Sieges and Bombardments

**Noncommunist** · 01-24-2009, 18:43

These are just a few questions I have about how sieges are going to work.

Whenever you hit it with artillery, would that be in the battle map or would it be a separate thing that you can do on the campaign map? I remember reading that in wars of this time, whenever the walls were breached, a fort had the chance to surrender honorably but if it kept on fighting, there would be no mercy for the inhabitants. It would seem strange to have a diplomacy option right in the middle of a battle and it would seem more normal in campaign mode. Also, I was reading that extensive trenches were dug just to get the attacking artillery within the range to make a breach. The battle map would take a while if you had to wait for the trenches to be dug.

Also, the one interview said that you would be attacking forts near the town. If you wanted to, could you still fight in the city? Perhaps you could just have urban warfare and since garrisoning buildings is possible, it would also mean that civilians could be involved in the fighting as I'm guessing that in Medieval 2, they were huddled inside buildings as the fight went on. It might also advantage some of the factions that are bad in the field and are more individualistic as I can't imagine a lot of formations happening in the midst of a city.

Although I asked about this before, would there be any chances that siege mining could occur? I haven't seen anything about it in any of the previews but it seems like it was an important part of warfare in that time.

**Fondor_Yards** · 01-24-2009, 19:54

Personally, I doubt we will gave the option to give them the option to surrender. Hell, is the past 2 games you couldn't even interact with a sieged city at all with your diplomat *but an ai one could with yours for some reason.*

As for the trenches I haven't seen any in the few seconds we see of forts being bombarded and attacked.

Yes if you so chose you can hide in the city and garrison the buildings.

By siege mining I assume you mean sapping. In which case there has been zero news about this from CA. I would say that it is in, but it wasn't in M2TW so who knows.

**Fisherking** · 01-24-2009, 21:09

First off any artillery fire is going to be on the battle map. We have never had combat on the campaign map.

With diplomacy now moved to a different system I take it you can access them at almost any time you wish. Except on the battle field map, unless there is a really big change.

In one hands-on (game spot I think), there was a remark about his dragoons charging entrenchments and that they had stakes or pikes…

As to chances to surrender…I think at sea a ship may strike when moral gets too low…the same may be true of a fort. But that is only a guess.

Mining would be great to have but other than in the Fougasse there has been no hint of engineering, other than that of entrenchments…

**hoom** · 01-24-2009, 21:27

I think at sea a ship may strike when moral gets too low…the same may be true of a fort

Hey, that would be cool having forts surrender if you break their morale

Its always tiring to have to do fight to the death at every city/fort or siege them for many turns.

**pevergreen** · 01-25-2009, 03:13

Originally Posted by Fondor_Yards

Hell, is the past 2 games you couldn't even interact with a sieged city at all with your diplomat *but an ai one could with yours for some reason.*

If you set your diplomat off to the city/castle on a multiturn trip (ie end of turn, he isnt there yet) and the city/castle is sieged, if you leave him, the diplomat will still perform all the diplomacy stuff. You just have to leave him alone, let the auto move get him at the end of the turn.

**Polemists** · 01-25-2009, 05:30

I don't know about trenches, but I do know in one video they show that before a battle there are certain defenses you can place, such as small fences and the like. So I doubt you'd see your men actively digging a trench but a trench may be able to be created before a battle.

I think you can attack a city, as I recall one video showing a army blowing through a city wall, but I do believe the article said most cities you have to get through a fort.

Remeber this time armies have circles, so this isn't a issue of your units meeting at a exact point. So I assume as long as fort is in radius of a city you'll have to take it to take the city, though I could be wrong. That's just my speculation.

**Fondor_Yards** · 01-25-2009, 09:55

Originally Posted by Fisherking

First of any artillery fire is going to be on the battle map. We have never had combat on the campaign map.

Wait what? It is? How did I miss this...

**Fisherking** · 01-25-2009, 11:27

Originally Posted by Fondor_Yards

Wait what? It is? How did I miss this...

Why?

Do you think they are going to introduce Strategic Artillery Fires! Reducing Cities without fighting?

It doesn’t seem very provable to me…

Not every one comes to the forums with equal experience with the games ya’know…

Sometimes the obvious needs to be restated.

**Polemists** · 01-25-2009, 14:11

It's the CIV4 vs TW mindset.

In civ 4 when you have a artillery unit, of any kind, you roll up next to the city on campaign map and hit bombard, which then destroy the implacements, citizens, and surrounding areas.

However you never actually zoom in to invade the city, you just charge some units in against the garrison on the campaign map, as all fighting since Civ 3 is done on the campaign map.

In TW you zoom in for battles so there is no need for any military actions, (other then blockades) to occur on the campaign map.

**Noncommunist** · 01-25-2009, 19:59

Originally Posted by Polemists

It's the CIV4 vs TW mindset.

In civ 4 when you have a artillery unit, of any kind, you roll up next to the city on campaign map and hit bombard, which then destroy the implacements, citizens, and surrounding areas.

However you never actually zoom in to invade the city, you just charge some units in against the garrison on the campaign map, as all fighting since Civ 3 is done on the campaign map.

In TW you zoom in for battles so there is no need for any military actions, (other then blockades) to occur on the campaign map.

The reason I mentioned the idea of campaign combat is because I'm guessing that actual bombardment of a fort took a while. While it was later on, it appears that the bombardment of Sumter took a while, far longer than I would want to bombard in a real time game. That's why I had the idea of doing it on the campaign map. Similarly, you don't exterminate or sack a city in the battle map because it probably wouldn't be that interesting to do so.

**Sir Beane** · 01-25-2009, 20:07

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

The reason I mentioned the idea of campaign combat is because I'm guessing that actual bombardment of a fort took a while. While it was later on, it appears that the bombardment of Sumter took a while, far longer than I would want to bombard in a real time game. That's why I had the idea of doing it on the campaign map. Similarly, you don't exterminate or sack a city in the battle map because it probably wouldn't be that interesting to do so.

I can see what you mean, but I doubt CA will do it that way. I imagine bombardment will be shortened and simplified to allow it to be represented on the campaign map.

After all battles took much longer than they do on a Total War game, so CA don't have a problem with shortening things to make them more fun.