Seige or assault...

[RedKnight]

A few weeks ago, Katank pointed out something I missed that's pretty obvious - if you starve a castle out, it tends to result in a lot more degradation (loss of castle level and lots of buildings) vs. assaulting the castle. (And apparently it doesn't matter at all how much you mess the castle up if you assault it)

While I've generally found this to be true, I've also noticed that sometimes there are exceptions. So I have a new theory - that maybe it's simply the length of time before you bring the castle down, that counts. Since it usually takes longer to starve them out, then starving tends to cause more damage. Conversely, you should try to storm a castle the very next turn you take a province, if you want to preserve it as much as possible (bring your cannons to the initial attack).

Anyway, while I still haven't figured out degradation to a science, I think there's a little more to it than just assault vs. starving them. So I'm starting this thread to get more insights from the unwashed masses here. (Ok, those of you who wash, too.) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif What are your observations on, what causes more degradation?

Thx dudes and dudettes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif

[katank]

I always find that although I can't guarantee maintianing the castle level by assaulting, degradation is certain if I starve them out.

Thus, I always assault the castle the turn I take the province unless it's really poor odds (less than 3:2 advantage)

I also always bring some artillery for field battles as forward deployment of arty in attack can often force them from a favorable position so siege trains almost always come with my attack force.

[roysparky]

I have also found that by attacking the castle sooner there is less degeneration of buildings once I've taken it. As you said though, there are always exceptions to this. Perhapes it's somewhat random.

[soibean]

I think that assaulting is does cause less Damaged and Destroyed buildings... I was playing as the Turkish and working my way towards capturing Constantinople and on my first try I let the Byzantine army starve until I was just given the provence, this resulted in something like 6 destroyed 5 damaged which is a huge upset considering that alot of those buildings are advanced. I reloaded and assaulted and only had 3 destroyed and 2 damaged, and they were all minor buildings that I wouldnt care about anyway

[Blodrast]

i really haven't figured out a pattern in the number of destroyed and damaged buildings (so not just the castle itself). i reloaded a few times and i got significantly different results (by assaulting in the same turn, after reloading), from 2 destroyed/3 damaged to 6 destroyed/7 damaged.
what does damaged mean anyway ? does it have anyn significance at all ? how does it make any difference ?

[RedKnight]

Thanks for the comments, everybody And thanks for reloading, you guys. Blod, damaged means that a castle or building was reduced, but not completely eliminated. Like a Guild building reduced to Workshop level. Unfortunately, the higher levels go first, and take longer to rebuild.

[Blodrast]

right, i should have figured it out myself. it makes sense now that you pointed it out. thanks.
however, one more question: if I have say, an armourer and armourer workshop, and they both get destroyed, does that count as 1 damaged and 1 destroyed, or ?...

[RedKnight]

I'm pretty sure that would just be destroyed since the whole thing was gone (no Armor building left whatsoever). That's the difference between damaged and destroyed.

[RedKnight]

Ok, here's my latest theory - is that the amount of damage is related to, how many troops are holed up in the castle. Sort of damage over time, with more damage if there's more troops. Thus, if there are so many troops that the castle will fall in two turns, it will be pretty damaged, even if you take it the first turn. But if there's only a few people in the castle (and it will take a long time to fall), there will be little damage if you take it in one turn. Also of course, there's very little damage if the province is entirely abandoned. The theory is consistent with the idea that starving a castle out (almost always?) causes castle reduction, because in that case, whether there were a lot of defenders and it fell fast, or only a few and it took a long time, there will always be a lot of damage over time.

If anybody can keep an eye out to see if this seems true, I'd be much obliged.

Which brings up the point of, how to try to force folks to totally abandon a province? I know they will usually (but not always) leave if the king is there, and you show up with overwhelming force. (Does it matter if the AI actually has units garrisoned and physically sitting in the castle? Do they always stay there even if the opponent chooses to Abandon?) Another way is to attempt to bribe. But most of the time, there will be a castle crammed fairly full, assuming there were many enemies left to fill it with.

[Nelson]

This is one of the great mysteries. I assault castles ASAP as a matter of course but I have no idea how that may effect what gets wrecked. I do know that I have bribed whole garrisons and thus taken over the entire region without any combat and still seen things get reduced. Go figure...