View Full Version : Creative Assembly Casltes and Sieges
LittleRaven
09-10-2002, 02:16
There are already a couple of threads on this subject, but allow me to muddy the waters a little more. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Like many people, I think the current siege system is broken. Not quite as badly as Shogun, but close. And this is a real shame because unlike Shogun, castle assaults in MTW are really, really cool. Fantastically cool, actually. Unfortunately, it’s almost never a good idea, because (as so many people have noted) if you just sit outside for a year or so, the problem goes away. There’s strong evidence that the besieging nation even gets to collect at least part of the income for the province, further reducing the need to assault.
Not only does this subtract from game play, it also is quite historically inaccurate. Certainly there were sieges, some very long, but generally the besieging army had it almost as hard as the besieged; sometimes harder. MTW does not properly take into account just how difficult it was to keep an army in hostile territory for prolonged periods. So, my suggestions:
1) The length of time castles can survive a siege should be increased. Whether the base values actually need to altered or the suspected calculation bug (A query for the developers? (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001451.html)) just needs to be fixed, I don’t know. But castles need to last longer, one way or the other....
2) Units participating in a siege should cost double or even triple their normal upkeep cost. This would help reflect more accurately the cost of keeping an army in hostile territory.
3) Units participating in a siege should suffer attrition, much like crusades that stall. Remember that the armies conducting the siege rarely had it much better than those inside the castle, who generally took everything edible with them when they retreated. Hunger, diseases and desertion all took big tolls on besieging armies, but that isn’t reflected at all.
I think implementing one or more of these ideas would really help game play. It would slow down rushes, which are terribly unrealistic anyway, and would encourage more castle assaults, which I think is a section of the game that deserves much more attention. I realize that these ideas probably couldn’t be addressed in a patch and maybe not even the add-on, (I doubt that they’re too difficult to implement on their own, but the AI may need to be adjusted to handle them and that could be a real pickle) but I think they’re worth considering for the next generation of Total War, whatever that may be.
Now, back to subduing the evil Byzantines....
[This message has been edited by LittleRaven (edited 09-09-2002).]
[This message has been edited by LittleRaven (edited 09-09-2002).]
Soapyfrog
09-10-2002, 02:21
Better yet, the province should not actually change hands until the siege is complete. That way, holding the castle:
a) protects the province's upgrades
b) prevents the beseiger from getting any income from the province
c) the province would not be 200% loyal to the attacker because of the large beseiging force
d) you would not get loot from the province until the castle falls (that's where all the valuable stuff is anyway)
Both of which would improve the single player campaign considerably (did I mention there SHOULD be a multiplayer campaign too?).
castles were designed to try to outlast seiges. up until ww2 or so most war casualites were from disease and not from actual battles.
since attrition doesn't occur with the beseiging army it makes castles really useless.
europa universalis 2 got it right and taking a province with a big castle was difficult. simply because you would take massive losses trying to seige them and massive losses trying to assult them.
I definately agree that there is no benefit to directly assaulting a castle.
I dont think I ever did it in STW either unless I just wanted to see the cool battle take place. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Any of your suggestions would work well, but I think the upkeep increase or the attacker attrition would be the best...having your army of 900 Elite troops slowly starving off while besieging a castle full of peasants and rabble would quickly change the way people feel about sitting around!
At the very least, triple upkeep would make the idea of storming the castle seem a bit more appealing.
Good suggestions and I hope they act on this is a patch.
Oh, and by the way...I agree 100% that there SHOULD be a multiplayer strategic campaign.
Talenn
Wowowo hear hear, as you'll all know from the many threads i have started on castles this is firmly the way i believe it should go! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
And you're right the castle battles are awesome in MTW!! Just not enough of them. Plus i'd like the various forts/castles to be able to hold more men than they currently do, the castle defenders always seem to scantily fill the castle on the map. Like you all say, it's just not worth assaulting when on average a year's wait will achieve the same outcome without any loses at all!
Top notch ideas here! Now, just to get an official response one way or another, lol http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
1. First and foremost sieges have to last longer and the calculations for siege lengths properly calculated after the field battle, not before. Maybe also allow more men to camp in the castles for longer periods.
2. Some kind of deterence for the besiegers, not just the besieged. Ideas above are excellent. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
3. Improvements should only get destroyed when the castle is taken. NO doubt about this.
4. This would help prevent the rush tactics and give a more progressive cat and mouse feel to the game. Rather than simply stomping over nations and raiding all the AI's improvements.
Come on CA guys, this part of Medieval deserves the attention, it's brilliant already but just not enough of it.
[This message has been edited by +DOC+ (edited 09-09-2002).]
if you have like 30 spies following your army around...you *never* have to assault the castles you face. and spies have 0 upkeep
GilJay informed me that it's really eat cold steel or Target that we need to answer these questions.
/starts telepathic summoning
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Emperor Theodoripiklos IV
09-10-2002, 08:33
You all got it right citizens of the Byzantine empire...like it or not http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Truth to the matter , pitch battles were actually far less common the Castle sieges...as most generals thought it too risky to take it to the field.
Castle sieges didn't take too long thou...(depending on its size really)its the walled cities that would hold out forever...depending on the provision and size of garisson...Our glorius Imperial city of Constantinople fell in about 50 days because the sheer size of the city defence structure system
was ment for a garisson of atleast 20,000 men while only 5000 brave warriors held the barbarian turks in check.
One fine add to a sieg would be to have like tent's set up on the battle field for the beseiger army symbolising his camps which could be burned down and florins would be lost or something...add some spice to the already fantastic gameplay.
Now off i go to reclaim lost western lands for the Empire...the one and only Roman Empire!!!
Lord Romulous
09-10-2002, 09:27
Totaly Agree that the castle siege system is in desperate need of tweaking.
as others above have said.
1. units sieging the castle should suffer attrition. I like the idea of higher upkeep costs to.
2. You should'nt lose ur upgrades until the castle acually falls. this may not be totaly realistic. In real life the sieging army would probably burn down the buildings and farms in your provience, (if army retreating to the castle didnt first) . but it seriously hampers gameplay by making it nessacary to have large garrisons in your proviences to deter attack. Its not worth it to retreat to the castle if you lose your upgrades.
Some may say that effective diplomacy prevents the need to garrison large amounts of troops in your proviences. This only works if the faction surounding your proviences is neutral. but what if you are waging war against this faction. I had a situation last night where I was surounded by french proviences. I would send my army to attack and take one of their proviences only to have another french army invade the provience I just recently vacated with my army. sure i could hold the provience by retreating my garrison of 100-150 soliders to the castle but then i lost my upgrades. The castle held for 6 years or more. which was enough time for my army to get back and rout the invaders. but then i had to rebuild everything. including my port which was a major source of income.
Dont get me wrong it is a good feature that the ai invades the provence that my army vacated to take advantage of its weakness. but i just want the troops that i have in the garrison to be able to holdout in the castle (with no upgrade destruction) until my army returns. which would be in the next year or two.
If the attackers want to take my provence and destroy my buildings then they should have to attack the castle or risk waiting around for my army to come back.
[This message has been edited by Lord Romulous (edited 09-10-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Lord Romulous (edited 09-10-2002).]
I think increasing upkeep costs and making castles last longer are fine but I think a few changes are needed to help the besiegers in storming a castle.
1. Right now, the reason people don't storm the castle is they take too many casualties doing it. Arrow towers should be toned down as they could kill royal knights lead by heirs really quickly and even Swiss armored pikemen don't last very long. Their range is also a little too long.
2. Siege engines have way too little ammo. I assaulted a citadel with a bombard, 2 demi-culverins, around 4-6 culverins and around 4-6 serpentines. The citadel was multi-layered so I lost a lot of troops inside there finding the guys who were hiding somewhere in the back of the castle. I only managed to take a few of the arrow towers down.
3. Gates should be more easily destroyed. In keeps and forts, I actually attack the stockade since it seems to be weaker and it provides a bigger opening. Same with the higher ones, attacking the walls is preferable to attacking the gates. You can't destroy the gate part, only force open the gate. Attacking it with siege engines is a waste of ammo.
4. Destroying a large portion of the castle should reduce it a notch even when retreating. Coupled with cheaper cost and shorter build time means upgrading castles are easier while destroying them in more than 1 turn is feasible.
Lord Romulous
09-10-2002, 11:48
Eat Cold Steel
Is any of the tweaks requested in this thread and other castle threads technicaly possible to include in a patch ?
if it is technicaly possible could you inform all of us whether changes to castle and seige system are being considered for the patch ?
Any upgrade that does not require a fort such as guard tower, farm improvement, and even mine could be pillaged/destroyed, since they are likely to be built outside the strong hold.
Other upgrades that start inside a fort and up should not be destroyed unless the strong hold is pounded to rubble by 16 cannons. The amount of damage inflicted on upgrades should depend on the level of the strong hold (inside a fort should suffer more than inside a keep, inside a fortress should suffer negligible damage) and the amount of bombardment (cannons will do more damage than catapults).
[This message has been edited by pdoan8 (edited 09-10-2002).]
eat cold steel
09-10-2002, 15:19
The castle siege time have been increased for the patch, the number of turn it shows you at the start is an estimate, we have delibratly made the number we give you inaccrucate, the number you get once the siege starts is accurate. Triple their normal upkeep cost sounds like a good idea, that can go in the patch no problem.
Beseiger getting income is a bug.
Attrition requre treaking to the AI and further balancing, add on pack maybe. Destorying building pushed forward to after the siege ends, and no building destory if you assault can be done, but not for the patch.
Arkatreides
09-10-2002, 15:27
COOL! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Quote Originally posted by eat cold steel:
The castle siege time have been increased for the patch, the number of turn it shows you at the start is an estimate, we have delibratly made the number we give you inaccrucate, the number you get once the siege starts is accurate. Triple their normal upkeep cost sounds like a good idea, that can go in the patch no problem.[/QUOTE]
Excellent news!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif That'll make a huge difference just as long as the AI will know when to assault and when to lay siege with the emphasis on assault. The increase in siege times and upkeep costs for the besiegers should put a far greater emphasis on assaulting now!
My point about the determination for siege times was that it gives an estimate before the initial field battle has occurred, but this doesn't appear to change if the defender's forces are whipped and retreat to the castle with far less numbers.
So, from an experience i had with ~500 troops in a province with a castle. It got attacked and It said my troops will last for 1 year should they retreat to the castle (others over 420 retreat to another province, 240 for cavalry). The battle was fought and i was left with ~80 troops. It still stated that they'd last for only 1 year:
Screenshot here:
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001451.html
Quote Originally posted by eat cold steel:
Beseiger getting income is a bug.[/QUOTE]
I thought so, so this will be now be fixed...great, another reason to assault quicker! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Quote Originally posted by eat cold steel:
Attrition requre treaking to the AI and further balancing, add on pack maybe. Destorying building pushed forward to after the siege ends, and no building destory if you assault can be done, but not for the patch.[/QUOTE]
Ok, understand about attrition, if all the other parts are added this might not needed as the balance will have certainly shifted towards assaulting....
Would also love to see damage to improvements shifted to after the castle is taken and not just the province. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
All in all, fantastic news! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
=MizuDoc Otomo=
[This message has been edited by +DOC+ (edited 09-10-2002).]
delete double post http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
[This message has been edited by +DOC+ (edited 09-10-2002).]
This is a double edged sword. Personally i think this will totally increase the ability to rush cos u have time to move ur forces around allowing castles to take the strain.
Quote Originally posted by cade:
This is a double edged sword. Personally i think this will totally increase the ability to rush cos u have time to move ur forces around allowing castles to take the strain.[/QUOTE]
Not if the enemy decides to assault your castles though....
this is merely to put an emphasis on asaulting rather than the rather bland sit and starve them out option, which at the moment has no disadvantages whatsoever and is over in a flash.....
What we'll hopefully have with the patch will be several well-balanced choices:
1. Sit and besiege them till they starve. Besieging units will now cost 3 times the upkeep and siege times will be longer. Potential for rescuing besieged troops now a likely possibility. In addition, the attacker will no longer gain the province income as it currently does at the moment (a confirmed bug).
2. Assault, usually with the attacker incurring massive loses in comparison to the defender.
I would hope some of these factors could be made un-hardcoded aswell, so people could play this aspect of the game as they see fit. I don't know how possible that is though, maybe ECS can tell us?
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
=MizuDoc Otomo=
[This message has been edited by +DOC+ (edited 09-10-2002).]
Stevie D
09-10-2002, 22:14
Quote Originally posted by eat cold steel:
The castle siege time have been increased for the patch, the number of turn it shows you at the start is an estimate, we have delibratly made the number we give you inaccrucate, the number you get once the siege starts is accurate. Triple their normal upkeep cost sounds like a good idea, that can go in the patch no problem.
Beseiger getting income is a bug.
Attrition requre treaking to the AI and further balancing, add on pack maybe. Destorying building pushed forward to after the siege ends, and no building destory if you assault can be done, but not for the patch.[/QUOTE]This just restores your faith in human nature http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
A fact, alone and tumbling through infospace: without help, it could vanish forever, because only THIS (http://www.koekie.org.uk/funnel/) can make it a News.
Is there any information on what's to be included in the patch with regards to the SP game. I notice a MP info thread has been created by GilJay?!
TA http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.