Starving them out vs City Battle

[Cbvani]

So, do you ever starve the enemy out? I mean keep up a siege until they surrender on their own. I do it occasionally, but now that I'm playing as Baktria I wonder if it will be a viable strategy. Even with AI stupidity I know I'd take losses I really can't afford if I stormed the city. But then again, going up against the grey death means stack after stack of troops being sent at you, which means reinforcements are never far away. I think I could handle a few of them, but if they start sending elite stacks or multiple full stacks at a time I could very well lose my faction leader in a desperate fight for survival.

So -

What does the forum advise in my situation?

[Beefy187]

I normally starve them out if the enemy are nearly impossible to beat like the Indians. I have better chance on field.
I also wait and starve them out when the enemy got nearly full stack.
I prefer storming only when they got weak garrison like general or few javeliners.

As Baktria Ill make like 1 field army to beat back the AS and hopefully that will be enough

[facupay123]

I make a city battle only if the settlement has a palisade or nothing to defend it. If it has stone walls or huge stone walls I starve them out, I wolud only make a city battle if the enemy has a very weak stack or if there are alot of enemy armies arroun and I really need to take the city quickly.

Usually if the enemy has a medium-large stack defending a stonewalled city you'll lose, no matter what strategy 30% of your troops.

[craziii]

I only ever let a siege play out when my attacking stack got to many mounted or missile troops who are horrible at assault. other wise 1 or 2 turns of equipment building, then it is wall climping time.

[duncan.gill]

I usually besiege the settlement and then am attacked by relieving forces (which then draws the besieged force out into a field battle where they can be destroyed).

Occasionally where I have landed my main army deep in enemy territory I will use several stacks of weak troops (skirmishes) to besiege weakly held settlements and then just wait until they starve to death. I find that this allows me to capture much larger areas of land more quickly than if I tried to besiege each city with my main army.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I never wait for more than two seasons (lay siege this season, storm the next). However, in my ongoing Romani campaign (my longest-running campaign; the other two on my signature are just beginning) I always have four experienced spies as well as two tough assassins following every one of my armies. They do reconnaissance, sabotage, occasional assassination as well as, most importantly, the opening of the city gates. So almost always, I storm the city right after laying siege to it. I currently have only one army that has been separated from its spies.

In my Qarthadastim campaign, I have elephants, and they act as my instant battering rams. Right in the beginning, on my third turn of the campaign, I have initiated a one-turn blitz during which I have taken Syrakusai, Messana as well as Rhegion all in a single season, with a single army! That was all due to the elephants, which are comparable to re-usable spies or live siege equipment that does not have to be slowly assembled after laying siege nor burdening an army on the march (field artillery has low movement points).

I personally dislike the long sieges because they create lot of devastation (severely decreases the city income for an extended period of time), they draw enemy reinforcements, as well as because sometimes my army only has a chance of winning on the streets, being too small to win on open ground (such as the tiny elite armies or just very small armies with pike phalanxes, which are great on the narrow streets of a town). Not only this, but all thus turns of sieging are not as profitable - all those turns you spent sieging could have been the turns during which you have been already receiving the income from the besieged city if you just quickly assaulted the settlement.

I would only try to starve the defender out in case the enemy has a very tough garrison (such as elite garrison, highly experienced garrison, all pike phalanx garrison) and you know you will take enormous casualties if you try to take the city/town outright. Just be careful, because the AI might sally out right the next turn, and AI almost always performs better on the open field than in a settlement(not to mention that in a city battle, you have the leisure of organizing attack whenever and wherever you want it, whereas in an open battle you must react to the AI maneuvers).

[Tarkus]

Interesting message, Aemilius!

I also typically assault before starving out a settlement...due in part to a lack of patience, but I also don't want to trash the settlement and surrounding landscape through a loooooong siege. But -- in certain cases as I play my Romani campaign through 185BC -- I take great joy in starving out my Celtic barbarian enemies.

[tapanojum]

I almost ALWAYS starve a settlement or bait them out. I simply hate siege battles with a passion. I find it extremely boring!

[Cullhwch]

It depends on the faction, really. If you play as Rome or Carthage, you can easily afford to starve out enemies as you've got a strong starting position and economy in the early game. Your enemies will be too disorganized to lift the siege with any significant force. On the other hand, if you're playing as a barbarian or western Greek faction you'll almost have to assault under the cover of slingers and archers. Their economies are abysmal at the start of the game, and you'll get out of debt fastest if you attack ASAP.

[GodEmperorLeto]

Depends on the situation. Historically, many cities and fortresses were besieged for extended periods of time during the medieval era, but I can't say the same with certainty for antiquity. That being said, there are advantages and disadvantages. Against certain factions/garrisons, I'll wait for them to sally forth. Sometimes they don't, and I get the city without shedding a drop of blood. But others, I'll storm the city against. Going toe-to-toe with gaesatae in narrow streets or the winding paths of a barbarian settlement is not my cup of tea--I prefer to draw them out.

As the Saka, I habitually besiege cities, then shower them with arrows as they sally. This usually exhausts their forces over time. When out of arrows, if they still have a substantial army, I withdraw and besiege again. I seized a number of Indian cities during my Saka migration campaign. Each city in the Indus Valley was besieged for at least 7 or 8 seasons each before they sallied, and then I usually ran out of arrows before they ran out of men, so I'd siege the city again. And again. And again. I did this without losing a single man each time. Granted, it took nearly a decade, but it was worth it, and it made sense, because these horse-nomads wouldn't have been experts at siege warfare (that and I had, like, NO INFANTRY).

As Romans, I usually take the Roman hardline of reducing any garrison that is held against them. I keep that idea of "show of force" that was displayed at Masada. I also like to mix strategies against enemy factions, such as sending mobile field armies through enemy territory while laying siege to enemy strongholds that are weakly held with small specialized forces--kind of a take on duncan.gill's strategy.

No matter what, I try to roleplay the mentality of the people I am playing. This leads to a variety of approaches to strategy and warfare, as well as borders and defense. As Rome, I have a habit of building lots of weakly garrisoned forts at choke-points to slow the enemy down, for example, while as steppe nomads, I try to use the vastness of the step and the mobility of the horde to exhaust my enemies and stretch their supply lines on the defensive, and on the offensive I like to penetrate deep into enemy territory, destroy field armies with arrows and sack weakly defended settlements before withdrawing with my loot.

[Chris1959]

I almost always starve a garrison out, but I'm usually playing Romani and roleplaying and I regard it as subduing a province not just taking a single city, simply reading this year in history shows how many seiges and assaults took place in Sicily in the 1st Punic etc.

There are exceptions when a garrison is particularly weak, but then 90% of the time I autocalc as I really hate the tedium of playing a siege I know I'll win with minimum casualties!

[Celtic_Punk]

put a hole in the wall with sapping. Your phalanx's will hold well against Pahlavan horses and crappy infantry in the streets and against the selucids you can put 3 phalanx's around the gap to create a spear-killzone.

this makes attacking the city easy for you, and defending not all that bad until you can repair the walls.

[Michiel de Ruyter]

Well,

historically, just as in Medieval and Early Modern history it depended a lot on the circumstances... often a besieging army could be as devastated by (food) shortages and disease as the besieged were. Similarly many societies lacked the capabilities to support a strong siege, or storm a fortification in a state of readiness...

And then it became a quick calculation of potential rewards vs risks. The Romans were one of the most effective (at both) because they possessed the resources, the capabilities and will to do both.
But even (at least in the later Roman era) when going up against more spohisticated, prepared enemies with strong resolve and no major defections and betrayals, they could usually only mount a single major siege a season.

Similarly, assuming their defences were in order, most Roman cities were fairly safe from incursions from the Germanic peoples.

[Chris_]

Unless it's looking to be a particularly epic battle, or there is some other factor (nearby enemy armies), I usually wait for the enemy to sally, partly just to avoid city pathfinding. I've lost a few battles because one guy in an elite unit somehow managed to wedge himself in between two buildings, causing the rest of the unit to run around like lunatics.

[Tarkus]

I've lost a few battles because one guy in an elite unit somehow managed to wedge himself in between two buildings, causing the rest of the unit to run around like lunatics.

Slightly off-topic, but...
I've had similar troubles in getting hoplites to successfully attack walls using siege towers. Some of the individuals will move up the towers, but the vast majority endlessly stagger around the base of the tower. Through many halt-move-halt-move iterations, I can get everybody up to the top of the wall, but long after their value has been lost.

Am I doing something stupid here? Is this a long-known problem that I've only recently figured out?

[Ibrahim]

as for tactics, i vary according to the size and type of army, the size and type of the enemy army, the morale of the troops, the defenses of the settlement, and the level of spies in the city (if any). i have no set tactics or strategy.

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Slightly off-topic, but...
I've had similar troubles in getting hoplites to successfully attack walls using siege towers. Some of the individuals will move up the towers, but the vast majority endlessly stagger around the base of the tower. Through many halt-move-halt-move iterations, I can get everybody up to the top of the wall, but long after their value has been lost.

Am I doing something stupid here? Is this a long-known problem that I've only recently figured out?

I've had that issue too. It only happens with the huge siege towers needed to take large walls. It happens with just about any infantry unit. The only solution I know of is to just keep telling them to get on the walls.

For assault, my Parthian policies against non-nomads are the following:

1. Attack the enemy with a small force, so that the enemy comes out of the fortress. This generally allows me to either crush the army and take the city, or, if victory in a pitched fight is impossible, to rout one group of enemies when they all come out and then pursue them into the fortress with one or two units and barricade the doors shut. There is then some frantic running around to secure the whole place and take the town square. The second option is extremely fun, and the whole policy is cost-effective, but you need fast troops.

2. Plant a spy in the city and get the doors open. Street fighting sucks, especially against phalanxes, but if you're lucky you can outflank the enemy at an intersection.

3. If options 1 and 2 fail, I get some mercenary archers and build a siege tower. Then it's just a fight/run to the gatehouse and its surrounding towers, then the traditional street fighting.

I don't bother waiting, I just don't have the time for it. Who knows when the next giant army will come running to the rescue?

As other sides, the two options I use either involve starving them out or overrunning them with numerical superiority.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I'll usually wait out the city, but often reinforcements attack me and I wipe them out as well as the city defenders who reinforce thus giving me the city.

I really don't like playing city battles, defending or especially attacking. I will sometimes roleplay and have to attack because the general is impatient or the army is running out of supplies.

On the subject of sieges, I hate sapping. I never use it and wish I could disable it for the AI. Sapping should take months, be extremely dangerous to the attackers, and should often fail. Plus, if you have a border town that is often under siege and attacked by sappers, wouldn't you rebuild the damage to the walls and make it relatively sap-proof for the future? Total War games need more wall upgrades besides just size.

[Hegix]

Unless I outnumber the enemy like 10 to 1 I never assault cities. I'd much rather fight 2 armies in the open if reinforcements come than having to fight over a town plaza. MTW2 does it much better, but in RTW I feel it's totally hopeless.

[Grriffon]

I starve a city if it is Indian, because seriously, those archers are demons. I also sometimes starve a city when I'm fielding a small all cavalry army. Otherwise assaulting usually isn't too hard.

[ludwag]

If i am a place far from witch i can get new reinforcements i use to starve them out so that i dont throw away as many troops. Also it matters very much if they have reinforcements on the way. And how long they can survive compared to how many troops i have compared to their.

I think that question is a bad question, becouse it is something you have to judge out of the conditions.

[Conqueror]

The best way to take a well-defended city quickly is to deliberately siege it with a weak-looking army. If the AI thinks it's garrison is stronger than your force, it will sally out immediately, and you basically get a field battle fought outside the walls. This is obviously a dangerous tactic since you'll probably be outnumbered. But it's potentially incredibly rewarding: if things go your way you'll get the city without a long siege and without any serious fighting on the streets/walls.

The initial assault is what will ultimately determine success or failure here. If you manage to repel the first wave without suffering any significant losses, you've basically won (note that there's no need to cause much damage to the enemy in melee; preserving your own numbers is what counts). You need to do this while having your archers/slingers hold their fire and conserve their ammunition. When the enemy units rout, they'll run back to the city, and that is when you get to shoot at their exposed backs, causing massive casualties. If they regain their morale in the city, they'll turn to attack you again, but will be too severely exhausted, demoralised and decimated to stand any chance at all. You can easily finish them off by the second or third wave.

Once the entire garrison has been sufficiently weakened, you can move forward with battering rams or ladders and take the plaza. This tactic of luring them out right away works very well with a Seleukid army if you can get good phalangites backed with high quality archers.

[Arutima]

I always starve every cities i lay siege on. And i always sally forth if one of my cities is sieged

[Cambyses]

I agree with several people here, sick to the back teeth of siege battles, so I just starve 'em ouy unless I hav an overwhelming advantage, then I autocalc. Only ever assault if I have to due to time pressures of some kind.

On defence I rarely sally unless I have a much better army, as you can win defending with very inferior troops if you get the tactics right. Plus in many cases you can bring up reinforcements.

Always have at least one unit of archers (preferably 3) if you intend to resist a seige because the AI doesnt consider this question sensibly and will always attack! Burn some seige equipment and its all over.

With concentrated fire sapping almost always fails too, its only the AI that cant defend against it, not the human player!

From a historical perspective I have to wonder how many cities really were assaulted in this manner anyway, the majority seem to have fallen due to political skullduggery and/or not having adequate defences. Although of course there are some notable exceptions.

[xzGAB]

If the city garrison is strong enough to cause heavy losses to my forces (i did this wtih a gaul city with 4 naked warriors and a full stack), i prefer siege until my troops are belts tightened. So i lift the siege and back to my lands to resupply, and other army (that was in my lands) take the siege.

I usually go to war with 2 armies. One with 2 or 3 slingers (i like celts auxiliary) and 2 or 3 horses, using this for field battles. My other army is smaller and heavier, with few auxiliary troops and almost no missile units, to assault cities. I start sieging with the lighter army, switchin to the heavier when some enemy army comes, or when the belts are tightened, or when the assault is ready.

[Ca Putt]

i prefer starving them out but in most cases, there is a large enemy army 1-2 turns away. especially when i loot the coast it is essencial to be quick and gone already when reinforcements arrive(and the city is burnt to the ground and selled to someone ^^)

thus i have to agree: I am sick of seige battles aswell

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Siege battles...

1. cost you an unusual big deal of men that you have to reinforce over some 4 - 8 turns in late game
2. are extremely tedious, since the enemy prefers to scatter himself all over the city which takes your troops ages to get to slaughter him
3. are mostly not nessecary because there is always an enemy stack waiting within a turn's distance to help his comrades out, which leads to a much more welcome 5%-casualties-field-battle
4. are historically the exception, since no General could afford to risk his army in such a lunatic enterprise like assaulting a well-defended city

What leads me to the conclusion that I almost never fight a siege battle, except...

1. when the leading General gets the "starving" trait
2. when there is another roleplay-reason that forces me to attack, e. g. the new Basileus has to perform an act of bravery
3. when an assault is necessary due to forcing strategic reasons, like having to relieve an otherwise lost second army.

[Kromulan]

Hmm. . . I have a loose houserule (more of a guideline) that, if the enemy has a chance to relieve the siege with a decent army, I'll siege until the battle comes to me.
If not, as is the case with all independent cities, I assault.
Basically, it's whatever gives the AI the best chance . . .
That said, this is in no way a hard-and-fast, must-do-everytime rule.