Siege attrtion.

[ra2z]

Im noticing that i am suffering -100 attrition per turn during sieges, i currently have some of the best siege tech and my general is speced into siege warfare and also my army has some siege traits, all of which reduce siege attrition. The ai on the other hand is suffering 10-50 men per turn, is this a bug? They are a small barbairan nation with only 1 province.

[Maegfaer]

I agree that siege offence attrition is way too high. So far in none of my campaigns have I ever waited longer than 1 turn extra, and most of the time I immediately attack. It's a lot less costly to set the gates on fire with infantry units or flaming arrows than waiting an extra turn suffering attrition. It's a bit of shame, since it results in battles that are just one big cluster at one part of the walls, rather than a more tactical assault of an entire side of the city using varied siege equipment.

[Rafkos]

I agree that siege offence attrition is way too high. So far in none of my campaigns have I ever waited longer than 1 turn extra, and most of the time I immediately attack. It's a lot less costly to set the gates on fire with infantry units or flaming arrows than waiting an extra turn suffering attrition. It's a bit of shame, since it results in battles that are just one big cluster at one part of the walls, rather than a more tactical assault of an entire side of the city using varied siege equipment.

Have you tried it in 1.0? I'm really suprised because the attrition is the same for both attackers and defenders, also, both on 4%. It's almost impossible to notice it.

Im noticing that i am suffering -100 attrition per turn during sieges, i currently have some of the best siege tech and my general is speced into siege warfare and also my army has some siege traits, all of which reduce siege attrition. The ai on the other hand is suffering 10-50 men per turn, is this a bug? They are a small barbairan nation with only 1 province.

You mean 10-50men in total?

[Dresden]

Yeah, siege attrition is set very low (4% for attacker and defender).

[Rafkos]

Also, it's normal that if you have larger army your losses will be greater because of a % of your troops. If you're attacking with 5000 men you'll loose 200 men per turn, while defending army with 1200 troops will loose only 48 men.

I agree that siege offence attrition is way too high. So far in none of my campaigns have I ever waited longer than 1 turn extra,

The reason I made the siege overhaul was to show people that they can take a city in more historical way, not just attack on turn one and burn down the gates. This made me really sad

[Maegfaer]

Have you tried it in 1.0? I'm really suprised because the attrition is the same for both attackers and defenders, also, both on 4%. It's almost impossible to notice it.

Okay, but in battle I can do a lot better than an equal exchange of losses like that. In addition, the extra campaign time is also a cost. If I attack a turn earlier, I have effectively an extra turn of troop movement, AOR recruitment, and automatic replenishment(!), and fewer chances of enemy reinforcements arriving. The net benefit of attacking earlier is almost always higher.

The reason I made the siege overhaul was to show people that they can take a city in more historical way, not just attack on turn one and burn down the gates. This made me really sad

I think the incentive to wait should become higher then. Perhaps making gates even more fire resistant, making siege equipment more vulnerable to fire, increasing the danger of towers, increasing besieged attrition, and/or if possible letting the player build two units of siege equipment instead of one per turn (possible enabled by a Technology).

[Rafkos]

f possible letting the player build two units of siege equipment instead of one per turn

Hardcoded.

I think the incentive to wait should become higher then. Perhaps making gates even more fire resistant, making siege equipment more vulnerable to fire, increasing the danger of towers, increasing besieged attrition,

I was thinking about completely removing the attrition from the game. Gates and other structures are 200% more durable than in vanilla and so is the siege equipment, towers have increased fire rate.

[tungri_centurio]

i think siege attrition is to high for the attacking army,they are outside the wall and can send units to get food and water in the surrounding lands.
so IMHO only the besieged shoud get high attrition penalty.the way it works now is kinda unrealalistic

[Rafkos]

i think siege attrition is to high for the attacking army,they are outside the wall and can send units to get food and water in the surrounding lands.
so IMHO only the besieged shoud get high attrition penalty.the way it works now is kinda unrealalistic

It's not that easy. You must know that it would be easy for players to cheat, defending AI will wait and attack only when 2 turns left to capitulation, we have increased holdout time that means AI would loose 80% its army and still do nothing. The way it works now in DeI is the best I could do.

[tungri_centurio]

that how sieges where done.try and force a surrender before you attack.is it not possible to let attrition kick in only after 5turns?

[Mirozero]

that how sieges where done.try and force a surrender before you attack.is it not possible to let attrition kick in only after 5turns?

I find this a good idea. Cities normally had some food supplies, while the attacking army didnt really attack when they sieged. They normally just cut off the city from the outside and only had small skirmishes, or attacked the walls with proper siege-equip. It would be nice aswell if the attrition builds up over time. Example; starting with 0% attrition, next turn 1% and so on.

[Kirsch27]

I rarely play sieges anymore, for the simple reason that I have seen the same recycled Greek and Eastern cities over and over to the point that I don't even enjoy killing the enemies there most of the time.
I usually let AI handle them and take over field battles. That being said, if I do siege I will often wait a few turns for a tortoise and towers/extra ladders.

I like the way it works now, it seems realistic to me. Besieging a city wasn't THAT stacked in favor of the attacker. If anything, it was stacked against them. The city often had a large food stockpile and had probably harvested EVERYTHING they could from the surrounding area if they had any advance notice of the approaching army.

The besieging force was left to pick berries, hunt game and find what leftover crops they could to plunder. By the time a siege had dragged on for a season or two, things had ground to a halt as far as local farming, since most of the people in the immediate area either fled to the hinterland or the city during a protracted siege. This meant the attackers had to forage far afield for food, setting themselves up for ambush.

All in all, sieges were more like a contest of wills than anything. BOTH armies were at risk of breaking from starvation or disease, so while the city defenders had to deal with the civilian populace who might be more liable to surrender than the military, the attackers had less food and less motivation to hold out since they were attacking rather than defending their city.

Additionally, changes at home would often require a besieging army to pick up and leave, if the city held out for long enough. A king or his army being away from the capital for a year or two is not usually good for realm stability.

So don't think of a siege as a "Ha, I gotcha, now you're stuck in that city and I just need to wait for a few years!", where the foregone conclusion is that the attacker wins after a wait. Sieges SHOULD be an iffy prospect, they should be avoided in favor of open field battles or a diplomatic solution if at all possible, just as historical.

Sieges are real meat-grinders comparatively, where both the winner and loser often come out with rather high casualties. Open field battles were generally fairly "safe" so long as you didn't try to turn around and run, with casualty rates around 10% or less for most victorious armies.

[abyss123100]

I still find it very weird how your army doesn't suffer attrition when you are in the enemy's province, except once you start besieging.

[Rafkos]

@up, hardcoded, sorry.

[tungri_centurio]

pff why are so many things hardcoded that can be made mutch beter by modders.