The Problem With Sieges...

Hi

When it says '... Can hold out for 7 turns' you'd expect that to mean 'everyone in the city is guaranteed food/safety for 7 turns'

So why, after the first turn of a siege do soldiers start dying? Is that not that kind of thing that may happen AFTER the 7 turns, when perhaps food has ran out?

Its annoying having to sally after one turn if you want to save men, it would be better if it actually meant 'x turns' so you could sit inside your fort city and wait to be relieved, something like reality.

Do you agree?
Can anyone see the reasoning behind this feature?



Thanks

If the sieging army has missile units is only logical that they will be harassing the garrison during the siege. The result is: some soldiers from the sieged settlement will die...

I'm not sure if this is what they intended, but I guess there would be skirmishes during the siege and some soldiers would die to that.

But it's especially annoying for me, as I like to keep my units full for some reason :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cezarip

If the sieging army has missile units is only logical that they will be harassing the garrison during the siege. The result is: some soldiers from the sieged settlement will die...

---

But so would some of the besiegers in that case, probably even more of them, since the defenders would have the height advantage

....and then of course there is the question of desertion amongst a besieged army.... your personal morale may be sky high, but I bet some of those little guys who are going to die at the end of the seige are less than happy about being on the wrong side of the walls....


cheers,



Pobs

I think its hardcoded. But im not sure

Good question, Svenn!
I'm only guessing here, but I would suspect that the developers mean to define "holding out" as the amount of time the settlement's inhabitants could withstand a continuous siege before finally being forced to surrender -- or die by trying to break the siege. An effective siege would cut off most to all efforts at bringing in food and other supplies to the town from the outside, and would also decrease the overall level of hygiene throughout the settlement. So while they may have been able to stockpile some supplies to carry them through a few seasons, a protracted siege of as much as two years would have certainly taken its toll on the settlers inside the walls -- from disease, starvation, and occasionaly skirmishes with the enemy.

Given this, I don't think it's realistic to have sieges result in essentially no impact for such a long period of time, and then suddenly force the settlement to surrender or sally in desparation. To me, the current slow erosion of manpower seems reasonable...

It is hardcoded into the RTW engine and cannot be removed or even slightly altered.
I see it as: You have enought food so that you can holdout for seven turns but will require rationing. Due to the rationing and cramped living conditions (a whole army camping inside the city walls), your soldiers and citizens are not completely healthy and disease kills off a few.

And the besiegers are quaranteed to make themselves a nuisance. Of course, in a drawn-out siege it tended to be the *besieger* who suffered more from disease and starvation (especially after his foraging parties had scoured the immediate surroundings empty of everything useful) unless he had truly excellent supply and sanitation arrangements... and the defenders were naturally in a much better position to harass anyone who came even close to bow- and slingshot range. Nevermind the occasional raid out of a sally gate, though I'm not sure if that was yet a common practice - although one imagines there were good reasons the Romans tended to build circumvallations...

Hello...
I do not know anything of hardcode problems, but i think that if the siege thing advantage somebody in the campaign map, that's the defender.
Most sieged cities had to surrender for starvation well before the three months (six in original game!) of a full turn.
Yes, in the battle map it is excedingly easy to assault, but that's not the matter.
Bye!

Well, let's assume that 1 cohort can totally circle a city...

The problem with siege in EB is the siege engine cost and upkeep is simply too exspensive...

Plus, if you do not assault your general loses some traits and even gets some bad traits that cost command skill like "Hesitant Attacker" So I always assault.

And the conclusion... siege with overwhelming troops, but you don't want to assault (wait them until death), is best with captains...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

And the conclusion... siege with overwhelming troops, but you don't want to assault (wait them until death), is best with captains...

---

agreed, if you want to starve them besiege with captians not with generals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

And the conclusion... siege with overwhelming troops, but you don't want to assault (wait them until death), is best with captains...

---

when possible, I keep my general at the border of my own territory in a fort and send him to lead the final assault (or the last year of a siege when waiting for enemy to sally).

It would be interesting if EB II implemented more stringent siege cons for the besiege. Right now its just the supply stuff, but would it be possible to increase the upkeep of units that are besieging due to depletion of local resources and water supplies?

Getting bad traits with your general is the only way to simulate bad conditions for the besieger. By holding your general back until the last turn, you are exploiting the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sabazios

when possible, I keep my general at the border of my own territory in a fort and send him to lead the final assault (or the last year of a siege when waiting for enemy to sally).

---

reminds me of blackadder goes forth :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

Getting bad traits with your general is the only way to simulate bad conditions for the besieger. By holding your general back until the last turn, you are exploiting the system.

---

I always assault or in VH AI mostly sallies after I press end turn. But after I got 15- 20 cities they are afraid they do not send reinforcements they do not sally.
at least on alex.

I am blitzer so I have no chance to wait AI to surrender but think about casse and early getai. They do not have any luxury to lose:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

And the besiegers are quaranteed to make themselves a nuisance. Of course, in a drawn-out siege it tended to be the *besieger* who suffered more from disease and starvation (especially after his foraging parties had scoured the immediate surroundings empty of everything useful) unless he had truly excellent supply and sanitation arrangements... and the defenders were naturally in a much better position to harass anyone who came even close to bow- and slingshot range. Nevermind the occasional raid out of a sally gate, though I'm not sure if that was yet a common practice - although one imagines there were good reasons the Romans tended to build circumvallations...

---

Well... the hardships of siegers probably depends on faction, the civilised factions will probably have little problems. think of Numantia.

In fact the siege of Numantia provides a fine historical example/answer for your question.

Shuttle the generals seems logical enough to roleplay logistical support for the besiegers...:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Well... the hardships of siegers probably depends on faction, the civilised factions will probably have little problems. think of Numantia.

In fact the siege of Numantia provides a fine historical example/answer for your question.

---

OTOH, the Romans had to do a *lot* of groundwork to pull that off - and IIRC got several armies mauled trying to even *reach* the place to begin with...

AFAIK a major reason everyone back then was usually willing to try storming fortresses (if they had the mad siegecraft skizzles to credibly try it, that is) was the expected casualties being much preferable to sitting on your ass in a siege camp starving and diseased for the better part of a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

OTOH, the Romans had to do a *lot* of groundwork to pull that off - and IIRC got several armies mauled trying to even *reach* the place to begin with...

---

Not when Scipio took over. Incempetent commanders will loose no matter whether they storm or siege. When Scipio took over Numantia was doomed, he never gave them a chance one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus

Getting bad traits with your general is the only way to simulate bad conditions for the besieger. By holding your general back until the last turn, you are exploiting the system.

---

:-p So are you saying that we are cheating by starving the enemy out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

:-p So are you saying that we are cheating by starving the enemy out?

---

No, I'm saying that you are cheating by starving out the enemy while your army does not starve. :clown:

The funny thing is - i started a Casse campaign 2 days ago, and if it wasnt for this "feature" id still be fighting for Caledonia by now. But as it happens, ive got land in Gaul...