Siege Bug (documented?)

[Red Harvest]

If any developers or beta testers are reading this, I hope that the Viking Invasions pack will fix the following bug in MTW:

You take over a province after a battle where only a few enemy units escape. The siege will take many turns because of the small remaining garrison. Later (usually the next turn because that is the AI's style) the AI tries to reclaim the besieged province in a big battle, but fails. Now the garrison is full or at least far larger than before...but every turn there are few if any casualties and the message is that the castle won't fall without a direct assault (or a very long time.) To make the garrison fall within your lifespan, you get stuck doing a very bloody assault.

This is obviously a bug since the developers intend the siege length to be determined by the number of defenders and type of castle. However, it doesn't seem to account for events like this. Perhaps the AI has smuggled Jesus into the castle and he is now multiplying the loaves and fishes...

Solution: 1. Change the siege calculation to be based on total rations each turn so that increasing the number of defenders through a failed attempt to lift the siege causes the castle to fall sooner. 2. However, don't allow a failed breakout to extend the siege because of fewer defenders, assume the lost defender's portion of the rations were lost as well (cost of attempting to break out.)

In other posts I've mentioned the "besieged province loyalty bug" where you can repetitively choose to assault the castle on your turn and thereby improve loyalty in the province that turn, then abandon the attack when the time comes without any fear of a revolt. This allows you to hold a province with far fewer troops than would otherwise be needed, but without conducting an actual assault. I consider this a cheat and don't use it (after playing with it a bit to understand it, LOL), but it is there.

[Asmodeus]

Yeah and they shouldnt be allowed to get in the castle either - the attacking army should return to it's province if the attempt to break the siege fails. If anything this should lower the defenders resolve when they see their rescue hopes dashed and food reserves low - it certainly shouldnt prolong the siege

[einar]

I'd like an improvement to castle sieges. You can avoid assault castles nearly ever. It's better waiting for the defenders starve to death. You can conquer the castle with the penalty of losing one castle-level and the penalty of the double cost of the sieging troops. In some occasions you've to assault the castle because if there are a very little number of defenders, they will never surrender. I like an improvement, so many years of siege that you've to assault the castles nearly every time...

[Foreign Devil]

I've taken to assaulting castles recently. If I don't have any seige engines handy, I'll use a unit or two of mercs to batter down the gate. Then, if needed, I can bring in one of my "core" units from out of arrow range to finish off whatever is inside.

This way, I get the castle intact and I suffer very few actual losses, just disband the mercs after I'm done with them.

Has anyone ever assaulted a fortress with all the defense upgrades? Hmm.... I think I have to go play some custom battles now. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[LadyAnn]

I found that assaulting anything that is beyond a castle (even castle with some walls) without some seige weapons, is quite hard. It eats up too much of my troops, and I don't like it (no valor upgrade when killed by arrows while assaulting the castle).

I found catapults and mangonels are readily available as mercenary.

On the side note, when assault castle gate using spear units, put them in engage-at-will. This speeds up the process. And don't chose rain, it will take much longer to take down the gate.

Annie

[LordKhaine]

I find attacking anything larger than a keep suicide. Since you cannot use re-enforcements in a siege, its often impossible to really outnumber your enemy. Esp when you take siege weapons into account (which further reduce the men you can use to attack)

Shame sieges are still effectively useless... In all the time I've played.... I've only played out about 5 sieges.

[pdoan8]

You can bring in the reinforce for siege battle (but ne siege emgine just like regular battle). In order to have troops as reinforcement, you have to include them in the siege army by drag and drop the army stack on the castle piece. All army stacks, that are dropped onto the castle will appear in the siege battle and can to select or bring in as reinforcement. For example, if you have 3 army stacks in the province and you want to use all of them to assault the castle, you need to pick up each of them and drop on the castle then clich the check mark in the pop up patchment.

If I need to assault the castle without cannons (those early siege engines won't do any good), I have to bring lots of peasants, spears or Byz Inf. Those guys are good for such type of suicidal missions.

[Red Harvest]

I fight most of my sieges to boost the general's valor, get the province sooner, etc. (I rarely get to defend a siege, however.) I've taken the Citadel of Constantantinople a few times. That's one I don't want to let downgrade, so I storm it. The AI will typically hide some units in the back alley and that castle is H*U*G*E. You can easily lose 1/2 of a unit before it can make it halfway through the castle *after* the walls are down. Usually takes several hundred casualties and lots of siege equipment to pull it off even against few defenders. Desert sieges are absolute hell since armoured troops tire before the siege equipment is done firing... Use mercs. or whatever, but you pay for it in blood. I "hand select" older units with less armour since they tire more slowly and I don't mind using them up anyway. Heavily armoured units are "exhausted" before they even swing a sword.

[Asmodeus]

I love storming castles so I can use all those lovely siege weapons but it is a costly exercize. Biggest I have done was a citadel - never dared take on a fortress yet.

Its great fun with bombard's when you've smashed down the walls and still have plenty of ammo to play skittles with the defenders who try to cover the gaps in the walls

The castles on high ground are nasty to take though Are there any castles with moats around them? I've seen water on the maps (lakes and rivers) but no moats. That would be really tough to attack.

[Spino]

I'm definitely one to wait out a siege rather than undertaking a direct assault. However, for those situations where your sieging army is needed elsewhere or you simply cannot afford to financially support a siege then Fanatics are my number one choice to lead the way into a breach, especially if the defenders are low on high value units. Throw in some Peasants for support and maybe some low cost, high melee troops like Ghazi or Highland Clansmen in case the sh|t hits the fan and you're good to go.

Oops, lest we not forget older, low level missile units that you'd otherwise disband or use for backwater garrison duty (i.e. Archers, Desert Archers, Kerns, etc.). Why waste Longbowmen and Arbalesters when older missile units make for better arrow cushions when in range of those archer towers? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif