Siege battles in SSHIP - modification ideas

[marcp]

As Jarand of Cracow (great user name) I like the idea of a general with the better administrative skills and dread etc. being more proficient besiegers. A trait like "lives in the saddle" , "Champion of melee etc. could add bonuses to set piece or open field battle siege points and troop moral etc. Unfortunately I am of no special benefit for the modders as my only experience with scripting was creating transition zone tags on scripts and clean up duty on a different game engine type in years past.

On another note, taking into account Stephen the Great (he was actually Sainted I believe by Byz Christians not too long ago) He is renowned as a great diplomat first and military leader second, he was injured seriously near the middle of reign ,IIRC) He based his military on a system where militia were to be prepared in a short time with sword, bow and arrows as well as a pair of spurs as the horse would be provided. His 40,000 strong force made ambushing possible and guerilla warfare possible in an unlikely period for that. That is exactly why the garrison scripts can be good for AI to have but some factions should be more capable to mobilize than others in historical sense,
Having stated that even with the cannon in wide use I don't think the besiegers wished to knock the hell out of the places they wished to annex. Take a modern case of Sarajevo, with the holdouts knowing they would be slaughtered if they capitulated the constant rocket and mortar/Howitzer fire became a daily norm of their lives. This is why I support a general's attributes and the current state of war to factor in. A high chiv. general might be able to get settlements under terms more easily than the high dread/+siege trait gen. who would be better at an activated siege. It could go different ways but is interesting to discuss.

From a historical researchers book of which I cannot recall name of Englishmen King Richard III made his Lion Heart reputation in the first chapter of his crusade, afterward many terms were agreed upon by he and "Saladin" and Saladin's brother lived at Richards court for a 6 month period. Richard had a scheme to marry off one of his sisters to "Saladin's" Brother but Saladin decided his vassals would reject this fiercely. Richards diplomacy and reputation was the real strength rather than constant slaughter of the enemy. Without his diplomatic skill and personal charisma Richard III wouldn't have been nearly as successful as he was...success such as it was.

Might not be able to reflect such in game engine but I like to role play some of these things when possible.

Added note I am all for balista towers being able to shoot ladders, I have collapsed towers at my walls in past but have yet to have the men flying to the ground from destroying their ladders

[Jurand of Cracow]

I would go for decreasing the time to build the siege equipment.
It seems to be the easiest way to get what you want -> a decrease in siege time.
Though I fear I'd not know where to alter the default value for the amount of construction points.

Aneirin, but what is your thinking about sieges in your mod? The major breakthrough of the Italian Wars was the use of cannons to take down those impregnable fortresses of the north Italy. The novelty was: with the short time of taking fortresses a campaign conquering quite much of territory became feasible (while before, in 15th c. it was very difficult military-wise, diplomacy and intrigue played larger role). Actually, I'm thinking about INcreasing siege times in the SSHIP (for the player, AI has it's own problems) to make it more historical.

So you could have thought about this - how to make this distinction?

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...adder-or-tower
as i thought

Thanks, Dekharts. That's sad - I conclude we cannot do anything with the problem: costs (points) for siege equipment are hardcoded, army "production" of the siege points is also hardcoded, so we cannot change it in any way...

[Lifthrasir]

Not sure it can be done but can this be linked to an ancillary such has siege engineer?

[Dekhatres]

Not sure it can be done but can this be linked to an ancillary such has siege engineer?

even if it was somehow possible to reduce build points be it through traits or ancillaries, all you have to do to avoid this is basically siege without a general, or not ? you'd have to rely on player not to abuse this

[Lifthrasir]

My idea would be to allow armies using siege engines only with generals having that ancillary. Otherwise, you only can use ladders and ram, at least before gunpowder happens.

[Dekhatres]

I don't think the besiegers wished to knock the hell out of the places they wished to annex.

Added note I am all for balista towers being able to shoot ladders, I have collapsed towers at my walls in past but have yet to have the men flying to the ground from destroying their ladders

but then you have this guy XD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwolf

you can just copy the ballista towers numbers i gave into your descr_projectile.txt and see for yourself, it doesnt always happen tho, on some maps it happens more often than on others, select scottish glen map and choose castle then give lots of ladders to enemy

[Aneirin]

Aneirin, but what is your thinking about sieges in your mod? The major breakthrough of the Italian Wars was the use of cannons to take down those impregnable fortresses of the north Italy. The novelty was: with the short time of taking fortresses a campaign conquering quite much of territory became feasible (while before, in 15th c. it was very difficult military-wise, diplomacy and intrigue played larger role). Actually, I'm thinking about INcreasing siege times in the SSHIP (for the player, AI has it's own problems) to make it more historical.

So you could have thought about this - how to make this distinction?

You already mentioned the major impact during the Italian Wars. Cannons. Making medieval fortresses and fortifications quite useless.
Though the problem was still that the cannons had no normed ammunition, also a huge problem was to maintain a trained crew.
Since they were mostly massacred if captured by the enemy. Due their impact on breaking the walls in siege battles.

To your questions. Yes, I have thought about it and the control of cities in TIW changes definitely more rapidly due cannon usage in sieges.
Nevertheless, the drawback of cannons is of course their lack of speed and mobility.
So as a result, the armies of my mod move much slower than normally, but once they reached their destination, there is no holding back.
To put the lack of personal into account, the training time and replenishment rates of artillery are increased. As well as their costs.

BTW. It seems to be possible, reducing the construction points for siege engines. According to this fellow here.

[Lifthrasir]

but then you have this guy XD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwolf

That's basically my point. It is actually inaccurate (but I might be wrong) to have this kind of siege engine able to move. Once mounted, they weren't supposed to move. Also, to mount and dismount them, at least 1 siege engineer or master carpenter (as called in the wiki article) was required.
See also the logistique for that war wolf: 30 wagons when dismounted. That's quite a lot even if not corresponding to "classic" trebuchet.
To be accurate in game, trebuchets and mangomels shouldn't be allowed to move once deployed on battle map.

That's also a shame that a settlement with several walls has to be conquered in 1 attempt. There are many records of sieges during which the city was conquered but the fortress or castle in it took more time to surrender. Imagine a siege battle that can be fight in 2 turns instead 1 for fortresses and citadels. But I'm dreaming here

[Dekhatres]

BTW. It seems to be possible, reducing the construction points for siege engines. According to this fellow here.

My idea would be to allow armies using siege engines only with generals having that ancillary. Otherwise, you only can use ladders and ram, at least before gunpowder happens.

how exactly are you gona do that ? is that even possible ?

[Jurand of Cracow]

You already mentioned the major impact during the Italian Wars. Cannons. Making medieval fortresses and fortifications quite useless..

Ok, but what about armies which didn't bring cannons? How does it look like in DIK - every army has a cannon?
Actually, I think this new info that you can diminish siege points through the traits is even more important for DIK thank for SSHIP. You basically can forbid taking settlements without cannons, provided every army goes with a general. How often do you see armies without a general in DIK?

[Jurand of Cracow]

even if it was somehow possible to reduce build points be it through traits or ancillaries, all you have to do to avoid this is basically siege without a general, or not ? you'd have to rely on player not to abuse this

My idea would be to allow armies using siege engines only with generals having that ancillary. Otherwise, you only can use ladders and ram, at least before gunpowder happens.

You mean siege engines as 1) those recruited and brought with an army (trebuchets, cannons) or 2) towers (produced automatically during sieges)
I don't think it's possible to discriminate in either way. I think it's possible to switch off towers or relate possiblity of producing them to the type of walls (or maybe it's hardcoded? I don't know these things). But I don't think it's possible to make a trait of a general depending on the composition of his army. But I might be wrong.

However, I see another solution, providing slightly different outcomes, but still convincing to my taste.
So: after having played SS6.4 – BGRIV_E and BGR_V I have a home rule: no unit outside of settlement without a general. Byg in his BGR lowered the loyalty thresholds in such a way that such a units / an army would rebel instantly. So I got accustomed to it and I never send a unit alone. Even for transfer of the units - in BGR I used to build forts, but in SSHIP they're disabled, so I have generals who shepherd units from the castles to the armies at the frontier.
Actually, this is a solution used in R2TW and ATW - units are always attached to a general. (Not a bad solution, but combined with other features produces strange outcomes.)

So the solution would be:
- lower the thresholds for an army to desert to achieve the results of BGR: no army without a general
- provide every general with basic a trait „Minus X Engineering Points”
- provide different traits with „Plus Y Engineering Points”
(X, Y – depending on closer examination of mechanics and balancing, I’m quite interested how does it work actually, what are the thresholds etc.)

The result would be – either you send a general able to siege or you an army with a trebuchet/cannon (actually, this should also been thought over, it’s why I’m harrasing Aneirin ;-).
It’d be only for the player, not for the AI.

---- edit -----
Further info from the experience of other modders (here and here) provides the following info:
- one unit adds 15 building points (a general's might more, no info about partial units) - it means a full stack ca. 300
- there's a script disabling sieges for player's armies without a general
(pro memoria: a ram is worth 50, a tower 65, a ladder 15)
------------

The question remains what do to with the Spies – Alavaria already pointed that it’s easy to open the gates. I don’t know mechanisc of the agents, so I don’t know if it’s possible.

Additionally, we should think how the auto-resolve works. Because the player may be tempted just to autoresolve even if his general is not able to take a settlement.

Any other doubts? (I hope the always ingenious Alavaria will provide some ;-)

Besides - can experienced players describe how do they assess the effectiveness of the sieges only with brought siege weapons (trebuchets, cannons)? I don't have much of this experience since I played early eras in rather undevelopped parts of the world and it was more effective to have just rams, ladders and towers.

[faramirofgondor2]

I can see what you're trying to do and that can work if the human player is the attacker. When the AI is the attacker, I'm not that sure that it will work fine.

In most of my games, to not say all of them, each time I've been besieged with the AI using ladders, I could break that attack very easily just with a descent unit (not necessary an elite one). Why? Just because only a few guys climbing the ladders could fight my entire unit on the wall. That's quite easy to kill less than 10 men with more than 100 in that configuration. If you slow that down, the AI has no chance by using ladders. And people will reply: "AI is gathering his units on the gate once breached". True but if you managed to get it stuck at the gate by stronger defense (like 6 units deployed on 2 lines, like a square with the gate being the 4th side), the only AI chance is to overtake you on the wall, assuming that at least one of its units has started fighting there. Gates become a lot more difficult to defend if you're attacked by 2 sides (1 from inside and 1 from outside). Note that in that case, most of the AI units are under the gate and that's when it becomes too disadvantageous if you increase the boiling oil because even if not entirely killed, AI's units will panic quite quickly.

can't you just make it so the ai rarely builds ladders?

[Aneirin]

Ok, but what about armies which didn't bring cannons? How does it look like in DIK - every army has a cannon?
Actually, I think this new info that you can diminish siege points through the traits is even more important for DIK thank for SSHIP. You basically can forbid taking settlements without cannons, provided every army goes with a general. How often do you see armies without a general in DIK?

You got me there
I haven't looked very carefully into Renaissance siege warfare. I simply considered it not important point on my modding agenda. Besides I haven't known yet, that it is possible to alter the siege points.
I fear completely forbidding it, would be too much.

[Jurand of Cracow]

A framework for a new siege system in SSHIP (to be included in my GTCS submod).

General assumptions:

• Within the M2TW system it’s not possible to fully reflect the historical realities, but we should do what is possible to be less a-historical.
• In the context of the current state of the SSHIP it would mean:
  
  • sieges take longer times unless there’s a right army and a right general. It should be done by providing the player with incentives to siege for a few turns, or introducing limitations preventing the player from attacking right on the second turn.
  • the besieging armies are required to have serious numerical advantage compared to the defender. Given the M2TW limitations, they should be required to be simply large.
  • generals’ abilities are essential for successful sieges. It means some of the generals should be completely inept for sieging and a players should feel it, while some should be siege-geniouses what should also you be palpable not just through a description, but through gameplay-meaningful benefits. The player should care to look beforehand through the traits of his generals and decide who should lead a siege on the basis of these traits.
  
  
• Modifications of the traits:
  
  • Introduction of the negative siege points for all generals ("start package" given at CoA, adoption, marriage, recruitment) – this would require them to bring large armies to compensate.
  • Simplification of the system (only few traits would give siege points) so that the player can easily and quickly learn if a general is good at sieging or not (i.e. looking at just a few traits, not dozens).
  • Differentiation and balance of the siege points in the other traits (mainly getting rid of).
  • The main factors influencing ability of a general to siege (ie. triggers for changing the number of siege points) will be: siege experience, war experience, intelligence and other personality traits, spending time getting to know siege machines, spending time in settlement with knowledge establishments.
  • Additional siege points will come from education and a few ancillaries.
  
  
• Possibility to siege a settlement without a general will be disabled through script (or maybe through loyalty system as well)
• Autoresolve: limits that prevent starting a siege will do part of the job, but SiegeAttack will also be dealt with.
• Siege units (trebuchets, mangonels): I won’t mess with them in this modification, but at some point somebody may review their availability (eg. what kind of units should be available at SiegeWorks at what time in history; what replenishment rates are right for the gameplay etc.). The goal would be to assess how do they enable avoiding limitations introduced in this mod.
• Spies: no changes for now, but to be seen from the experience of the players if they wouldn’t enable abuse of the system.
• Battle mechanics of the sieges – I don’t deal with it here, due to my ignorance on that part. I’m leaving it to the other modders. (However, personally I like the idea of restricting the number of the walls which can be assaulted (but my system already alleviates the problem: there'll be little equipment anyway), while I don’t like any increase of the boiling oil).
• The changes concern only the player – AI is un-affected since it doesn’t know the limitations.

Pro memoria:

• Remember not to confuse: points of the traits, levels of the traits, siege points.
• A ram costs 50 siege points, a tower 65, a ladder 15. You need at least 15 points to start a siege (including autoresolve).
• One unit adds 15 siege points (it has to be a full unit, otherwise it provides only a part of the point, perhaps proprotionally to the depletion of the unit) - it means a full stack is worth 300 siege points.
• For autoresolve the SiegeAttack attribute is important.

Current situation (traits)

• Two traits directly related to sieges are: GoodEngineer and BadEngineer
• Military Education provides siege points as also some provincial titles, a few ancillaries, some special traits (like Byzantine offices).

The new system

• GoodEngineer and BadEngineer:
  
  • Will be fused into one trait: SiegeGeneral (SG).
  • This will be the most important trait for a player. It should be checked before any expedition for a siege – if the general is able to do the job.
  • It will have many levels (proposal below, please comment about the names) and fluctuate throughout life.
  
  
• Who would be effective at sieges (ie. which conditions will be used in the SG triggers):
  
  • Militarily inclinded will have better starting level than administratively inclined. Later on it will be also easier for them to develop the trait.
  • At CoA/marriage/adoption/recruitment: impact of intelligence, energy, father’s command stars, etc.
  • Siege experience (both defence and offence), especially winning sieges.
  • War experience (battles).
  • Spending time getting to learn how siege machines work (ie living in settlments with SiegeWorks – a side benefit for the gameplay would be making these buildings more useful for the player so he has bigger incentive to build them).
  • Spending time in settlement with some knowledge establishments (universities, swordsmen guild, castle library).
  • Visiting higher level castles.
  • Differences between cultures/factions: in plus (Italian, Byzantine, KoJ) or in minus (Cumans, Lithuanians, Polish) – all to be discussed and decided. However, the direct boni in the Byzantine Career and Greek blood traits will be removed.
  • Personality traits: Energetic/Slothful, Intelligent/Stupid, Drink, Brave/Coward, Ignorant, Insane, Mathematical Skill (but direct bonus from this one removed).
  • Living a simple life of a governor while doing nothing – effectively a “normalization” trigger: every turn there'll be a chance of getting a point / losing a point to move towards the average value.
  • Losing mental and health abilities: the obvious impact of the BeyondBattle and Senile traits.
  
  
• Cohesive personality:
  
  • I’d like to avoid having a general who has Master Military Education or very high Command and, at the same time, is “Unable to Siege”. To achieve it I’ll introduce a kind of “normalization” mechanism: triggers which add points in SG trait if it has low values while having high military education or some other good traits (to be developed while coding).
  
  
• Additional siege points:
  
  • “Simplification rule”: it's ackward for the player if many different traits provide siege points. While playing, the player is forced to count laboriously the overall number of siege points a general provides. A better way is to make one trait displaying all the points but including in the EDCT many different triggers (from different situaions) for this trait to change.
  • In particulars education (Military and Administrative) will provide triggers for points for SiegeGeneral, but current bonuses will be removed.
  • only ancillaries will add separate points (60, equivalent of 4 units): Brilliant Inventor, Military Engineer, Ordinance Master, Siege Engineer. I'll explore differences between them later. In general, they'll be non-transferable.
  • offices – Lord Marshall (60 points), perhaps special offices for some cultures (for Byzantines, maybe Palatine for Hungary etc.) - they will provide the player with possibility to buff up siege abilities of a particular general. It'd a good idea to import War Generals from BGR, but it'd to be done by somebody else.
  • Provincial titles – they should be thought over and adjusted, but a few will provide those 60 pts. This would be really rare though.
  
  

SiegeGeneral trait: levels, names, thresholds, effects, (effective number of units to start a siege)

X: Poliorketes --- 30 pts, effect: -30 siege pts. (min. 3 units)
IX: Siege_Master --- 27 pts, effect: -60 siege pts. (min. 5 units)
VIII: Exceptional_Sieger --- 24 pts, effect: -90 p siege pts. (min. 7 units)
VII: Very_Good_Sieger --- 21 pts, effect: -120 siege pts. (min. 9 units)
VI: Good_Sieger --- 18 pts, effect: -150 siege pts. (min. 11 units)
V: Average_Sieger --- 15 pts, effect: -180 siege pts. (min. 13 units)x
IV: Poor_Sieger --- 12 pts, effect: -210 siege pts. (min. 15 units) – initial level for Militarily Minded
III: Very_Poor_Sieger --- 9 pts, effect: -240 siege pts. (min. 17 units) – initial level for Admininistratively Minded
II: Abhors_Sieges --- 6 pts, effect: -270 siege pts. (min. 19 units)
I: Unable_to_Siege --- 3 pts, effect: -300 siege pts. (min. 21 units)

Notes:
- SiegeAttack changes (from -3 to +3) will be assigined for levels I,II,III and VIII, IX, X.
- actually I'm not sure if to use word "Sieger" or "Besieger"


The effects of the system

• Longer sieges. An average general with even large army produces low number of siege points every turn. It means only accumulation over a few turns will allow him to undertake an assault. Even when he does, the amount of equipment available for player will also be lower, preventing a storm from multiple directions. It means the player is more likely to engage in longer sieges and then it's more difficult to take the walls.
• Less cases of “opportunistic” attacks on the settlements (when a player spots weakly defended AI settlement while having a half-stack in vicinity).
• Siege conducted only by educated and experienced generals with high levels of SG and possibly with some anciallaries or offices. Young generals will not be sent for sieges.
• Bad generals less useful overall (if he drinks and is stupid, he's likely to be a bad SG, what makes him useless at sieges)
• Player has to plan beforehand whom to send for a siege. It means that role-playing is more related to rational decisions, not only to role-playing.
• Education counts even more (with my EoG submod).
• Factions having no access to higher-tire settlements (no higher education, no opportunities to spend time with siege works or in the castles) will find it more difficult to storm walls (historically walls for nomads or less developed factions presented formidable obstacles.)

------------------

I invite fellow players and modders to comment on this system before I start implementing them into the code of the EDCT.

------------------

In-game descriptions for SiegeGeneral

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

{SiegeGeneral1_desc} This man is unable to raise a siege. If he would be tasked to do it, he must be accompanied by a full-stack army and at least one competent ancillary.
{SiegeGeneral1_effects_desc}Minimum army to raise a siege: more than 20 units (-300 siege points). Command while storming walls -3
{SiegeGeneral1} Unable to Siege

{SiegeGeneral2_desc} This man neither like nor is able to perform a proper siege and should not be be sent for such a mission. In any case, such an enterprise is likely to last long. For raising a siege he must lead an army of a minimum 19 units, lower if accompanied by competent ancillaries.
{SiegeGeneral2_effects_desc}Minimum army to raise a siege: 19 units (-270 siege points). Command while storming walls -2
{SiegeGeneral2} Abhors Sieges

{SiegeGeneral3_desc} This man should not be tasked with a siege of a settlement unless there’s no other option. Such a siege is likely to last long, with troops much un-motivated. For raising that siege he must lead an army of a minimum 17 units, lower if accompanied by competent ancillaries.
{SiegeGeneral3_effects_desc}Minimum army to raise a siege: 17 units (-240 siege points). Command while storming walls -1
{SiegeGeneral3} Very Poor Sieger

{SiegeGeneral4_desc} This man can be tasked with a siege only if there’s a pressing need. Such a siege is likely to last long. For raising a siege he must lead an army of a minimum 15 units, lower if accompanied by competent ancillaries.
{SiegeGeneral4_effects_desc}Minimum army to raise a siege: 15 units (-210 siege points)
{SiegeGeneral4} Poor Sieger

{SiegeGeneral5_desc} This man can be tasked with sieging a settlement, if there’s no better general around. For raising a siege he must lead an army of a minimum 13 units, lower if accompanied by competent ancillaries.
{SiegeGeneral5_effects_desc}Minimum army to raise a siege: 13 units (-180 siege points).
{SiegeGeneral5} Average Sieger

{SiegeGeneral6_desc} This man performs somehow at sieging. For rasing a siege he must lead an army of a minimum 11 units, lower if accompanied by competent ancillaries.
{SiegeGeneral6_effects_desc}Minimum army to raise a siege: 11 units (-150 siege points).
{SiegeGeneral6} Good Sieger

{SiegeGeneral7_desc} This man performs well at sieging. For raising a siege he must lead an army of a minimum 9 units, lower if accompanied by competent ancillaries.
{SiegeGeneral7_effects_desc}Minimum army to raise a siege: 9 units (-120 siege points)
{SiegeGeneral7} Very Good Sieger

{SiegeGeneral8_desc} This man is an expert in getting the most out of his siege army. For raising a siege he must lead an army of a minimum 7 units, lower if accompanied by competent ancillaries.
{SiegeGeneral8_effects_desc}Minimum army to raise a siege: 7 units (-90 siege points). Command while storming walls +1
{SiegeGeneral8} Exceptional Sieger

{SiegeGeneral9_desc} This man excels at taking enemy settlements. For setting up a siege he must lead an army of a minimum 5 units, lower if accompanied by competent ancillaries.
{SiegeGeneral9_effects_desc}Minimum army to raise a siege: 5 units (-60 siege points). Command while storming walls +2
{SiegeGeneral9}Siege Master

{SiegeGeneral10_desc} This man is a siege genious, an expert at ensuring he can get absolutely most out of his siege army. For setting up a siege he must lead an army of a minimum 3 units, lower if accompanied by competent ancillaries.
{SiegeGeneral10_effects_desc}Minimum army to raise a siege: 3 units (-30 siege points). Command while storming walls +3
{SiegeGeneral10_epithet_desc}the Siege Genious
{SiegeGeneral10_gain_desc}This man now has matchless expertise in siege warfare.
{SiegeGeneral10} Poliorketes

[j.a.luna]

Ave Jurand! You are a f....machine! I am happy because you continue improve sship mod!

[j.a.luna]

In my opinion Jurand i agree with you,also i like the idea to increase or decrease the levels of SG depends of factions, for example better sieges trait for romans, italians,KoJ, egyptians?... and minor for nomads factions and ''barbarian factions'' how lithuanians,cumans,nordics,scotland... so for mongols i think that they should be expert sieges due to chinese knowledge learned in China and other engineers...
Also i would like the idea of Dekartres about increase the fire rate, angle of ballista towers for make almost impregnables settlements with this towers like constantinople,bagdad, other citadels...
Also, i dont know if is possible, make that if you siege for many turns a settlement you should pay more for maintain your troopS(food,supplies..) you know that when an army sieged a settlment in middle age they need a lot of supplies, so this will do that players dont siege for a lot of turns for obtain the settlement for famine,is possible?
For example from turn 3 of siege you must pay 500x2 florins, after turn 4 500x2.5 florins..etc or maybe make that the army that siege a settlement also can reduce the army for deseases or hungry how army into settlement
What is your opinion?
Bit a bit we can improve this

[Dekhatres]

@Jurand nice work well done

about spies maybe disable them ? or is that too much ?

[j.a.luna]

@Jurand nice work well done

about spies maybe disable them ? or is that too much ?

why disable?is logic that in middle age there were betrayals and infiltrates in the troops of the besieged ones so is possible open the gates due to enemy spies, but maybe could make more difficult to open, so only spies with high levels and trait can be succesful or high percentage to open it,also increase the turns that must stay a spy in a settlement for open the gates simulating gaining the confidence and becoming one of the enemies, maybe a minimum of 3 turns for open the gates...

[Dekhatres]

why disable?

because it makes Jurand's siege system pointless

but maybe could make more difficult to open, so only spies with high levels and trait can be succesful or high percentage to open it,also increase the turns that must stay a spy in a settlement for open the gates simulating gaining the confidence and becoming one of the enemies, maybe a minimum of 3 turns for open the gates...

if any of that was actually possible i wouldnt be suggesting to disable them, which seems like the only solution

[Jurand of Cracow]

I'm not so nervous about spies for a few reasons:
1) Battle losses - with only gates open the attacker is likely to suffer big losss in the settlements with stone walls. It's why I almost never use gates to take a settlement: it causes too high loses from the boiling oil and is not worth attacking instantly if you can do a proper storm with ladders and towers the following turn. With the wooden walls it's different - but in these cases I'm not so desperate to make sieges long in my submod since shorter sieges seem historical to me. This will also differentiate gameplay in the various parts of Europe. In the north or north-east sieges will be less frequent and faster. In the well-developed center or south (including the Muslim world, it was well developed at that time compared to the catholic world) there're walled cities and castles which translate into long sieges. I find it historical.
2) Opening gates by a spy is not certain. You can learn if they succeeded only when starting a siege. So you'd rather not send a bad general with a half-stack just to face gates closed and you unable to siege.
3) Historically many cities were taken due to betrayal, I think. Spies actually simulate this effect.
4) I recall that the SSHIP has already made spies less effective.

@j.a.luna
I think I've seen in another mod that "confidence gaining" effect, but I think it's not present in SSHIP. It may be a good solution, but I don't think it should be a priority for modding.
I recall there's additional charge for sieging (or isn't it in SSHIP?), but making it exponential is not neither so realistic, nor should be priority.
Mongols are irrelevant since the system is only for the player.