Warhammer Total War: Sieges questions

[Naga Prince]

I heard over on Youtube, and saw in an article on the game website about how we can only attack sections of a city on the worldmap? How true is this? I think its very unfortunate and outright regressive for the series, but how true is it?

Is there any settlement in Warhammer that will be do-able from all four sides, or at least 2/3rds?

The game looks wonderful though regardless.

[HigoChumbo]

I believe the most confirmed so far are two wall sections.

To me is not such a bad thing (or a bad thing at all), and if you think of it, and in my opinion it won't really that significant a change from the way battles were previously fought. You can see it in action here:

Click to view content: 

[Naga Prince]

I believe the most confirmed so far are two wall sections.

To me is not such a bad thing (or a bad thing at all), and if you think of it, and in my opinion it won't really that significant a change from the way battles were previously fought. You can see it in action here:

Click to view content: 

It isn't necessarily that bad that is true, since in most cases you usually utilized half of the besieged settlements walls anyway, but the choice of doing so now is gone if you want to go further. I'm just afraid you'll face great causalities always assaulting settlements now since its always head-on now. For Karaks though it makes perfect sense for me, having just one angle of approach.

Thank you for replying fast.

[HigoChumbo]

but the choice of doing so now is gone if you want to go further.

Yeah, but my point is, did the choice significantly change the course of battle? There was in most cases no major difference in attacking one side or the other. Side choice was only impactful in multi-level maps (like those in which depending of the section you attack you have to go through one taller wall or three smaller ones), and they can still to the same with a smaller scale in this system.

I'm just afraid you'll face great causalities always assaulting settlements now since its always head-on now.

Nah, I wish that was true since it would mean fortifications actually mean something. They have gone full easy mode with that, as usual. There is not a noticeable major advantage for the defenders. And I insist, there is not really a major difference with how it was before (And honestly, just circling around the castle with a single unit to attack an undefended part of the wall was kind of boring and unrealistic). Sieges should be hard for the attacker, and assaulting a wall a major headache.



In any case, the main reason for their decision is almost surely based on making it easier for the AI to handle. At least this tame they came up with an elegant solution which seems fun and makes sense from a gameplay point of view (as opposed to "meh... let's just give these guys torches"). It's also good for immersion, since it allows them to design city maps with a more artistic focus (with the exception of dwarf fortresses which are inexplicably plain and ugly).

[Naga Prince]

Yeah, but my point is, did the choice significantly change the course of battle? There was in most cases no major difference in attacking one side or the other. Side choice was only impactful in multi-level maps (like those in which depending of the section you attack you have to go through one taller wall or three smaller ones), and they can still to the same with a smaller scale in this system.

Nah, I wish that was true since it would mean fortifications actually mean something. They have gone full easy mode with that, as usual. There is not a noticeable major advantage for the defenders. And I insist, there is not really a major difference with how it was before (And honestly, just circling around the castle with a single unit to attack an undefended part of the wall was kind of boring and unrealistic). Sieges should be hard for the attacker, and assaulting a wall a major headache.

In any case, the main reason for their decision is almost surely based on making it easier for the AI to handle. At least this tame they came up with an elegant solution which seems fun and makes sense from a gameplay point of view (as opposed to "meh... let's just give these guys torches"). It's also good for immersion, since it allows them to design city maps with a more artistic focus (with the exception of dwarf fortresses which are inexplicably plain and ugly).

Depends on the circumstances, but it could've, because the choice was there and it presented itself. Regardless, you can't change the fact that - its regressive. Its going backwards. And the city limits is much more smaller too. I guess its subjective, but in multiplayer battles and singleplayer, players took advantage of stretching the opposing players defenses, of opening side-gates, and not just dumping their whole force through one angle lest they had sufficient artillery. Otherwise I thought heavily defended cities provided plenty of challenge to overcome, and seeing some of these Warhammer videos, the case seems to be that Human cannon-towers seem incredibly harrowing. The torches feature was a sad moment for CA, progressing from Rome: Total War. That argument for Rome: Total War isn't safe, watching countless PoM videos and playing.

Everything else about the game is incredible, and I'm not Warhammer fan by any means, though I have beaten and loved "Space Marines" and "Dawn of War". Its just you know, many players are wary of this formula change, and I've noticed this from that youtuber named "Arch" and his following within the comment section. People are whiny as hell in general for every game, yet however negative, usually the more people complain I actually think it shows they care more FOR the game. Although that never looks the case, and it makes you wonder what basement dwelling they clawed from. That's kind of where I got this whole thing from too (Arch).

Its unfortunate AI is still an issue for so long in the series, but they've made revolutionary games so I give them kudos for that, I do agree wholeheartedly on this basis. The city landscapes are really beautiful to, and I'm not sure if this a good or bad thing, but with the limited walls to assault, the background reminds me of the Heroes of Might & Magic series along with it all lol. Might as well show city dwelling upgrades in the battlefield background too. I thought the Karaks were really terrific, but to each their own, although I'd love to see some semblance of dwarf civilization.

My biggest fear like everyone else is how much of a bugfest this will be at first, and again, I always give them some buffer zone for this personally because their games are like the strategy version of the Elder Scrolls. Somethings bound to break or wack because of the mass content within.

[Frost, colonel]

Whilst one can argue that the siege battles are condemned to perhaps less trickery and strategy, you certainly can't argue with the fact that now it will be a nice straight up, brutal hard fight. Is that a bad thing?
Not sure I like being within tower range right from the get go, but I must confess I may be biased on this point when defending. Assaults will need careful planning.

[Naga Prince]

Whilst one can argue that the siege battles are condemned to perhaps less trickery and strategy, you certainly can't argue with the fact that now it will be a nice straight up, brutal hard fight. Is that a bad thing?
Not sure I like being within tower range right from the get go, but I must confess I may be biased on this point when defending. Assaults will need careful planning.

No its not a bad thing and never necessarily said so, yet many such as myself and it appears you will miss the the greater depth of the battlefield being present. If anything, these much more rigidly contained battles will ironically make the game Warhammer-esque'. In the sense of mass, brutal fighting across a short front.

Yeah the range thing sucks and seems entirely unnecessary for gameplay, but I guess that's to make the combat was tense.

[Frost, colonel]

If anything, these much more rigidly contained battles will ironically make the game Warhammer-esque'. In the sense of mass, brutal fighting across a short front.

Yep that seems right to me Naga Prince, in that every time I see Warhammer art work regarding a siege battle it comes across as a full on manic assault. There will be less pussy footing about, but will the average player enjoy this less refined scrum, or will there be an increase of Auto resolve? From the video's I have seen I am looking forward to the flying units adding to the frantic assaults.

In warhammer are there any flying units breathing fire?

Edit, in warhammer Dragons with the Breath weapon can, I don't remember seeing anything in CA's vids so far, But it seems Chaos and the Elves can have Dragons that can breath fire, but when the game comes out that's Chaos only isn't it? The Vampires Zombie Dragon doesn't have fire, only pestilence? Just thinking it will be fun to strafe troops defending a wall with fire. Or even better attack a siege tower.

[Campaigner]

In all honesty I would have been fine with CA reducing the Siege assaults to a wall or 2 if they made the corresponding battle better added more features etc. I would have liked units that could climb the walls or pass through them giving those units new found worth. It would have also made the flying units Mages and of course Arty a must have for these assaults depending on how they managed it. Instead all units get a magic ladder so that wipes out the climbing/ethereal unit advantage. Also bumps down flying units worth as well.

When I heard what they were doing with the sieges at first I got mad then I thought "well maybe they will make it more like stronghold or really in depth now that they have reduced the scope" I then got mad again when I learned they just went with a full dumb down approach...

Believe it or not by simplifying the design of the sieges they could have done a ton to actually make it more in depth...It does not look like they even tried really.

A Total War Castle sim sounds cool though right?? Maybe a mode where you defend against a never ending horde with a much better represented Citadel warfare of course (pretty much all the defenses you had in strong hold and more) Could give the attacker a ton more options as well (Tunnelers, Petards, Siege monsters, siege Magic etc)