Will EB have less siege oriented gameplay?

In RTR forum there have been disgussion about how to make games less siege focused. In real life there really wasn't so many sieges in this time period. In the game you fight only few fights in open field, and rest of them are siege battles. Do you have any plans regarding this?

Also how are you going to handle historical fact that there wasn't stone walls in many cities during EB time period. Will I be able to build stone walls as Barbarian or will I be restricted for wooden walls? If you are going restrict building of walls, will there be restrictions also for civilized towns, as not many of them had stone walls that time either.

Thanks for answering my question already.

The idea that there were not many cities with stone or masonry walls is ludicrous. Perhaps for the Gallic nations, this is moreso true, but certainly not in the Meditteranean or Asia Minor.

I agree that the cities of Gaul perhaps should have the levels of fortification altered. A palisade is fine to begin with, but there should be varying and increasing levels of wooden barriers and mighty earthworks to increase the defense of tribal strongholds, as in history. The britons were famed for the great earthwork fortifications Caesar's men faced. I could easily imagine five or six levels of earthen and timber "Wall upgrades" for barbarian cities.

And I dont know if its possible as Im not that familliar with the coding of the AI, but it seems certain factions should be more likely to engage in set piece battles as opposed to sieges, or other factions adopting more of a raider strategy. The Gauls and Germans for example, should have more of a horde mentality and look for open engagement and ambushes whilst more supposedly "advanced" factions might practice prolonged logistical and siege campaigns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlhazenAl-Rashid

The idea that there were not many cities with stone or masonry walls is ludicrous. Perhaps for the Gallic nations, this is moreso true, but certainly not in the Meditteranean or Asia Minor.

I agree that the cities of Gaul perhaps should have the levels of fortification altered. A palisade is fine to begin with, but there should be varying and increasing levels of wooden barriers and mighty earthworks to increase the defense of tribal strongholds, as in history. The britons were famed for the great earthwork fortifications Caesar's men faced. I could easily imagine five or six levels of earthen and timber "Wall upgrades" for barbarian cities.

And I dont know if its possible as Im not that familliar with the coding of the AI, but it seems certain factions should be more likely to engage in set piece battles as opposed to sieges, or other factions adopting more of a raider strategy. The Gauls and Germans for example, should have more of a horde mentality and look for open engagement and ambushes whilst more supposedly "advanced" factions might practice prolonged logistical and siege campaigns.

---

Numerous barbarians built genuine stone walls or well-developed walls, the Gauls were reknowned for the sheer number of their fortifications in the middle of the period the game is set in (oppida walls), and for the intense difficulty in cracking such a defense, and they didn't have a 'horde' mentality; they often looked to capture or sack cities (just look at the Galatians in Greece; sacking and capturing innumerable amounts of cities after brief sieges, usually ending when a wall was undermined or a gate was broken with a ram or gatehouse burned). The walls of an oppida are not just some dirt embankment; they're faced with stone, and have planks in them to absorb from projectiles and rams. Such walls were later revived for fortresses to counteract the advent of cannons; they are plenty sturdy and easily comparable in quality to civilized walls.

To the initial query, while playing as the Casse, for example, I find most of my initial engagements are against armies in a field, followed by a swift, short siege or assault on a settlement. Playing as the Greeks, less so, just due to the sheer density of cities, but it was still pretty heavily based on field engagements being more of a deciding factor.

Really? That is quite fascinating. Sadly, the only sources Ive read referring to Gallic warfare quite frankly are biased Roman ones, and most notably Caesar's treatises. I am quite ignorant of much of their ways, I see. Do you have helpful links to any online scholarship relating to this or suggestions for books on the topic?

But I do know the earthwork fortifications were quite advanced ~D

My point is more, in fortifications, that Celtic forts were not all earthwork. Even in Caesar's account, Alesia is walled, and has earthwork around it, but the real danger in the assault is how the walls feed the attackers into a closed, pinched position, and allow a much smaller force of defenders to utterly annihilate the attack. The walls themselves were so sturdy and defended with ditches and such that actually ramming them was essentially impossible. It was almost invariably both more cost effective and better in terms of casualties to siege and starve a Celtic fort, rather than assault it.

Read period Greek accounts, not the later period accounts, of the Galatians' invasion of Greece. There are some serious field engagements, but after them, little is left to defend cities, and the Celts had a grasp of how to capture a city. The sheer number of cities they sacked is a testament to what they knew about siegecraft.

Of Caesar, he's a poor source, not so much of bias, but of ignorance. He rarely ever fought a Gallic army (the two main powers, the Sequanes and Aedui, had long spent any real armies on eachother, and those Aedui soldiers who were still alive, were mostly Roman allies, or fled to Britain in disgust with political situations within the Aedui senate {the main governing body of their federacy of lesser kingdoms}). He's a good source for what Celts did when desperate; they raised levies of untrained farmers and craftsmen (not unlike a medieval army). The actual Celtic armies were generally a lot more fierce and disturbing. Check Caesar in Britain for a better idea of a Celtic army, or Romans in Belgica. There we see ordered units following standard bearers, using siege tactics like a tight shieldwall, and defensive, supported movements to get near gatehouses and towers to set them on fire. There is a huge distinction between the two concepts; the horde of non-combatants suddenly pushed into revolt and combat, as opposed to trained or experienced soldiers who had a concept of real warfare. PsychoV posted some good stuff not long ago on Roman accounts of the fine order of a Celtic regiment. It isn't 'horde' based. Perhaps he'll pop in here.

Of siege, think Brennus marching on Rome, again, the Galatians, Scordisci invasions into Roman-held Greece, etc. These were Celts employing actual methods of siege, assault, sacking, and capture. While they did have a reliance on some field engagements, the why varies.

In Greece, Galatians split their army into several detachments. Some were sent to pillage farmlands, to draw armies away from cities, to weaken their defense in the assault that would follow. This is little different than the Arverni revolt's method. Even without much of soldiery, they would dispatch what amounted to rioters to seperate regions to give the Romans trouble to break them up, and concentrate the bulk of their force on capturing a different region.

Fantastic. I appreciate the enlightenment. I will definately look into Gallicia. How similar would you say though that the two regions were? I would even think that the Gauls who dwelled in Anatolia would be a seperate faction based on the regional influences and development. Its an area I'm quite ignorant in, Gallic culture, that is. I dont want to pull this too far off topic though.

Point taken, I know that their fortifications were extensive, I did not think they hewed stone to any large extent, however.

I am not history expert. But far as I know EB time scale will be in Punic wars more then time period of Julius Ceasar.

Since I am not history expert, I know a bit, but can't call my self as a expert in any ways. I am going to ask few questions, that I hope you to correct for me if I am wrong.:book:

Did many cities really had stone walls in time of punic wars?

And wasn't almost every great battle fought in open field rather then by sieging town?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlhazenAl-Rashid

Fantastic. I appreciate the enlightenment. I will definately look into Gallicia. How similar would you say though that the two regions were? I would even think that the Gauls who dwelled in Anatolia would be a seperate faction based on the regional influences and development. Its an area I'm quite ignorant in, Gallic culture, that is. I dont want to pull this too far off topic though.

Point taken, I know that their fortifications were extensive, I did not think they hewed stone to any large extent, however.

---

You're misunderstanding this context of Galatian. Galatian is not, here, the inhabitants of Galatia, it's when Gauls invaded Greece (who were called Galatians by the Greece). The kingdom of Galatia formed after this, when these Gauls were given a parcel of land by the king of Bithynia. The invaders of Greece were effectively Gauls, and fought and conducted themselves in the same way.

And stone in Celtic fortifications was a supplement. A strong, solid stone face supplemented a combination of dirt, gravel, and wood pylons, to produce the walls of Celtic oppida. Hillforts are a different construct entirely.

And yes, many cities were walled during the Punic wars, and led to sieges (many very long/large sieges). However, yes, numerous field engagements decided the true outcome, but we can't have 'a big army was beaten here, so you get the city right away', so sieging is impossible to avoid. That said, it's not all together bad; even after the defeat of an army, one still needed to negotiate with city heads, or possibly put down any resistance left in the city, before one could really claim, with any truth, that they'd seized control. However, in game, you'll find that large open-field battles will be important. It shouldn't be a series of sieges with few actual battles, and I haven't played a game of the closed-beta yet where it has been. The closest I've played to a series of sieges was as the Greeks, due to density of the cities, but even then, there were plenty of open-field engagements.

Ragabash--many of the greatest sieges in history took place during or before the time of the Punic Wars, as many cities had extensive stone fortifications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlhazenAl-Rashid

Ragabash--many of the greatest sieges in history took place during or before the time of the Punic Wars, as many cities had extensive stone fortifications.

---

You are correct, many of the greatest sieges ever were taken among heavily fortified stone walls. Still, most of greatest battles were fought in open field.

I will give you a link for original disgussion in RTR forums:

http://forums.rometotalrealism.org//...pic=10508&st=0

It is the game system that forces sieges to be the focal point of any mod, period. Because the only way to earn money and build things is through controlling provinces, and the only way to control a province is to control the city, by extension the most important battles in RTW will always be sieges. There is no way to get around this.

If open-field battles had real game effect, this could change. However, based on the way RTW is designed, sieges are the primary goal of the game.

Quote:

---

However, yes, numerous field engagements decided the true outcome, but we can't have 'a big army was beaten here, so you get the city right away', so sieging is impossible to avoid

---

Eh?
If you are besieging a city and an enemy stack comes to try to raise the seige (not particularly uncommon in my experience) a field battle ensues which will draw out the garrison in support of the relieving army.
If you do enough damage to the garrison and field army you gain the city without an assault.
Most of my biggest battles happened in this manner.

I like the sieges :), just not the pathfinding :(

I think one of the mistakes most people make is to build too much seige weaponry.
I just use one thing (ram/ladder/tower depending on wall size) and attack the defended bit.
Makes seiges much more interesting when you can lose most of an elite unit or two just establishing a bridgehead on walls/through the gate :charge:

Lowering the city squadlron might make AI keep less armies in the cities and more in the strategy map fo open field battles. Of course this makes another big problem. If the enemy don't have much armies in their coastal cities that do not share border with enemy they are really easy to pick up for human player. Naval invasions are way too effective for human player already so this could just make this worse.

Myself I always siege only one turn and attack then. Sometimes, rarely I let myself to siege two or almost three turns, but always attack cities. I never starve enemy towns as that is just too easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

to civilized walls.

---

you said the C-word!!!~:eek:

~;)

Field Battles are just as important as siege battles, if you don't stop the enemy from reaching one of your cities or if your own army is stoped from reaching an enemy city it can have huge reprecussions.
Many times have i fought a pitched battle against an enemy who is being reinforced by a garrison, I have gained many citys by wipeing out the enemy garrisons in these battles.

The only way I can see to have a less siege oriented gameplay is to have larger provinces, like BI. RTR went the other way - having more provinces than vanilla. To me, that's a downside of RTR (which I generally love) and makes it unnecessarily slow and at times tedious. I don't know what EB is doing - I suspect it may have a bigger map and so more provinces, but whether there provinces are smaller, I don't know.

I don't have a big problem with sieges per se - although I prefer field battles. It's just the AI seems much weaker at sieges (attacking and defending) than at field battles, so they are much less satisfying. I don't suppose EB can do much to improve on that, although some tweaks like making battering rams less flammable, might help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

you said the C-word!!!~:eek:

~;)

---

Am I not allowed? I am a Celticist, but I believe 'barbarian' and 'civilized' does help people with their perception; people think of civilized as, generally, the Greco-Roman world, and barbarian as those outside of it. It does not imply I think Celts, or numerous others are lacking in civilization (quite far from it), but are not generally referred to in the same concept as the amalgam of civilizations of the mediterranean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranika

Am I not allowed? I am a Celticist, but I believe 'barbarian' and 'civilized' does help people with their perception; people think of civilized as, generally, the Greco-Roman world, and barbarian as those outside of it. It does not imply I think Celts, or numerous others are lacking in civilization (quite far from it), but are not generally referred to in the same concept as the amalgam of civilizations of the mediterranean.

---

you did notice the "~;)" didn't you? i just found it ironic...

still friends?~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragabash

I am not history expert. But far as I know EB time scale will be in Punic wars more then time period of Julius Ceasar.

Since I am not history expert, I know a bit, but can't call my self as a expert in any ways. I am going to ask few questions, that I hope you to correct for me if I am wrong.:book:

And wasn't almost every great battle fought in open field rather then by sieging town?

---

Not a lot of battles * have been in cities, just outside. You know, last stand. So a lot of battles have been outside cities. **


*When I say battles, I mean great battles, so you know.

** Look above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ragabash

Myself I always siege only one turn and attack then. Sometimes, rarely I let myself to siege two or almost three turns, but always attack cities. I never starve enemy towns as that is just too easy.

---

But in reality this is what usually happened. If a city doesn't have enough men to come out and fight, they either have to hope another force can relieve them and catch the siegers in between the two armies, or they have to wait till they run out of food and then surrender. The big attacks on cities should be devastating on the group attacking if they actually want to carry it through and not wait the siege out till they give up inside.

This isn't the most exciting way to play to be sure, but it's the most accurate in terms of sieges. There was siege equipment, but the most common types were not what we have in RTW unfortunately. Dirt ramps being built up to the top of the walls and circumvallation should be two of the most common options, but aren't. Even some rudimentary defenses set up by the attackers should be in place - what we get is nothing.

It's like they wanted a medieval fortress game or something. (high walls with battles on top of the walls, onagers, mines, storming the breaches, etc.) Some of those things happened in anqituity, but very rarely (relatively speaking).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

The only way I can see to have a less siege oriented gameplay is to have larger provinces, like BI. RTR went the other way - having more provinces than vanilla.

---

We have much larger map with more provinces. Some areas are as congested as vanilla, though we haven't added more provinces to the area (see Greece as an example), and others are much less so. I don't think any of our areas are more congested than the most congested vanilla areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khelvan

We have much larger map with more provinces. Some areas are as congested as vanilla, though we haven't added more provinces to the area (see Greece as an example), and others are much less so. I don't think any of our areas are more congested than the most congested vanilla areas.

---

And that should be the best answer, IMHO. RTR got a little boring for me after time (to much petty sieges, not enought place to do some maneouvering on campmap), and BI goes with massive armies - much better, but.. to much (i like 1 vs 1 stack battles, not 5 vs 5.. weird to have so small amount of provinces (and where's economical balance?). So still able to produce some troops to fight, and still cities are important and worth fighting for.

Also, 4 turns per yer can be really helpfull. Finally most sieges can take 1/2-1 year (not the ridiculous 4-years sieges).. if you like history, of course~;)