The Problem With Sieges...

[Svenn]

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

[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...

[anubis88]

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

[Molinaargh]

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

[Pobs]

....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

[Vasiliyi]

I think its hardcoded. But im not sure

[Tarkus]

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...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

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.