Too many siege battles?

[Aaron A Aardvark]

Does anyone else find themselves constantly fighting siege battles? A 5:1 ration at least with open terrain. Attcking or defending, they're all pretty much the same, whereas all field battles are different.

Anyway, I roam around looking for a fight although I know it's harder that way.

[Kraggenmor]

I do not disagree. I seem to spend the bulk of my time trying to lay a seige or defend one and rarely have battles afield.

[rory_20_uk]

The next province is what? 2 goes move away. So, unless you decide to fight the army for some reason, going and taking the province is the most sensible thing to do. Personally I'm looking forward to a mod that increases the size of the map so that fights might occur out of cities... And fix the traits, rebalance the units, fix the bugs... Basically the usual

[dismal]

I also fight almost entirely siege battles, it seems.

There isn't typically much point in fighting other than in cities. AI field armies can often just be ignored with minimal consequences. On offense, I'll sometimes march right past a full stack army to take a city with 4 or 5 units in it. Sometimes I find myself 3-4 cities deep into the AI's empire while it figures out what to do with its stack it had milling around the border.

I think this is a problem only in that the AI is not really very good at sieges, and not very good at concentrating its force where it needs to.

Overall, though, I think the AI has improved on both offensive and defensive sieges from RTW.

[katank]

It's the equivalent of island hopping for the US force during latter stages of WW2. Just smash their settlements and then their field armies turn rebel. On a speedy blitz with spies and all cav armies, you can often wipe out a faction in a few turns. If you don't mind the trade impact, you can just let the rebels sit for a while before taking em out.

[dismal]

Yep, ignore those field stacks long enough and you can turn them rebel before ever figthing them.

If you have really moved the border back quickly, they seem to go into a form of cognitive dissonance. They're like "What are we doing three provinces behind enemy lines when our script tells us not to go past the border". They just seem to glumly walk about for a while before deciding to head back homeward.

My last campaign I caught the French AI's last family members in Paris and his whole empire went rebel -- though I suspect he outnumbered me in the area by 4 or 5 stacks to one. Not the AI's proudest moment. Though, to be fair, he seemed to have 6 or 7 inquisitors working him over

[RussianWinter]

Yes, far FAR too many siege battles. This is an aspect of the game where it isn't "broken" in a non-functioning sense but broken in a very poor gameplay decision sense.

I hate how an army can just waltz up, lay siege to a castle, and suddenly imprison the troops inside forcing a sally or trade cut. An army should at least catch word of the approaching forces and have the option for a field battle.

[Derfasciti]

Indeed they do seem to be mostly seige battles. It sucks but meh.

[dismal]

Yes, far FAR too many siege battles. This is an aspect of the game where it isn't "broken" in a non-functioning sense but broken in a very poor gameplay decision sense.

I hate how an army can just waltz up, lay siege to a castle, and suddenly imprison the troops inside forcing a sally or trade cut. An army should at least catch word of the approaching forces and have the option for a field battle.

A defender should want to fight from behind the walls.

I certainly do when on defense.

The problem, I think, is that the game does not give me any incentive to try and catch the defenders in the open, which I should strongly prefer to fighting them while they're behind their walls -- but don't. Because the AI is not particularly good behind walls, and/or tends to underman its garrisons.

I think if it were two halfway decent human players playing each other, outright siege assaults would be costly and significantly more rare. The human would ensure a challenging garrison (which the AI can fail to do even when it has troops in the area) and take full advantage of the many bonuses the siege defender has available.

[Zenicetus]

I remember this being a common complaint with RTW also. The AI isn't very reactive when you cross a border, even with an army that's obviously ready to siege their settlements.

I wonder if part of the problem is that the AI just doesn't know you're there? I usually end up building far more watchtowers on my borders than the AI does, and their spies don't hang around as lookouts. They tend to go straight into cities to cause unrest. So maybe you're just in the enemy's blind spot for much of the time, and that's why you don't get many defensive moves that would lead to more field battles?

I'm assuming, of course, that the strategic AI is also constrained by fog of war like the player. If not, and it sees everything all the time, then it just comes down to passive or dim-witted AI.

If the AI is constrained by FOW, then it would be interesting to see if there's a way to switch that off and give it a God's Eye View of the battlefield, to find out if it would be more aggressive in reacting to invasions.

Ultimately though, since the game is based on territorial expansion, the only way to reduce the number of sieges is to reduce the number of castles and cities in the game. That would require drastically ramping up the economic and military production of the remaining settlements to compensate, otherwise you'd have smaller armies too. And it would mean fewer individual provinces (assuming a one-settlement-per-province design like the current game). I don't think it would work; it reduces the strategic options when you have fewer provinces to work with, on both offense and defense.

[Durallan]

I seriously doubt the AI is restricted by fow, cause that would be hard to script let alone to get the ai to recognise.

Also, if you don't spot the enemies forces marching on your cities and you don't organise enough force to combat them in time, thats hardly a game bug or the computer AI's fault.

I fight plenty of open field battles, probably just as many if not more open field battles than how many sieges I've done.

[Zenicetus]

I seriously doubt the AI is restricted by fow, cause that would be hard to script let alone to get the ai to recognise.

Not necessarily. The AI factions in GalCiv2 are restricted by FOW on the map, so at least one other developer has done it. I just can't tell if it works that way in M2TW, due to the erratic behavior of the AI even when they do have units or settlements where you're in clear visual range.

[Forward Observer]

It's funny, but in the first medievalTW, people constantly complained that there were not enough sieges or at least not any real reason to conduct them. The A.I hardly ever attacked if they had you besieged and because so many of enemy strongholds would fall in less than 2 or 3 turns, there just seemed to be no reason to take the time to stage an assault.

Now, with almost every stronghold being able to hold out for 7 or 8 turns one is pretty much faced with assaulting if they want to really progress in the game.

As I was writing this it just occurred to me that since 8 turns equals 16 years in the default setting, being able to hold out that long is a bit unrealistic unless maybe your stronghold is Constantinople.

From a historical standpoint the big famous field battles of the middle ages probably seem to dominate the written history, but due to the feudal system and the proliferation of castles and strongholds built by nobles to protect their domains, sieges were far more common in the period than field battles, so in this light Medieval 2 may just be more historically accurate.

Personally, I like to conduct sieges since this gives me more chances to play effectively with the various siege engines in the game.

I hope you know of course that if besieged you can turn the battle into a pure field battle by simply attacking the besieger with a second outside force. I doesn't matter if it is only one unit. Your castle forces will now come on to the open field as your supporting army and/or reserves.

Likewise if you have the enemy besieged and the A.I. moves forces into your besieger's immediate combat area, you may turn to attack the relief force. You will get a field battle, but the castle forces will become their reserve army. This has only happened to me once or twice, but what I got was a pure field battle, and after I won I was suddenly in command of the former enemy stronghold.

Cheers

[econ21]

I agree with Forward Observer that it is certainly historical to have a high ratio of siege battles.

I thought sieges were too common in RTW (even more in RTR): it was a major bugbear (and led to my using the MetroNaval mod in our RTR PBM to get rid of most settlement walls).

However, I have not minded it in M2TW. I think it is partly because I have tended to avoid actually assaulting a settlement - I prefer to starve it out, as these costs me no lives or at least ends up with a turkey shooting defense against a sally. Ironically, that passivity of mine may increase the challenge of the game, as it gives the AI more time to build up elsewhere and the Pope more time to stop me ever "rushing". I seem to be expanding much more slowly that many other vets here, and also encountering more challenge.

In my English campaigns, I would put the ratio of field battles to sieges at around 4:1, with the siege assaults I do prosecute usually being rather trivial RTW type affairs against a few defenders. I've probably suffered more as the victim of AI siege assaults than I've victimised the AI with them.

The other reason I don't mind the sieges is that, as Forward Observer says, M2TW siege battles are rather fun - unlike those rather gruesome RTW affairs against wooden stockades. After watching the AI rather nicely demolish my settlement defenses with artillery, I am now starting to learn from it and bring my own. I'm still a novice, though - I'm just bringing up my trebuchets to see the flying cows and haven't even started on gunpowder artillery yet.

[Ars Moriendi]

AI field armies can often just be ignored with minimal consequences. On offense, I'll sometimes march right past a full stack army to take a city with 4 or 5 units in it. Sometimes I find myself 3-4 cities deep into the AI's empire while it figures out what to do with its stack it had milling around the border.

Armies area of control (the red zone you can't cross) should be increased. This way they will be really guarding the borders and controlling teritory, as you'll have a harder time bypassing them to hit the cities. Right now they can only halt your advance when placed at chokepoints, and are only able to do that because of the map being made of unrealistically many impassable areas.
If this can be done it will decrease the number of sieges in favour of field battles, and if well-balanced we'll have enough of both to please everyone.

Additional ideas :
- area of control should be proportional to unused movement points (eg. if a stack moves 50% of its max distance, then its aoc drops by half)
- no rebel spawn in area of control
- automatic capture after defeat if movement points not enough to get out of winner's aoc

Anyone knows if this can be modded in ?

[Aaron A Aardvark]

At the moment you only loose cash when you're besieged but if your population started starving to death and your cavalry were eating their horses there'd be an incentive to come out and fight, or send an army to lift the siege. This wouldn't be too unrealistic and would rsult in more field battles.

I just think sieges are boring - last night I captured seven cities in one turn - all virtual walk overs as my spies had opened the gates.

[dopp]

You should also check and see if you are using mods like Ultimate AI where all land movement is doubled. Invading stacks on double movement can hop from one city to the next without ever being caught in the field.

[dismal]

I hope you know of course that if besieged you can turn the battle into a pure field battle by simply attacking the besieger with a second outside force. I doesn't matter if it is only one unit. Your castle forces will now come on to the open field as your supporting army and/or reserves.

Likewise if you have the enemy besieged and the A.I. moves forces into your besieger's immediate combat area, you may turn to attack the relief force. You will get a field battle, but the castle forces will become their reserve army.

Obviously, if one wanted to, one could fight mostly field battles.

The point here is, I think, that the game does not reward it. The game rewards going straight for the cities. Particularly because the AI has a tendency to underdefend cities, and under react to an offensive force heading into its soft underbelly.

[seneschal.the]

I rarely fight battles in the field in M2TW. The reasons are many, but most of the map has areas where cities are always within 1-2 turn. Why bother with troops in the field when you can just take the city? It's not like the AI can do anything about it, since the siege AI is a complete joke. With some artillery in the army there isn't even any need to spend a turn building rams and ladders, just blitzkrieg ahead.

Why fight enemy armies in the field? If they are in your territory, they cut some income and causes devastation. This is of course trivial concerns; while they make you earn a few 100 GP less each turn you take their cities and castles.

Dismal said it best, the game does not reward field battles. There is no point to fight in the field when every siege is almost an insta-win for the human, regardless of defending or attacking. Why waste troops killing the enemy in the field when you can attack his, almost always, very weakly defended cities?

[clairvaux]

It didn't used to be this way in MTW.

[PureFodder]

It's unfortunate that most of the battle AI improvements were for battles in open terrain not seiges as this is where it would probably make the most difference. When you sally forth the AI tries to sit out of archery range, but a unit of archers sat on the little bit of raised wall above the gateway will almost always be in range (if they have long range fire at least). Although the computer does seem to be approximately a million times better at destroying siege equiptment with flaming arrows than I am. Even without archers I seem to loose 2-3 rams/towers in an attack.

As the Moors and now as Hungary I prefer to fight the computer in the open field where missile cavalry is at its most useful. Ambushes and Bridge fights are also fairly easy to draw the computer into and are great fun too.

[Kraggenmor]

Although the computer does seem to be approximately a million times better at destroying siege equiptment with flaming arrows than I am. Even without archers I seem to loose 2-3 rams/towers in an attack.

Before last night I'd never successfully destroyed a ram, but I found something last night that was a dsicovery - for me at least - while defending a seige:

The enemy had two units of dismounted Fuedal Knights, one group had ladders, the others a ram.

I had 19 archers, 48 peas. crossbows, 38 or so Almughvars (sp?), 40 odd spearmen and 16 Jinettes.

During the deployment I was setting troops on the walls and turning off 'fire at will'.

I wanted to select who was firing when myself and wanted to use the archers on the ram group.

Start the battle let them shove the thing closer I sellect the crossbow group and have them fire on the ram, then the archer group....which gets the red bow icon as if the ram group is out of range. Odd.

Pause. put my pointer on the group, green bow.

Then I start subtly moving the pointer and notice that I get a green bow when I place the pointer over the troops but a red bow over the ram!

The target information box that pops up on hovering over a unit looked the same to me whether the bow was green or red but, there was a specific spot where the pointer would be a green bow and one where it would be a red bow on what seems to be the same target.

Ok...set the archers to flaming arrows, and wait.

I unpaused the game and kept my red pointer moving with the ram til the bow turned green. As soon as it did, I right clicked to start firing.

Moments later their one and only ram was flaming heap!

I didn't fall under siege again last night and wasn't disposed to create a custom game for testing it but, it seems based on that experience that there may be separate targeting solutions for the ram as opposed to the troops pushing it.

[dismal]

It didn't used to be this way in MTW.

As was discussed much when RTW came out, the risk-style MTW map was surely significantly easier on the campaign map AI. There was no "going around" to strike a softer more valuable target. There was just massing on the border, and pounding through.

I don't think the AI is quite up to the porous borders, even yet.

But I think it was worse in RTW. The AI's ability to conduct sieges has improved dramatically, at least with artillery.

I don't remember the "under-garrisoning" problem being so bad in RTW, however. This would be a very important campaign map AI fix, I think.

[RussianWinter]

As was discussed much when RTW came out, the risk-style MTW map was surely significantly easier on the campaign map AI. There was no "going around" to strike a softer more valuable target. There was just massing on the border, and pounding through.

I don't think the AI is quite up to the porous borders, even yet.


Absolutely my same thoughts. I'm still waiting the days when CA realizes the current-style map was some damn fool idea and goes back to the MTW map, but somehow I doubt thats going to be soon.

[katank]

I personally love the new map. There's so much more options and maneuver. They just need to produce a better AI. Something that the AI should try when they find their armies stranded behind my lines is to take one of my cities there.

One problem that they often face is that despite the fact that they have a full stack 1 turn's march from an ill defended city of mine, they try to make it back to relieve their city which is 2 or 3 turns' march away. I assault as soon as I can. Thus, they turn rebel. Meanwhile, if they take my city that's near them, they would merely trade cities and avoid faction elimination. The problem is that such complex evaluation algorithms are unlikely to be implemented soon.

I've also found the fact that I can't target their ram directly and have to try to shoot their dudes. So there's a point at which you can target the ram? That's darn good to know.

[Cpa><Hitman]

you know surprisingly, i love siege battles, especially when i'm defending.. i wasn't always one for open terrian.. so i have no problems with it :D

[Silvio Dante]

If you play as a Muslim faction, there's a lot more field battles.

The problem is defintely the number of settlements in Catholic areas. France and Spain are particularly over-crowded. It's like playing those RTR mods where they packed in as many cities as they could, reducing the game to a boring siege fest.

[katank]

Field battles can be fun. If you don't feel like exploiting the AI, crush their field armies first before sieging their cities. Playing in the steppes, eastern europe, or North Africa etc. will also result in far more spaces in which to conduct field battles.

[manbaps]

Perhaps the answer to this is you should have the option to meet the army outside the gates of the city/castle; and if you retreat/rout you then go to a siege. A bit like how it was in MTW1. This way you could also be more tactical like softening up the troops before entering the castle. Though would CA ever implement this, never cus it might actually make the game more interesting.

[JCoyote]

The current map is superior, this is a strategy game after all and before this it significantly lacked in strategic level maneuvering. Now we can cut off support, hide armies, funnel into prepared positions...

Also, speaking on the castle issue, there is a divide and conquer trick you can pull there. Usually if they have a settlement with garrison and an army beside it, you can cut off the castle from supporting the outside force. Just send a single junk unit to siege the city, then move in your main force to attack their army outside the city. The AI did it to me every time with the Mongols. This gives you a unique opportunity... I can have a little more than half the forces the AI has in and next to a castle, but doing this I can march in and separately trash both forces with autocalc.

Anyway, also like that the new map system brings back the bridge battles, something I had missed from Shogun. In MTW, there wasn't any way to force a battle to be across a bridge. And really, bridges are better defensive points than castles.