intention is novel (reduce the repetitive siege spam) the way CA did it wasn't.
There is a number of ways you could have dealt with this problem without having to go for the easy option of simply making cities than aren't siegeable. Forced Surrender is one such option already implemented in the Warscape engine and I remember it working reasonably well in NTW and ETW! CA could have used this combined with other factors to reduce the siege battles, without having to cut-corners, but for some reason they went for the easy solution, which is unfortunate as it limits the strategical value of cities to just a few and deprives us of a lot of epic historical seige battles. Personally I'd loved to see Syracuse and perhaps a rebuilt Tyre. Hopefully modders will be able to recreate a much better campaign map where all cities are siegeable, but where you also have more options than taking them by force or starve the defenders.

I'd love to see a system where a massive land battle would/could result in cities in that particular region turning over to your side or just "open their gates" to your armies - If you're victorius and depending on how badly you crush the faction that owns the region! With of cause the possibility of some resisting depending on their loyalty to the owning faction, or if they simply just hate you more. That would add a whole new level of strategical thinking and make land battles even more decisive!

[Aelita]

Just because a settlement doe not have walls does not make it essay to take, especially with the new more powerful garrison units you get from buildings, also don't forget that you cant head shot a faction by taking their settlement when their army is away since factions (including the player) can survive without owning any regions. Overall i would say the new system is an improvement

[Holger Danske]

No but taking on a garrison that doesn't have the luxury of walls will always be more easy. Unless you're retarded at pitched battles...

[Aelita]

No but taking on a garrison that doesn't have the luxury of walls will always be more easy. Unless you're retarded at pitched battles...

That is not true, depending on the composition of ones army sometimes walls just get in the way (think cav focused armies) No need to call people retarded

[Holger Danske]

That is not true, depending on the composition of ones army sometimes walls just get in the way (think cav focused armies) No need to call people retarded

Well then, maybe you should call in your seige engineers to blow down those walls with onagers and other epic stuff, (if they're there) or hire some Mercenaries who fight better as infantry than your cavalry. But yeah that would be soo hard... You know if you're aware that your cavalry army can't take the city by force, then you could simply try starve it and then assault it when the garrison is sufficiently weak - since you also can dismount your men...

So bloody many options to pick, but let's all go with the most gamey so no one will cry that it's too hard. Just another good reason I'd wait for the most serious bugs to be ironed out, the price to fall, and the good mods that to come rolling out.. Rather save the money for GTA...

[smoke]

No but taking on a garrison that doesn't have the luxury of walls will always be more easy. Unless you're retarded at pitched battles...

So much anger. Point one finger at others...


I think this is a great solution to the endless siegefests that were previous titles. More unique cities? Epic sieges? I'm all for it.