Got the new PC-gamer today...

[damien007]

It says the walls had been weakened first by catapults (medieval stone throwing siege engines), before they attempted with crowbars and picks to further undermine the wall with `great difficulty`.

No it doesn't, it says in the qouted example that the walls were weakened with catapults first. That doesn't mean that it was necessary to weaken the walls first in ever single case of sapping. And yes everybody knows that it's extremely difficult, and if anything it was a last resort. But the point is that for a faction that didn't really have any other alternative options like barbars, they would have done this when needing to bring down walls.

[Humble Warrior]

No it doesn't, it says in the qouted example that the walls were weakened with catapults first. That doesn't mean that it was necessary to weaken the walls first in ever single case of sapping. And yes everybody knows that it's extremely difficult, and if anything it was a last resort. But the point is that for a faction that didn't really have any other alternative options like barbars, they would have done this when needing to bring down walls.

No, the example means it was a course rarely taken due to the ridiculously difficult nature of the task. Just because it`s possible, doesn`t mean it was something always done as `routine` which is how you`re making it sound. Atilla is having it as auto-routine as though as if there`s a guy with a crowbar waiting every time to break down the walls. Heck I could clean my house with a tooth brush doesn`t mean it`s a good idea. Sheer common sense says it was not like that or at all realistic.

[damien007]

No, the example means it was a course rarely taken due to the ridiculously difficult nature of the task. Just because it`s possible, doesn`t mean it was something always done as `routine` which is how you`re making it sound. Atilla is having it as auto-routine as though as if there`s a guy with a crowbar waiting every time to break down the walls. Heck I could clean my house with a tooth brush doesn`t mean it`s a good idea. Sheer common sense says it was not like that or at all realistic.

Well barbarians didn't have many other options did they? Obviously more civilized groups like the Romans would have undermined the walls as it was much less dangerous. If we were to take a completely realistic approach it would be almost impossible for barbarians to take walled settlements like Constantinople at all. But that would completely ruin that balance of the game wouldn't it. I mean if you really want you could probably mod barbarians to take double the attrition and twice as much time during siege escalation.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

Well barbarians didn't have many other options did they? Obviously more civilized groups like the Romans would have undermined the walls as it was much less dangerous. If we were to take a completely realistic approach it would be almost impossible for barbarians to take walled settlements like Constantinople at all. But that would completely ruin that balance of the game wouldn't it. I mean if you really want you could probably mod barbarians to take double the attrition and twice as much time during siege escalation.

Barbarians should have to find alternatives to traditional assaults, either through a regular siege of attrition, or somehow luring the garrison away by raiding and sacking settlements and such around the city. At least until they tech up enough to be on par with more civilized nations. Wouldn't make sense for a continent-spanning Saxon empire to still have such handicaps.

That's not possible currently, however, as the garrison does not exist unless the city is attacked.

[Totalheadache]

Barbarians should have to find alternatives to traditional assaults, either through a regular siege of attrition, or somehow luring the garrison away by raiding and sacking settlements and such around the city. At least until they tech up enough to be on par with more civilized nations. Wouldn't make sense for a continent-spanning Saxon empire to still have such handicaps.

That's not possible currently, however, as the garrison does not exist unless the city is attacked.

Yep better idea. Although continent-spanning Saxon empire...not sure what you mean by this, never happened.

[Humble Warrior]

Indeed. This escalation does two very bad things...

1. It makes everyone, every faction, able to achieve success in sieges, no matter what. Barbarians can knock down those walls just as easily as a siege-savvy faction.
2. The player doesn`t need to do anything at all except make sure his army is sieging the town. Sit back and wait for the walls to fall down. He doesn`t even need to wait the extra time to starve them out realistically now.


It`s less interactive, and less interesting. It`s basically a cheat code. On top of that the Player learns very little about actual siege warfare.

[Huberto]

Barbarians should have to find alternatives to traditional assaults, either through a regular siege of attrition, or somehow luring the garrison away by raiding and sacking settlements and such around the city. At least until they tech up enough to be on par with more civilized nations. Wouldn't make sense for a continent-spanning Saxon empire to still have such handicaps.

That's not possible currently, however, as the garrison does not exist unless the city is attacked.

I'm no expert on sieges of this or any period but I suspect the problem with them in TWR2/Attila is related to the artificial limit of number of army stacks, which means there must be large auto garrisons by default, which means that the entire game is either greatly slowed down by long sieges of attrition or we need work arounds like crumbling walls and torches or barbarian onagers to move things along.

I suspect in real life defenders were small in number behind walls and that hordes and such would detach units to starve them out while they kept raiding/foraging.

[AnthoniusII]

The sience of building fortifications was too advanced in the Hellenistic era. Romans added many new features in this sience and improved many more.
The basic ideas of this sience had to do with the durabillity of fortifications to multiple kind of threats like all kind of projectiles, enviroment changes , natural disasters and human activities.
The basic idea of angled surface against projectiles that is now used in modern tanks was invented in Alexandreia when the building of towers was a sunject of investigation. The roman qonquest made a significant change via simplicity to fortification designs and building process. You may nottice that Roman walls made in majority by bricks but even when stone was used lines of clay brics separated the stone sections.
Here is an example:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Those lines of bricks were not for easthetic reasons..
Speaking for mining/sapping operations we must add also the earthquakes in the possible threats for colapse.
Those lines of bricks allowed walls minor vertical moves and energy absorption. Those bricks are responsible of why Roman style walls still stand after centuries of earthquakes and military actions exposal! Sapping was not that easy. Even if the sapping team would start a fire to burn the logs that holded the tunnel and cause a earth colpase and walls with it, it was not certain that the tunnel whole would be enough to brake those brick lines and totaly colapse the wall!
Ofcourse after a succefull sapping operation that part of the walls would be very sensitive against catapult projectiles like stones!
As you can see cities were captured many times but their walls still standed!
According to CA's silly prospective those walls should not be there! Theys should be melted by wind and rain! But forgive me but i saw them standing there yesterday!
Either i do not see well or CA made the most foolish siege feature ever in the entire gamming society!
The choice is yours!

[Anna_Gein]

Well barbarians didn't have many other options did they? Obviously more civilized groups like the Romans would have undermined the walls as it was much less dangerous. If we were to take a completely realistic approach it would be almost impossible for barbarians to take walled settlements like Constantinople at all.

Good. Because that's exactly what happened in real life. Yet they managed to conquer all West Roman territories.

[AnthoniusII]

Well barbarians didn't have many other options did they? Obviously more civilized groups like the Romans would have undermined the walls as it was much less dangerous. If we were to take a completely realistic approach it would be almost impossible for barbarians to take walled settlements like Constantinople at all. But that would completely ruin that balance of the game wouldn't it. I mean if you really want you could probably mod barbarians to take double the attrition and twice as much time during siege escalation.

That is not accurate my friend! If Rome II and Attila had the same siege AI begaviur and abillities, beleive me defending against hordes would be a night mare without silly/foolish features like this idiocity calle siege ascalation! Only IF AI , just like in Rome TW-1 could field 2-3 siege armies with each one of those to have and use its own siege equipment like 1-2 rams, 1-2 ladder stes and 1-2 siege towers and focused on a diferent wall section of the city , defending player would have a realy chalenging battle! But do not forget that today CA's development team has NOT the coding abbilities to re-create such AI behaviur!! Now imagine what would happen when the player would have to defend against Romans or Sassanids or Armenians!!!! That would be able to deploy tunnels and siege artilery as well!
Unforthunatly CA devs have an other point of view for sieges! "Pray and your prays shall be listend and walls will cramble and fall"!

[Yerevan]

Yes, it's quite similar to the torches melt doors solution. The same way of confronting a problem.

[PointOfViewGun]

Indeed. This escalation does two very bad things...

1. It makes everyone, every faction, able to achieve success in sieges, no matter what. Barbarians can knock down those walls just as easily as a siege-savvy faction.
2. The player doesn`t need to do anything at all except make sure his army is sieging the town. Sit back and wait for the walls to fall down. He doesn`t even need to wait the extra time to starve them out realistically now.

It`s less interactive, and less interesting. It`s basically a cheat code. On top of that the Player learns very little about actual siege warfare.

Both points are wrong. It doesn't make it as easy.

1) Even if no siege equipment is required for siege escalation it still requires a lot of turns to take effect. A siege-savvy faction can destroy the walls right away or circumvent them through siege equipment. A barbarian faction can't do that easily. They'd have to wait many turns to have the same effect and incur great losses in the meantime.
2) The player always needs to decide between continuing a siege to wear down the defender or to end it quickly. Continuing a siege can have an effect on your army as well and you run the risk of having an other enemy army come to aid the defender. Siege escalation doesn't eliminate any of these decisions you normally make.

[stevehoos]

Both points are wrong. It doesn't make it as easy.

1) Even if no siege equipment is required for siege escalation it still requires a lot of turns to take effect. A siege-savvy faction can destroy the walls right away or circumvent them through siege equipment. A barbarian faction can't do that easily. They'd have to wait many turns to have the same effect and incur great losses in the meantime.
2) The player always needs to decide between continuing a siege to wear down the defender or to end it quickly. Continuing a siege can have an effect on your army as well and you run the risk of having an other enemy army come to aid the defender. Siege escalation doesn't eliminate any of these decisions you normally make.

"No siege equipment required" you answered the question right there. It is easier to take cities than it was in Rome 2, that's all that has changed. It's just a work around.

What is the relevance of a "siege savvy faction" if any faction can just torch the gates? Both your points are wrong.

[PointOfViewGun]

"No siege equipment required" you answered the question right there. It is easier to take cities than it was in Rome 2, that's all that has changed. It's just a work around.

What is the relevance of a "siege savvy faction" if any faction can just torch the gates?

I did not respond to a question, nor there was any question in the post I quoted.

It's hardly makes sieges easier. You still require many turns before it produces any meaningful results.

Torches are a bad way of entering a well-defended town. It sort of levels the play ground for badly defended towns instead of turning them to iron vaults. It certainly doesn't elevate any faction to the efficiency of a siege savvy faction.

[Sheridan]

Both points are wrong. It doesn't make it as easy.

1) Even if no siege equipment is required for siege escalation it still requires a lot of turns to take effect. A siege-savvy faction can destroy the walls right away or circumvent them through siege equipment. A barbarian faction can't do that easily. They'd have to wait many turns to have the same effect and incur great losses in the meantime.
2) The player always needs to decide between continuing a siege to wear down the defender or to end it quickly. Continuing a siege can have an effect on your army as well and you run the risk of having an other enemy army come to aid the defender. Siege escalation doesn't eliminate any of these decisions you normally make.

1) There's no difference between barbarians and other factions/cultures in terms of siege capabilities. Any faction has access to both some kind of siege weapons and some kind of siege engines. To that, catapults can now be recruited as mercenaries. In other words your point is completely off; it implies that there's a difference between said cultures' siege proficiency in the game. Reality is, barbarian factions have access to the same tools and methods as "civilized" factions.
2) Siege escalation eliminates the need for siege engines (ladders, rams or towers). Since the walls will eventually crumble, you no longer need to build any of these as indeed they are not the cause of the escalation. Siege escalation, in its current form, also eliminates the need on the battle map to utilize siege weapons for the purpose of bringing down specific enemy defense points (walls, towers), and is hence less interactive. This could however be better represented by giving the player a similar array of options on the campaing map, e.g. choosing what and where to focus the siege efforts on, whether to try and starve the enemy out or actively try and tear apart enemy defenses.

[PointOfViewGun]

1) There's no difference between barbarians and other factions/cultures in terms of siege capabilities. Any faction has access to both some kind of siege weapons and some kind of siege engines. To that, catapults can now be recruited as mercenaries. In other words your point is completely off; it implies that there's a difference between said cultures' siege proficiency in the game. Reality is, barbarian factions have access to the same tools and methods as "civilized" factions.
2) Siege escalation eliminates the need for siege engines (ladders, rams or towers). Since the walls will eventually crumble, you no longer need to build any of these as indeed they are not the cause of the escalation. Siege escalation, in its current form, also eliminates the need on the battle map to utilize siege weapons for the purpose of bringing down specific enemy defense points (walls, towers), and is hence less interactive. This could however be better represented by giving the player a similar array of options on the campaing map, e.g. choosing what and where to focus the siege efforts on, whether to try and starve the enemy out or actively try and tear apart enemy defenses.

1) That actually makes Humble Warrior's point that I commented on completely off. You might want to talk to him about it.

2) No, it doesn't. You're conveniently ignoring the time it would take for siege escalation to produce results.

[Totalheadache]

Thing is we wouldnt mind siege escalation per say but CA always tends to introduce something which is a blanket mechanic i.e there are no subtle differences or nuances involved which could actually really make the game fun. i.e some factions cant sap as well etc or takes them longer or certain factions have to pay money in order to recruit the siege weps..or no siege engineer you cant siege...assasins can kill siege specialist...

there's so much they could do to make it work....but we get an arcadey/no thrills...wow the walls are down as if by magic. no immersion no strategy...

Instead we end up having one mechanic for all...

"one ring to rule them all...etc"

I mean cmon CA we dont mind you trying new things but why not introduce them in a way that suits all. Then all your setekhs and Krisslanza and humbles and huberto and myself can enjoy...?

[Sheridan]

1) That actually makes Humble Warrior's point that I commented on completely off. You might want to talk to him about it.

2) No, it doesn't. You're conveniently ignoring the time it would take for siege escalation to produce results.

It's your own task to check the validity of claims when addressing them. In this case, he's actually right however, as suggested in my post. Barbarians do have access to the same siege methods that other factions or culture groups do. That's his complaint, that no difference is represented between "barbarians" and "civilized" factions. You on the other hand argued that there was a difference, whereas that is not the case.

And re #2, yes, it does. You don't need siege engines to achieve success in a siege. Nor do you need siege weapons. That is not to imply that these aren't useful if both trying to speed up the escalation or, alternatively, mount a quick assault if a new enemy threat presents itself unexpectedly while sieging a city. It's only to imply that you don't actually need anything, or to do anything, to be able to assault a settlement, regardless of whether playing as a barbarian faction or not.

[stevehoos]

I did not respond to a question, nor there was any question in the post I quoted.

It's hardly makes sieges easier. You still require many turns before it produces any meaningful results.

Torches are a bad way of entering a well-defended town. It sort of levels the play ground for badly defended towns instead of turning them to iron vaults. It certainly doesn't elevate any faction to the efficiency of a siege savvy faction.

We are answering questions here, are we not? You said that Humble warrior was wrong on both of his points, the origin of this conversation stems from questions. "Are sieges easier because of CA's new escalation feature?"

All factions are identical in this game when it comes to escalation, what is the point of the term "siege savvy" that you used? That implies differences that are not present.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's your own task to check the validity of claims when addressing them. In this case, he's actually right however, as suggested in my post. Barbarians do have access to the same siege methods that other factions or culture groups do. That's his complaint, that no difference is represented between "barbarians" and "civilized" factions. You on the other hand argued that there was a difference, whereas that is not the case.

And re #2, yes, it does. You don't need siege engines to achieve success in a siege. Nor do you need siege weapons. That is not to imply that these aren't useful if both trying to speed up the escalation or, alternatively, mount a quick assault if a new enemy threat presents itself unexpectedly while sieging a city. It's only to imply that you don't actually need anything, or to do anything, to be able to assault a settlement, regardless of whether playing as a barbarian faction or not.

1) He can't be right and wrong about the same issue at the same time. It was Humble Warrior's idea that siege escalation makes a barbarian faction take down walls as easy as a siege-savvy faction. Earlier you argued against the implications of that idea. Now, you're claiming that he was right but still arguing the same point. You probably need to read what's been said more carefully.

2) You never need siege engines to achieve success in a siege in any Total War by the same logic as there is always the option to let the garrison starve to death. We're talking about changes created by the siege escalation. You're trying to push the issue to a place that you can defend. I'm not buying it.

We are answering questions here, are we not? You said that Humble warrior was wrong on both of his points, the origin of this conversation stems from questions. "Are sieges easier because of CA's new escalation feature?"

All factions are identical in this game when it comes to escalation, what is the point of the term "siege savvy" that you used? That implies differences that are not present.

I didn't answer a question. I merely commented on two points someone made.

I don't know the specific points of the term "siege savvy". You might want to ask Humble Warrior about that.