I won't play a campaign in EBII until...

[LucasPiazon]

I won't play a campaign in EBII until someone can explain to me the discrepancy between field battles and siege battles. The former is generally half as long with less than half the casualty levels than the latter. Why? Why does every siege end in a pointless grind in the town center that destroys half my army even if I win? Is there any modding work around to make siege battles more like Rome II?

[Suite]

I won't play a campaign in EBII until someone can explain to me the discrepancy between field battles and siege battles. The former is generally half as long with less than half the casualty levels than the latter. Why? Why does every siege end in a pointless grind in the town center that destroys half my army even if I win? Is there any modding work around to make siege battles more like Rome II?

You need more archers and less cavalry.

[excubitor]

Is there any modding work around to make siege battles more like Rome II?

A XAXAXAX XAXAXAX AXAXAX.

[Appius Pulcher]

Well the very point of keeping a garrison in a walled city is tho make defense easier. It's to be expected, and historical, that you will loose a lot of men when you try to take it by storm. To avoid long battles with heavy casualties to take cities, you should besiege cities until they run out of supplies. This means that you can't blitz across the map if the enemy has strong garrisons, but again, this is historical.

Would you really prefer that your odds as a defender in a walled city would be no better than in a field battle?

[Shadowwalker]

I have never had great success in storming cities, regardless of the TW game I played (and I played all the TW titles from Shogun I to Medieval II).
If I really need to take a city as fast as possible I simply siege it with an army that is "weak" enough that the Ai sallies right at the first turn. There are factions which are suited better for this kind of approach (access to really heavy cavalry helps a lot here), other factions may prove to be more difficult because they lack the kind of troops needed here or their troops are simply inferiour to the garrison troops.
If you don't want to fight outnumbered, siege the city and starve out the defenders.

In general I love the fact that you can't simply storm across the map and win the campaign in 50-100 turns. And the EB team has stated over and over again that they feel the same way. So if you hope for a change in mechanics to lower such difficulties you may be in for a sad surprise.
EB is about history and realism (as far as possible within the engine limits). And that means that a walled settlement with a strong garrison simply is no easy prey for an attacker.

[Hummer]

I really ever assault a city. I am in agreement with some here who mention it should be harder and it encourage the player to siege until it falls or the enemy sallies. I always siege until the last turn. Either it will fall costing me nothing in troops or the enemy sallies but with considerably less men because of being sieged for 7 turns.

[romanius24]

I never had a problem with it. In fact i would prefer to fight sieges where the defenders have a massive force more often.

The AI tends to be too stupid to use armies properly.

[QuintusSertorius]

Have you ever looked at the statistics for real sieges, in any era? Fortifications are a massive force multiplier for the defender, and the more sophisticated they get, the greater the impact they have on the pains a beiseger has to make to take the place other than by treachery, surprise or starvation.

The Total War mechanics for sieges leave lots to be desired, but the fact that they are costly for the attacker is one aspect that is correct.

[LucasPiazon]

I see your points, and yes I agree, easy sieges would ruin the balance and would be unrealistic. I want to clarify that I'm not complaining that sieges are too difficult, but too long with too many casualties. Yes an assault against a well defended fortified position should be more difficult and cost more men than a field battle, but not nearly to the extent I've experienced in game. The source of the problem is the way town centers/capture points function in the game, making all defending units fight to the death. This means no matter what the casualty rate the mod sets, siege assault casualty rates will remain the same. Theoretically both a mod with high winning casualty rates (>80%) and a mod with low winning casualty rates (<5%) would both have the same casualty rates for a siege assault (e.g 50%). This shouldn't be the case, and I want to find a modding work around so I can customize EBII for my own preferences.

[romanius24]

Sieges should get more interesting with the addition of more types of units and artillery.
But it makes sense that they are dangerous. There is a reason why most sieges didnt end with actual assaults.

I havent had a problem with sieges but i tend to prepare very well for them. I build the necessary equipment and units for the job.

The dangers of a siege seem perfectly accurate to me though i would admit they are a bit boring currently.( i need some rock throwers )

[V.T. Marvin]

One way to reduce casualties during sieges and to reduce the annoying fight-to-death effect of the capture area is to lock the defenders in fight on the edge of the square by an frontal attack of a force, preferably spearmen, while circumventing the square with a large, heavier force and attacking the defenders from behind. Then retreat the front-attacking force back and push the defenders out of the square by the force attacking behind. Once the overwhelmed defenders leave the square, they rout. Job done. :2cents:

[Barnabas]

When you siege a town and wait for them to starve, do they lose units? It's maybe that I always attack with a inferior force to not grind them to death in town square but never noticed their units losing man during the siege wait turns..

[Suite]

When you siege a town and wait for them to starve, do they lose units? It's maybe that I always attack with a inferior force to not grind them to death in town square but never noticed their units losing man during the siege wait turns..

They do, but only few numbers.

Elaborating my laconic answer from yesterday: What you want in an attack are two things: 1) Isolate and destroy any single enemy units who separate from the main force or things like two/three archers bunched up in the streets. 2) Make as Marvin said: If the defender clusters in the twon square, their body of men is very dense. Close the extrances with heavy infantry (preferably with shields) and bring on your archers or even better here in EB - slingers. One salvo into this dense pack deals multiple times the damage as it would into one single unit. Cavalry charges are good also as long as you can handle the pathfinding and cavalry charging (which is the master's discipline in M2TW).

[Roma_Victrix]

Have you ever looked at the statistics for real sieges, in any era? Fortifications are a massive force multiplier for the defender, and the more sophisticated they get, the greater the impact they have on the pains a beiseger has to make to take the place other than by treachery, surprise or starvation.

The Total War mechanics for sieges leave lots to be desired, but the fact that they are costly for the attacker is one aspect that is correct.

This is so very true. In the age of gunpowder for Europe, Henry V of England was able to pound and devastate the sturdy walls of the Fench city of Harfleur in 1415 using the heaviest artillery of the day, and the siege lasted something like two months before those inside decided to surrender. Exactly a century earlier, in 1315, when gunpowder tech was still in its infancy (i.e. small bombards in Europe, North Africa, and China, a few decades before this bronze handguns, rockets, catapult-lobbed bombs, and "fire lances" existed in Song-dynasty and Yuan-dynasty China and Goryeo-era Korea), Edward the Bruce, brother of Robert the Bruce (who just won at Bannockburn the year before), laid siege to Carrickfergus Castle in Northern Ireland (which had been a Anglo-Norman stronghold since the late 12th century). Edward the Bruce was eventually crowned as the King of Ireland (reigning until his death in battle in 1318), but the siege of Carrickfergus Castle lasted a whole damn year. The defenders only surrendered after near starvation and eating eight of their killed Scottish prisoners. If you're in a very defensible position like at Carrickfergus and have enough munitions and provisions, you can hold out for a very, very long time (especially if there is uninhbited access to the sea).

Although concentric-walled medieval castles perhaps provided longer-lasting defense than the walled cities of antiquity, there are some sieges in Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman times that lasted over a year.

They do, but only few numbers.

Elaborating my laconic answer from yesterday: What you want in an attack are two things: 1) Isolate and destroy any single enemy units who separate from the main force or things like two/three archers bunched up in the streets. 2) Make as Marvin said: If the defender clusters in the twon square, their body of men is very dense. Close the extrances with heavy infantry (preferably with shields) and bring on your archers or even better here in EB - slingers. One salvo into this dense pack deals multiple times the damage as it would into one single unit. Cavalry charges are good also as long as you can handle the pathfinding and cavalry charging (which is the master's discipline in M2TW).

This post for the win! This is exactly how it is done. If the enemy tries to amass all their remaining troops around the central square, you simply block all the roads leading to the square, each side with one or two heavy infantry units that you order to hold their ground. Then behind those troops you place your slingers or archers into the appropriate range to fire from a distance. Voila! Most of the troops in the center will die off if they aren't wise enough to try and maneuver around or attack you on every side. Doing that is a risk for the AI, though, since their units can rout if too far from the city square. When your missile troops have run out of ammo, simply use the aforementioned heavy infantry to close in on them. And yes, Suite, cavalry is rather useless in a siege unless you have the heaviest cavalry, like cataphracts, who can hold their ground. Cavalry are infinitely useful in field battles because they can maneuver around troops and employ their charge bonus from the flanks. In a cramped urban environment with narrow streets their advantages are nonexistent.

Also, if people are worried about casualties from assailing the walls long before you get to the town square, keep in mind EB II is going to have updated siege artillery for Greeks and Romans:

[Shadowwalker]

They do lose men in their units, yes, although the losses are neglegible if it's 4 (or even 6) turns of siege only. Significant losses, however, occur if the siege lasts for 8+ turns (which generally happens with larger settlements only).
Due to the more capable AI you almost never have the chance to siege settlements for that many turns, though. At least not since 2.04x.
Usually the attacked faction sends in reinforcements rather soon (if they have any nearby, that is).

[Anubis88]

I don't think i've ever attacked a city in any TW game

[romanius24]

Hows does that even work? Do you just bribe them or not play TW at all

[Shadowwalker]

Hows does that even work? Do you just bribe them or not play TW at all

I suspect Anubis to take settlements the same way I usually do: siege them and wait for one of the following to occur:

(1) They sally at the last turn, you win the battle and take the town.
(2) They don't sally because at the last turn, there are not enough garrison troops left to challenge your army.
(3) A reinforcement army attacks you and you win that battle (with the garrison as reinforcements), killing/capturing enough of the garrison to get the settlement handed over after the battle.

I have tried to storm a strongly garrisoned settlement exactly one time in EB II.
In my first campaign in EB 2.00 (Sab'yn) I attacked Timna after building three rams.
I attacked from three sides, the garrison just blobbed at the town center, after losing ~60% of their men, all my units fled.

After that I never again attacked settlements with more than 3 or 4 units (or 6 if it's Akontistai etc only).

Yes, that makes expanding even slower, but hey.
EB campaigns can theoretically last for 1000+ turns, so why rush?

[QuintusSertorius]

Strictly speaking, I think many factions shouldn't be able to build siege engines at all; they didn't have the practise of siege engineering.

[romanius24]

The town center blob is the most disgusting thing ever. I never use it as a strategy when defending unless i am severely outnumbered and basically fighting a last stand.(even that is usually in the narrow streets)

I wish the center would be moved closer to the walls but i assume the units still wouldnt move.

Is there anything that can be done regarding that rally point? Any areas that can be modded?