Originally Posted by
Abdülmecid I
Siege escalation is a historically inaccurate mechanic, for the simple reason that the defenders were never passive observers of the siege. If the walls had been damaged, then soldiers and civilians usually tried to repair them as soon as possible, before their eventual collapse. If a breach in the walls was achieved, then the besieged were usually doomed and would surrender to the attackers after (or even without) a brief fight. Unless there was a citadel for a possible last stand, but there is no such option for any TW game since Medieval II. Huge holes randomly dispersed across the wall are not convincing enough to generate an immersive experience, in my opinion. Sapping is an acceptable excuse, but that feature was much better (albeit not flawlessly) implemented in Rome I, where the player could directly order the undermining of the walls and could also enjoy their gradual crumbling. The rapidity of the process was obviously unrealistic, but not in the level of Attila's awkward compromise. I understand CA's motivation behind this decision, but for once, I would appreciate it if a professional company, whose products the consumers pay rather dearly, would figure out a more sophisticated solution to the problem, instead of resorting to artificial limitations.
In what concerns the peoples with zero access to siege trains, I agree that the only possibility should be starvation. Each faction should have its own weaknesses and advantages and, to be honest, I don't see why siege warfare should be an exception. Later on the campaign, if the Vandals, for example, settle in some urbanized provinces and choose to recruit locals in their armies, then they should also have the option to build siege engines or use sapping, because Total War games are first and foremost a sandbox experience. That being said, I get that anyone has his personal preferences, but siege escalation is not my biggest concern. On the contrary, I believe that the priority should be the campaign map and the various issues that make the task of creating a formidable empire, from administration and dynastic politics to infrastructure and military reform, feel like a boring and painful chore. Without an enjoyable empire-building in the background, battles are nothing but an empty shell, less important than "custom battles". Unfortunately, the campaign map is where Rome II and Attila suffer the most and why they are still considered so controversial by CA's loyal fandom.