Why do the defenders die in seiges? Should the attacker take casulties instead?
Printable View
Why do the defenders die in seiges? Should the attacker take casulties instead?
I assume you mean from the seige itself, not the final assault.
The reason is, your citizens have no access to food, except stored food. People begin to die off from disease and hunger during the seige, whereas the invading force has supplies, and can send soldiers to gather food from the places where the settlement was gathering its food before the seige. Cities were built near food sources back then, so there was always food nearby. Basically, the seiging army would run out of food only if they were far from home, cut off from supply lines, or it was winter and there was little food.
So it makes sense that the settlement loses people and the seiging army does not. The settlement is backed against the wall, whereas the seige force has some method of gaining food and supplies and can hold out longer.
However, I think that the amount of soldiers lost to hunger should be far fewer. They would still have to sally or die when the food ran out, but they should not die off from hunger in such large numbers.
Ok, that makes sense, but they should still make it like MTW where soldiers on both sides died.
Meh. How about no soldiers die at all? Just sally when the food runs out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xehh II
Simple fix, makes sense. I doubt any settlement would let soldiers starve if there were rations left. This is one case where "women and children first" is a bit suicidal. Its the one instance where the fighting men get fed and the women have to go without. Otherwise everyone dies.
We could assume that the besiegers are out of arrow and other weapons range, an supplies and care are never far off or blocked off.
I don't like the siege system, but if there is something correct in it, it's that the besieged army suffers casualties during the siege.
Why would the attackers die? They are just hanging around camp while the defenders are starving to death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xehh II
People begin to die off from disease. Both sides due to poor sanitation and close crowding. SadCat
plus deserters from the attacking army.... imagine.... "our lord wants us to attack that!?" (looks at heads of previous attackers impaled on spears on the walls) haha, he's joking right?... Oh, he's not? Bugger."
Siege of Alesia where Vercingetorix was besieged by Julius Caesar gives a good account of what can be the ultimate horrors of a siege, the implications for both sides etc, and the worst situation for when the food runs out..
Julius Caesar's Greatest Battle- which is a documentary and can be found here:
www.historychannel.com.au/assets/Education/Julius%20Caesar's%20Greatest%20Battle.doc
Saw it Sunday night and it was very interesting. Also they seem to have a few versions of it and excerpts can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVe2...elated&search=
Possibly the most extensive siege prior to medieval period with every trick in the book used by either commander.
I think there should be more penalties for the defenders myself. Cut off from supply, food, trade... etc
Yes, they should, in my opinion. But MTW2 is not an historical simulation and so all attrition and logistics are missing to keep the gameplay simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xehh II
That's the biggest flaw with sieges; attackers should take casualties too like in MTW-VI. Medieval Warfare was very much centered around sieges, and more often than not, the attackers broke off the siege due to lack of food, disease, rumors of approching relief forces, etc.
Hopefully that will happen in an upcoming patch or Kingdoms..
I have noticed (i think anyway), that the defenders in a siege lose more casualties per turn the longer the siege goes on. This would make sense if the game has been programmed to simulate lack of food and disease in the garrison. The longer the siege goes on the less food, the weaker people get and more die.
Am I only imagining this, or has anyone else noticed it?
I think the way it is right now is absolutely fine........
but that's me.
If the attackers had any siege equipment then they would be hurling rocks into the city for months on end, not just when they attack.
One thing that annoys me is when you relieve a city that's under siege with a relief force, you meet on a plain battlefield with the besiegers as the defenders. You should meet at the walls like when you're sallying out, that would be more accurate and make sieging more risky.
I agree. It is just way too easy to lay siege and sit it out, or to beat up the helpless sallying AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zajuts149
Also, one should never be let to lay a prolonged siege without a high ranked general. Perhaps the command stars of a general should be proportional to the length of the siege he can command. Like captains has to siege immediately, 1 star generals can lay siege for a year, 2 star generals for 2 years, etc.
I doubt much there was much of a historical basis in CA's decision to have the besieged army lose people. It's likely that this is just a gameplay thing, and I agree with the posters who say they like it.
Does population decrease when a settlement is besieged? I haven't looked up but I don't believe it does outside of the public order factor. If they were going for historical accuracy, you'd loose pop during a seige too, and I don't think this happens.
On a similar note, one thing that's totally missing from the game is attrition due to disease, weather, lack of food etc. Even during the American Revolutionary war, more soldiers were lost due to illness and disease than to combat. That this isn't in the game is significant from a strategy perspective. I played a Russian campaign recently where a full stack of Danes made it to Novgorod, marching at least 2 turns through the Russian witner. When in the course of history has an army ever marched into the Russian heartland unscathed?
There should be a "burn crops and scatter peasants" button on the settlement details scroll, lol.
Brilliant idea ~;) but really. This sure would slow down expansion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flavius Gonzo
Also sieges were major events; citadels and fortress' were real chokepoints. This is somehow not reflected very well in the game ...