Sieges are totally broken comedy in Patch beta 4.

[Humble Warrior]

AI barbarians came to attack my walled city. My city was surrounded by a river with a bridge and of course a convenient shallow path to walk - I won`t even bother to comment on the stupidity of having a fjord on a river surrounding the city. For the 1st time I saw they actually had 2 manned battering rams. Was I going to see an actual ramming the Gates not seen again since MTW2?

1. No. The moment the battle began the soldiers immediately left the ram and proceeded to the bridge with the rest of the troops.
2. The slingers and cavlary were first across the bridge and stood at convenient distance from the walls for my tower defences to start picking them off.
3. Meanwhile, the rest of the soldiers (including the battering ram troops) all got stuck at the entrance to the bridge until they became an almighty ball, milling about.
4. While the ball stayed stuck at the far end of the bridge, my towers destroyed the slingers and the cavalry. My Romans stared from the walls in bemused silence. Some began to play dice.
5. Speeded up time and the ball had not shifted, so I sent my Romans out to dislodge them somehow. I didn`t have enough men to defeat them, so had to return my few remaing Romans back to the walls.

Then, because I`m on no Timer, I realised the AI was never going to untangle itself and go for the Gates.

So I quit and lost the battle.

I know this is a beta-patch, but I don`t think the AI person has even tried fixing AI in sieges or even intends to in this beta. I reckon he won`t. I think he`s either given up, cos he isn`t qualified to make a good siege AI or he`ll try much, much later. maybe.

But right now, walled siege AI is a comedy.

I`ll stick some pics up, when I can be bothered.

p.s. frame rates in the battle were better.

[bushranger]

I dont think the AI will ever be able to siege on warscape which is a shame because i like the engine otherwise.

[Wodeson]

I dont think the AI will ever be able to siege on warscape which is a shame because i like the engine otherwise.

It seemed to work in Shogun2.

[tuxshake]

CA better fix this or we might see the end of a franchise ...

[Mephalamos]

CA better fix this or we might see the end of a franchise ...

That might actually be a good thing for strategy gaming. CA is no longer producing quality games, and they are essentially sucking all the air out of the room of the already beleaguered strategy genre.

Perhaps if CA just crumbled, we might actually see a decent developer take over the reins of grand strategy and produce a title worthy of the PC-exclusive market. CA, I think, is a tad jaded after 10 or so years, and they are aiming lower and lower, trying to 'branch out,' all while their core audience screams for fixes and changes they apparently have neither the will nor the talent to make.

I really hope this title is the undoing of CA, it's time for somebody else to start combining strategy maps and grand-scale battles, because I for one really have no interest in this consolfied rubbish.

[krisslanza]

You know, this is why you should always have the timer on. If a battle takes over an hour, you're doing something wrong anyway.

[Humble Warrior]

You know, this is why you should always have the timer on. If a battle takes over an hour, you're doing something wrong anyway.

If I had a penny for every person that said this... Think of something original, pleeease.

Since original Shogun, i`ve never had the Timer, just like I don`t use flags, pause, radar map or ANY of those target lines, and what not. I`m not starting now. Also, the OPTION is there, i want to use it.

Lastly, if we just put our heads in the sand and say, `Oh well` and do nothing, how can CA know to fix it. Maybe, just maybe, the AI guy honestly didn`t know about this bug, and maybe just maybe, he`ll see this thread and go, `That Humble warrior chap is an annoying sod, but at least he`s alerted me to a problem that I can get on right away in time for the Patch 4 release!`

[krisslanza]

If I had a penny for every person that said this... Think of something original, pleeease.

Since original Shogun, i`ve never had the Timer, just like I don`t use flags, pause, radar map or ANY of those target lines, and what not. I`m not starting now. Also, the OPTION is there, i want to use it.

Lastly, if we just put our heads in the sand and say, `Oh well` and do nothing, how can CA know to fix it. Maybe, just maybe, the AI guy honestly didn`t know about this bug, and maybe just maybe, he`ll see this thread and go, `That Humble warrior chap is an annoying sod, but at least he`s alerted me to a problem that I can get on right away in time for the Patch 4 release!`

Odds are they know, but it's a low priority fix given it tends to be fairly situational. It doesn't happen a lot, and the easiest way to fix it, is just always have a timer on so you can just time out and win. If you choose to not use a timer - for some crazy reason you need more then 60 minutes to play a battle - then well... it just kinda sucks to be you, I guess. I've had this bug happen to be ONCE in Medieval 2, and ever since, I have always had a timer on to ensure I don't have to worry about it happening ever again.

It's a really easy fix. It'd be nicer if it didn't happen, true, but it's not really CA's fault that you need over an hour to win a battle.

[absinthia]

the easiest way to fix it, is just always have a timer on so you can just time out and win.

how novel it is to exploit a bug to win. so genious, so tactical, so fulfilling...

timer for the winz, how good to be you!

[krisslanza]

how novel it is to exploit a bug to win. so genious, so tactical, so fulfilling...

timer for the winz, how good to be you!

The alternative is, you know, just lose a battle you would have won (or potentially won) had the AI actually attacked you. It's not really exploiting a bug... in fact, you could almost view it as the AI exploiting a bug.

I mean, realistically, assume a battle had no time limit in real life (troops didn't have to eat or sleep)... why would you ever attack a fortified settlement? May as well wait. The AI is basically doing that, but it isn't supposed too. If you are assaulting, you are attacking - not just sitting there waiting for the defenders to come to you.

Not a difficult concept to understand.

[Astrohawke]

how novel it is to exploit a bug to win. so genious, so tactical, so fulfilling...

timer for the winz, how good to be you!

The timer is realistic in a way provided the attacking side doesn't automatically lose half its troops for losing a battle. Think of it as a long drawn out battle. If it lasts too long, the day is over and the soldiers retreat to their camp for food/sleep to try again the next day. It's more realistic to play with a timer because otherwise you're saying 2 groups of soldiers can just fight indefinitely. If the defender can hold off a superior attacking force for an extended period of time, then they deserve to be crowned the "victors" for that fight. The attackers are of course free to try again the next day and shouldn't automatically have their army destroyed.

Typically that's how sieges went back then anyway. The attackers would send soldiers to take a fort, the defenders would try to hold until the attackers retreated to rest and eat once the day was over and repeat the next day.

[g0pher_11]

...the easiest way to fix it, is just always have a timer on so you can just time out and win.

What's this? Have they changed things around so badly that you can now WIN a siege battle by the timer expiring without you taking the city? That would certainly be on the 'to fix' list.

[krisslanza]

What's this? Have they changed things around so badly that you can now WIN a siege battle by the timer expiring without you taking the city? That would certainly be on the 'to fix' list.

You win a battle as the defender if the timer runs out, yes. That's the way it's always been. You don't win an ATTACK if the timer runs out - the timer is for the defender to win.

[Sir_Pee_Alot]

It's a really easy fix. It'd be nicer if it didn't happen, true, but it's not really CA's fault that you need over an hour to win a battle.

what does that mean we sould all use the timer and CA dont need to fix there problems

[Bento]

Maybe they got a new guy working on the AI for patches ?

Although to be fair, if they have a guy working on AI at all it would be an improvement, because I'm just not seeing it.

The more I (try to) play, the more I feel like that guy in Apollo13 who says "ok, what have we got that's good ?" because that's a MUCH shorter list than what's broken ( seems to be almost everything ).

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

To be honest this should be an absolute priority and they should let us know that they ARE working on it.

The improvements they do are highly welcome OF COURSE, but they are improvements.

Siege AI doesn't need improvements, it needs an overhaul, and I'd rather have them fix that as an absolute priority than getting balance changes.

:S

[AlyssaFaden]

Some began to play dice.

lol

You should totally report this in the official bug forum for the beta ...

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Bah it's just sad and funny at the same time.

I mean either noone at CA ever played a siege battle, ever (???)

Or, they did play it, they saw how garbage their BAI on sieges is, and they felt comfortable releasing that (???)

[Matamoros]

And yet I thought with this patch could come finally the solution to this problem. This was the main reason I quit playing this joke of a game, among a lot other reasons. Broken sieges are totally gamebreaker and this is not the first patch, nor the second, nor the third. But the fourth. The FOURTH.
I mean, what the hell was this 40% more budget for? Surely not for outstanding AI. Oh I know: marketing and lies. It was a good move, I give you that. But this was the last one for a lot of loyal fans

[Zenky]

I hope you reported the problem on the official forum