A suggestion on a new siege surrendering mechanic

[Xha Beqo]

I think that many here would agree that the series in single player has way to many sieges and so they might become somewhat repetitive.

So I thought why not add a mechanic that when a large army surrounds a settlement that has these factors:

1. No general.

2. Disloyal general

3. Small/weak garrison

4. Is very unhappy

5. Is small/peripheral to the empire

6. Has been long under siege (but not long enough for to run out of food)

7. The faction is on the losing momentum

8. The besieging general has certain traits

9. Faction leader has low authority

10. The besieging faction is same cultural group/being in a civil war

Then the settlement would have each turn, or even during the first siege a certain percentage (depending on how strong are the factors) that it would surrender without even asking the defender (Player/AI) or by giving the attacker a choice like "we will surrender if you do not sack the city".

I think this would be historically accurate and would force the player/AI not to sit and wait for the enemy but to fight in the open like it was historically.

So what do you think?

[MilesNDavis]

Top notch boyos

[general molotof]

Very interesting indeed! Would add one layer of unpredictability to the monotonous siege battles, you should have the option to break your promise as well, for example as the attacker you could promise not to suck the city and then go in and devestate it ( ( which could translate to rebelions and guirella warfare against you), and there could also be a bribe mechanic where the city would be betrayed to your troops or something along these lines!

[daelin4]

A chance factor to surrneder would only be beneficial if it only affects the AI, in which case it is reasonable, since it tries to reflect sound reasoning. But if you add this to human controlled settlements then its RNG hell, specially when you're counting on that 1% not rolling a "Yes" and it does, so you lose a very important city to a random dice roll...or worse, difficulty settings turn that 1% into something like 20%.

It might also be easier and tactically relevant to implement things like morale penalties as a result, rather than chance to surrender. A garrison with no general already carries morale implications, and a disloyal general can also be bribed to surrender and join, utilizing agents. Being small or distant from the owning faction can be measured by how far in game tiles, and so on.

At end of the day player should remain in ultimate control over such key game decisions and not given over to dicerolling. Certain game actions should always be the result of conscious choices, player or AI, not at the mercy of what is basically a lottery machine.

So while I do like the list of factors, I think they should play out to affect things besides chance of surrender.