Anyone else worried at implications of siege escalations on siege warfare?

[Aenima]

A while ago I remember how a thread was made discussing the siege escalation and what we thought of it, specifically how it seems to be that it occurs without siege weapons in the army - then, as now, my fear is that it's being used to subvert questionable AI performance and path-finding on walls. In the Attila "let's plays" released by people over the past few days that I've seen this has only been confirmed, namely by Sun Jetzu, who pointed out how if you don't bring siege weapons you can't instantly attack, but have to wait to construct ladders while siege escalation damages the walls.

Here's the thing that worried me - I've seen someone playing as the Visigoths attacking a Roman settlement after besieging it (with no artillery) and the wall had holes in it. He even mentioned how the opening of holes in the wall would allow his AI reinforcements to simply have an easy time attacking the city. In Sun Jetzu's "5 best features" video he also mentioned how siege escalation made it easier to get inside a city and how it took a long time to construct siege engines, 6 turns (!) for ladders and 8 for a siege tower, I believe. I'm worried that, between the siege escalation and the length of ladder construction, CA have basically reduced siege battles to street battles with broken walls.

If things are as I fear - if ladders and siege towers take so long to construct (they do), if siege escalation takes place even without siege weapons present (it does), and if it's possible to attack a city once siege escalation brings down sections of wall, ie before ladders are constructed, I'm worried that CA will have simply tried to find yet another work-around for dodgy siege battles, as the AI may just decide to assault through the breaches at the first chance it gets rather than scale the walls with ladders and siege towers, something that's the AI still has a few troubles with (and in my experience wall path-finding still has a few kinks as well).

Does anyone here know if it's possible to attack a city before ladders are constructed by way of siege escalation opening breaches in walls that allow an assault to take place?

[Bethencourt]

I do not like it, it is actually a point not to buy the game.

[Aenima]

I do not like it, it is actually a point not to buy the game.

Wow, really, that's turned you off the game completely?

I don't like it either...why should huge walls collapse, just because somebody is besieging the settlement?

It would make sense, if the attacker has got catapults, or other siege equipment that could shoot some rocks at the wall over the time, but not, if there are 300 guys camping outside the walls, armed with nothing but spears.

Mmm. Even if you've got artillery with you I don't know if I think it's such a great feature, since it effectively renders catapults pointless once the battle starts, what with the walls and towers already being bombarded. I get that it tries to simulate siege wearing the fortifications down over time, but if that happens then there's little to do once you actually assault it yourself, and as you said, it shouldn't even be happening if you don't have artillery.

And on the note of artillery, I'm gonna go ahead and assume I'll be needing to wait for a "no barbarian artillery" mod for this one, too

[Prof]

I don't like it either...why should huge walls collapse, just because somebody is besieging the settlement?

It would make sense, if the attacker has got catapults, or other siege equipment that could shoot some rocks at the wall over the time, but not, if there are 300 guys camping outside the walls, armed with nothing but spears.

[Bethencourt]

It shows that siege AI is not working so we have to buy other solutions, like systematic earthquakes.

[Julio-Claudian]

If the army has catapults etc. or knows how to tunnel under walls then yes... otherwise I don't like the idea. Especially if, say, one were to build the Theodosian walls at Constantinople, which were only brought down after centuries with an immense **** off cannon... only to have those walls crumble after the city had been besieged for a few turns by some migratory tribe with no serious ballistic weapons.

[spiderknight]

If the army has catapults etc. or knows how to tunnel under walls then yes... otherwise I don't like the idea. Especially if, say, one were to build the Theodosian walls at Constantinople, which were only brought down after centuries with an immense **** off cannon... only to have those walls crumble after the city had been besieged for a few turns by some migratory tribe with no serious ballistic weapons.

Also what about the active defence inside the city. Even when holes were blown into walls the defenders would drive stakes into the gap and then fill in the hole with rubble from inside the walls. Theres now way they would just leave a huge hole there in a prolonged siege.

[Sebidee]

It takes several turns for siege escalation to bring down walls. Who cares if it's a workaround for bad AI? That's a good thing.

[Aenima]

It takes several turns for siege escalation to bring down walls. Who cares if it's a workaround for bad AI? That's a good thing.

Do you know how many turns it takes, and whether you can just assault a city due to escalation bringing down the walls rather than through developing siege engines? I'm worried that Attila's siege defences will just mostly feature the AI rushing for breaches in the wall rather than actually trying to scale them, effectively making siege battles just street battles with broken walls.

[Cope]

It takes several turns for siege escalation to bring down walls. Who cares if it's a workaround for bad AI? That's a good thing.

I care because it suggests that the AI in ATW will be as bad as the AI in Rome II. A workaround is not a fix; it doesn't solve the base problem.

But I remember having this discussion a day after siege escalation was announced as a feature. It was so obvious that its sole purpose was to act as a siege AI avoidance mechanism. The fact that CA are incapable of fixing their siege AI means they have to design forts and walled towns with no gates (wtf?), they have to leave torches in the game, and they have to either build walls into hills so they AI doesn't have to use stairs, or they have to remove massive urban areas so that the AI can move up and down towers without spazzing out.

Simply decreasing the likelihood of the siege AI being needed is not solving the problem, its just making a tonne of issues which destroy immersion.

[Humble Warrior]

Solving the base problem doesn't matter. It's the result that counts.

Not if it`s plain to see that the result is a plain work-a-round fudge.

[spiderknight]

Solving the base problem doesn't matter. It's the result that counts.

this is literally the dumbest thing ive read in days.....good thing this day has just started.

[crucify_ego]

this is literally the dumbest thing ive read in days.....good thing this day has just started.

QFT

[Cope]

Solving the base problem doesn't matter. It's the result that counts.

If the workaround is so contrived that its obvious to everyone, then it kills immersion.

[Sebidee]

If the workaround is so contrived that its obvious to everyone, then it kills immersion.

That's pretty subjective.

[The Despondent Mind]

It takes several turns for siege escalation to bring down walls. Who cares if it's a workaround for bad AI? That's a good thing.

Uhm I care. If I pay money for a tw game I want the AI to be able to fulfill the basic function of a siege.

This just shows they are simply out of ideas for the AI, they have given up. It's almost spelling it out for us that the game is broken and they cannot fix it so they try to find some lame workarounds. Walls crumbling by themselves, give me a break...

[Achilles Lacedaemon]

It takes several turns for siege escalation to bring down walls. Who cares if it's a workaround for bad AI? That's a good thing.

Its a lame excuse for a bad AI and an simplification of Siege battles, yes I do care, as many in this thread does.

[Prof]

It just doesn't make any sense...if there is an army of several thousand men camping outside a city, not engaging, no defender would willingly tear down the walls.

And how would the attackers brind down the walls without siege equipment? With sappers? Why can't they be included in the same way, they were included in RTW?

[Sebidee]

It just doesn't make any sense...if there is an army of several thousand men camping outside a city, not engaging, no defender would willingly tear down the walls.

And how would the attackers brind down the walls without siege equipment? With sappers? Why can't they be included in the same way, they were included in RTW?

Who said the defenders tore down the walls? There are lots of ways the attackers could do it, including sapping. The way sapping was implemented in RTW was silly, Romans couldn't dig like bugs bunny.

[Abdülmecid I]

Who said the defenders tore down the walls? There are lots of ways the attackers could do it, including sapping. The way sapping was implemented in RTW was silly, Romans couldn't dig like bugs bunny.

Ok, the system in Rome I was unrealistic, you could dig a small tunnel in a few minutes, but how is Attila's better? Now, you don't even see the tunnel, we don't control the sapping procedure, in fact, we just assume that sapping happens, to use it as an excuse for the magically falling walls. It could be sapping, it could be systematic earthquakes, as Bethencourt said.