Besieger Casualties??

[Shadow_Wolf33]

Arg, why did CA have to implement besieger casualties in VI? Now I'll either have to keep retraining my main battle forces to keep their numbers up to speed, or just send some junk unit to siege the enemy forts, well...I could just put arty pieces in with my main battle force, but then I take a bunch of casualties from the assault arg. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

by the by, does anyone know offhand which projectiles the castles shoot? do they have their own type in the projectilestats.txt that is modable or do they just shoot regular bow shots with tremendous range? it would certainly make my life easier if I could make the enemy castles able to shoot no further than tinkling off the battlements. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Other than that, VI is a really good expansion...are the mercians related to the french in any way? it seems that whenever I attack them they will retreat, even when they outnumber me by at least 3-4 to 1, makes for an easy game but come on I want them to put up a fight http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[pdoan8]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

I believe that the feature was added base on the community request. It was kind of cheesy to force the AI retreat into castle without a fight by outnumber them then let them starve in the castle.

In VI, The defender army still die out quickly if it is large enough and it still easier to just let them starve in the larger, more defensible castle. However, you will have to pay higher upkeep for the besieger army and the army will lose men just to be fair (and, of course, to make your life harder http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ).

[Monk]

welcome Shadow_Wolf33 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Remember that each turn represents a year. in that time alote could happen, men could die of disease and by being caught out in the open within the castle's area of fire, The occasional angry peasent could wander into the camps and kill a man or two, there are other reasons that i cant think of...

IIRC there was a topic on this when VI first came out, maybe Gregoshi or another mod can help.

[Clearchus]

I know what you mean with besieger casualties. It makes it less gratifying to just wait it out. Ahh, well, storming the castle and killing the general is not that bad either.

[Prince Lom]

It gives a good excuse to build and use those Siege Weapons that were so fun in the Custom Battles when you tried them out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif


I must say, I do fight a lot more Castle assaults now than I used to in the old version. VI has got that one right I think.

[Red Harvest]

It is a great feature, and more realistic. Fact is that sieges were hard on both sides. An occupying camp took casualties and faced disease as well as a potentially hostile populace. Desertion would also be a factor. If you think they shouldn't take casualties, you are dreaming.

[Monk]

Quote[/b] (Red Harvest @ Aug. 01 2003,23:07)]It is a great feature, and more realistic. Fact is that sieges were hard on both sides. An occupying camp took casualties and faced disease as well as a potentially hostile populace. Desertion would also be a factor. If you think they shouldn't take casualties, you are dreaming.
The point i was trying to make Exactly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Gregoshi]

A three-fur

Welcome Shadow_Wolf33 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Welcome Clearchus http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Welcome Prince Lom http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Welcome all to the Org.

Here is a pre-VI topic discussing this subject: Siege Casualties (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=15;t=4919;hl=besieger)

Moral: the grass is always greener on the other side of the castle wall.

[Shadow_Wolf33]

thanks for the welcome. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

and I quote a famous american...I HAVE A DREAM are people not allowed to dream anymore? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

dangit why can't my soldiers resist those local women...damn them and their herpes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

so..any word on modifying the projectile stats of the castles? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Red Harvest]

The larger fortresses and citadels are quite deadly with catapult towers. You need good siege equipment against them. Otherwise you might lose 600 men to take out a dozen (hiding around corners as the AI likes to do...

One thing I forgot to mention in the besieger casualties, it encourages you and the AI to actually fight out the siege at some point.

[jas]

Quote[/b] (Red Harvest @ Aug. 02 2003,12:22)]One thing I forgot to mention in the besieger casualties, it encourages you and the AI to actually fight out the siege at some point.
Absolutely. It was just way too easy to attack in strength, cause the AI to retreat (which it does much too often) and then wait out their inevitable demise. Plus, if you don't fight the siege, what's the point of all that lovely artillery?

Personally, I still think the besiegers don't get enough casualties for sitting around in enemy territory - there's a paper in the British Medical Journal somewhere (pre-1994 so I can't find it online) about Napoleonic losses on campaign and they're mostly from disease and desertion not enemy action, both of which factors are still present during a siege. In fact another BMJ article states that during the Walcheren campaign of 1809 involving 40000 British troops:

By the time the expedition ended in February 1810 the fever had caused the death of 60 officers and 3900 soldiers. Over 40% of the force had been struck down by disease, and six months later around 11 000 men were still registered sick. This compared with only 100 killed in the sporadic fighting.. (BMJ 1999;319:1642-1645)

Admittedly this is an extreme example, and from a different era, but you get my drift. Of course I agree that realism doesn't always make for good gameplay , but if the losses in M:TW get you down, just think of the guys playing Europa Universalis and watching their armies melting away for no apparent reason ..

[Shadow_Wolf33]

yeah I've played EU, and it drives me absolutely bonkers that my armies just tend to shrink over time of their own volition. I'm personally the sort of person that likes to keep their armies at full strength without constantly having to throw in reinforcements ah well, I suppose thats the way wars were fought back then. I can still wish for a medic unit that comes and revives fallen soldiers though. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[SmokWawelski]

Boy o'boy, I thought that everyone was on the include the casulties bandwagon, but apparently I was mistaken...

[Sjakihata]

Casualites..? what casualties... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

those occasional 50-100 men? you call that casualties http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

well, thye could up it a bit for my taste indeed.


Quote[/b] ]
jas
playing Europa Universalis and watching their armies melting away for no apparent reason ..

that is so true.

[Hamburglar]

Its also good to assault the castle because you're going to make MONEY faster.

The quicker you kick those defenders out the quicker that province can start pumping out florins. If you just keep a good amount of siege weapons around then castles really aren't that tough, especially when you get gunpowder.

Plus, if you let a castle starve to death I think it downgrades the castle one level, essentially costing you more money. Not 100% on this though.

[rafiki]

Hi


Quote[/b] ]Plus, if you let a castle starve to death I think it downgrades the castle one level, essentially costing you more money. Not 100% on this though.

Does anyone have any insight into what determines the amount of destruction wrought on a province when attacking/conquering it? I guess it should depend on how much (and how long) fighting goes on, but haven't tested enough to know specifically http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Also, it seems to me that attacking a stronghold directly would bring more destruction (usually) to it than standing back and starving the defenders out?

Regards,
Rafiki

[el_slapper]

Dunno what should be, but attacking prevents the castle downgrading. Way cool. I usually attack the season/year when they'll die. Losses are limited, and the castle remains in good shape.

[Red Harvest]

CA folks clarified the destruction thing. It is now randomized. I don't think they said anything about whether the degradation varies depending on length of siege or how it ended.

In the previous version of MTW it would drop down one level if you didn't storm the castle. But now it might or might not. It can drop multiple levels or not at all.

Still, storming castles makes sense when you have the appropriate troops/engines. You get command stars from battle and you get income sooner. Plus you get upgrades and loyalty improvment in the province sooner. Plus you don't have to pay something like 2x support costs for the besiegers anymore. If you are well prepared you often won't lose more troops than if you had to wait out the siege. You can also use your cannon fodder older type troops for this, or types with very poor unit leaders--beats disbanding them and often bad unit leaders die.

[HopAlongBunny]

The casualties aren't that bad. Agreed...it is a pain to constantly need to replace troops. What bothers me is seeing the castle downgraded after an assault-I much preferred getting it intact if I went the assault route.

[Red Harvest]

Quote[/b] (HopAlongBunny @ Aug. 08 2003,17:30)]The casualties aren't that bad. Agreed...it is a pain to constantly need to replace troops. What bothers me is seeing the castle downgraded after an assault-I much preferred getting it intact if I went the assault route.
Hard to say which is more accurate though... Yeah, I *liked* being able to get it intact through assault, but it is a bit counterintuitive and was perhaps less accurate. Reducing the castle by assault should have the effect of dropping it down a notch or two. I like the way LOTR2 handled it, you had a broken castle that you have to spend time and money fixing, otherwise, if you had to defend it you might be defending sans gates or walls...

On the flip side, a long siege should also reduce the castle somewhat and facilities too because there would be constant skirmishing and damage to castle defenses...and that starvation thing...it would make it hard to keep highly skilled trainers, smiths, and such alive.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (jas @ Aug. 03 2003,04:18)]Of course I agree that realism doesn't always make for good gameplay , but if the losses in M:TW get you down, just think of the guys playing Europa Universalis and watching their armies melting away for no apparent reason ..
Ah the joy of attacking Moscowy in winter http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Good additional feature IMO... Make our life slightly hareder http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Louis the Simurgh,