What's the point of having reduced "siege battles", when maybe the "urban ones" are the same?

[=Vastator=]

When they first announced the new province system, with which only walled cities can have a siege, and it seemed that for the minor settlements would have been a standard land battle outside the settlement, i was very happy. I think it was a really great gameplay choice, tough at the expense of some of the player freedom.
But it was a clever decision. Why? Because too many siege battles are boring, and land battles should be more.
But more than the particular "siege battles", i think the more general "urban ones" are the boring ones; i.e. battles that take place on a limited space, with limited passable terrain, with almost inexistent room to maneuver, and where is more easy to exploit the AI weakness.

With the new system it seemed that there would have been only 57 epic sieges, and the rest of the battles would have been fought as a "land battle" or an "outskirt battle" (term used in strategy informer preview). And i would have said "good", less urban battles and more land battles!

But now it doesn't seem so. From the last videos (Al Bikham prologue, Find a Way trailer, multiplayer battle, Heir of Carthage battle) we have seen that minor settlements are simply siege cities after all, without a wall: so a urban battle will take place, with a capture point on the center of the settlement.
So maybe (i'm not sure that every minor settlements will have an urban battle, we have to wait and see, but surely every minor settlements we have saw had an urban battle...) the amount of urban battles and land battles will be the same as the previous games (so few land battles and more boring urban ones). But maybe with less choice of freedom for the human player (you can't chose to fortify minor settlements).

No more "siege fest", but now the more general "urban fest".

I repeat, maybe it will not be so (but every minor settlements we have saw had an urban battle...), and a boring urban battle will not take place for every settlement, but i have some worries. Am i the only one?

[[N2]Kami]

No wall to breach

[JaM]

still, his point is valid, not mentioning obvious huge problem AI has with collisions with objects, which makes all of this even more questionable.. instead of proper battles, we will see a ton of chaotic clashes inside of a towns, with a lot of units blobbed together..

[SacredBoltgun]

still, his point is valid, not mentioning obvious huge problem AI has with collisions with objects, which makes all of this even more questionable.. instead of proper battles, we will see a ton of chaotic clashes inside of a towns, with a lot of units blobbed together..

What huge problems are you talking about? Look at the HeirofCarthage Vid, i did not see any collisions, stop saying stuff like that wich is not true. Maybe that happend on an older build(the Gamestar Build was a few weeks old) but not the one HeirofCarthage was playing on. Prove me wrong

[kamikazee786]

i was just about to start a thread on this point, I think CA were a bit afraid of prometheus getting angry so they added little settlements in there to appease him.

but really i also think the mechanic is a great idea and it wouldv'e been perfect had they added a few more major cities such as Rhodes, Syracuse, Jerusalem etc

[nrthee2]

Basicly the siege battles and the urban battles are completely the same, just in siege battles you must breach the walls, and when you have done this urban battle will be taking place. (1 capture point to urban battles, 3 capture points to siege battles) I don't have any problems with these.

[Modestus]

I don’t think so, CA said field battles but with a greater variation so I think that for any small region (no walls) that has a settlement on the coast the battle map will include a port however for regions that are inland it will be more open and more like a field battle even though there may also be a village with a capture point.

The path finding I think will be a major problem hence the smaller sized units and the wide streets, Warscape always had problems with that so another reason to remove walls is because the AI does not know what they are, the major sieges could be an almighty mess.

[=Vastator=]

still, his point is valid, not mentioning obvious huge problem AI has with collisions with objects, which makes all of this even more questionable.. instead of proper battles, we will see a ton of chaotic clashes inside of a towns, with a lot of units blobbed together..

Exactly.

Basicly the siege battles and the urban battles are completely the same, just in siege battles you must breach the walls, and when you have done this urban battle will be taking place. (1 capture point to urban battles, 3 capture points to siege battles) I don't have any problems with these.

That system has been chose in order to reduce the "siege fest" and increase land battles.
But, after all, we still have it (though now it's "urban fest") but without the ability for the player to choose what city to fortify and what not.
How this could turn good?

I don’t think so, CA said field battles but with a greater variation so I think that for any small region (no walls) that has a settlement on the coast the battle map will include a port however for regions that are inland it will be more open and more like a field battle even though there may also be a village with a capture point.

I hope so, but in that last MP battle we saw a no-walled city (like a minor settlement) with a capture point...

[ThracianWarlord]

Cretin move by Sega/CA. They probably thought : "How can we make the game easier to program without programming it?

Wait, I know! Remove players choices for the "good of the game". " lol.

[Woodrow Skillson]

Cretin move by Sega/CA. They probably thought : "How can we make the game easier to program without programming it?

Wait, I know! Remove players choices for the "good of the game". " lol.

Keeping it the same as Shogun 2 would actually have been easier and lazier for them to do.

[papoose]

either make the "demand surrender" option available or do a normal land battle with the city in the background.
Im pretty sure i can safely say everybody hates this new idea of just seige without walls...

[nomercysniper]

Im pretty sure i can safely say everybody hates this new idea of just seige without walls...

Well your wrong, I love the frantic street battles without a need for a full blown wall assault, that gives another option for battles, and since not every battle will be in confined quarters it varies even more.

Just cos you've seen a few battles don't judge it, save it till September.

[CDR Hurricane]

Im pretty sure i can safely say everybody hates this new idea of just seige without walls...

Wrong.

Given the choice between defending against a superior force in an open field, or defending in city streets, I would pick the urban environment every time.

The major thing here that CA needs to get right, is there needs to be some logical way of determining if the minor settlement battle is a field map or urban map prior to engagement, because this will effect both the attacker and the defender.

[eskil]

Wrong.

Given the choice between defending against a superior force in an open field, or defending in city streets, I would pick the urban environment every time.

The major thing here that CA needs to get right, is there needs to be some logical way of determining if the minor settlement battle is a field map or urban map prior to engagement, because this will effect both the attacker and the defender.

Well i think that maybe not all the region will have cities in them

[RemiWell]

Do a normal land battle with the city in the background.
.

This please.

[Megasalexandros]

Basicly i too agree with that, well whats the meaning of having so many wall less cities in which the basic problem of a siege is still there , which is the battle within corridors without tactical variation, but the cool aspect of the siege removed, which is the wall breach and the siege engines?

[Mage de Taverne]

I was concerned too but luckily...

Was the siege of Salernum a representation of a minor settlement battle?
Yes, some minor settlement battles take place in the settlement, others with the settlement in the distance.

[=Vastator=]

I was concerned too but luckily...

Thanks for your quote, i forgot about that Lusted reply.
Now we have to wait to know how many settlements will have an urban battle or a land battle.
Hoping it's one thing that could be modded.

[Strattios]

They are really just doing this to speed up the game. First they made it so you didn't need to wait for siege engines to assault a settlement. Now they are taking away settlement defences so you no longer need a superior force to attack most settlements.

[Jonesy_lmao]

I really do hope most battles will be field battles (as they should be in this period). From Lusteds LP it does seem like the majority are land unless a besieged city attacks your army. Will have to wait and see.