Castle Sieges

[Kagemusha]

In couple days when i have time i will post about the siege engines used in Japan. You can prepare for some interesting things,like traction trebuchets used only againts the enemy men, not the walls. Also to me it is weird that it is said over and over that Japanese didint use ladders because of sloped stone walls of castles. Sure you dont need ladders to climb the stone foundation of Tenshu, or stone basin of a wall, but how will you get over those meters high plastered, or wooden walls in top of any sloped wall?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've been fascinated by sieges for a long time -- probably because of it's move-countermove quality. My regret from TW games is not the plethora of sieges available for non-autocalc play, but the repetitive fotresses being assaulted. I've always wanted to have a go at some of the classic fortresses of the era or defend Valetta against a host of Jannisaries.

Oh well, most of the rest of the TW org would loathe it.

[seienchin]

Sieges were common in sengoku jidai Japan, but not siege battles. Castles were only sometimes stormed by the enemy troops. More often the defender retreated, sallied out or waited for reeinforcements. Off course the lack of siege weapons played an important role, because castles were easy to defend, without them.
Decisive battle were a daimyo used all his troops were the least common form of combat until Oda Nobunga took over and the battles became a new scale. Still many battles were rather skirmishing fights with lots of duels and not meant to cause huge losses like for example the battles between the takeda and uesugi.

[Kagemusha]

Sieges were common in sengoku jidai Japan, but not siege battles. Castles were only sometimes stormed by the enemy troops. More often the defender retreated, sallied out or waited for reeinforcements. Off course the lack of siege weapons played an important role, because castles were easy to defend, without them.
Decisive battle were a daimyo used all his troops were the least common form of combat until Oda Nobunga took over and the battles became a new scale. Still many battles were rather skirmishing fights with lots of duels and not meant to cause huge losses like for example the battles between the takeda and uesugi.

I think you are mixing two things here.The many battles of Kawanakajima werent about honourable duels, but even adversaries probing each other.Guess what would have happen to Takeda with decesive loss in Northern Shinano? Invasion of Hojo, Tokugawa, Saito and Anegakoji.For Uesugi, Invasion of Hojo, Ashina, Mogami, Hatakeyama, Shiina and Jinbo. Reality wasnt a totalwar game,where you could constantly put everything for a individual card.

Oda Nobunaga was anomality. After he decapitated Imagawa in Okehazama.He had his eastern border secured by alliance with Matsudaira/ Tokugawa, which allowed him to completely focus to West and North. Its same kind of issue that happened in Kyushu, when 300 Shimazu warriors destroyed the 3000 strong Ito army that created a power vvacuum in Kyushu, that allowed Shimazu to grow as an coutnry wide important clan.

[Barkhorn1x]

That picture is impressive - and wicked cool. But...how does one go about assaulting that behemouth? Those cliffs look pretty daunting and it appears as if one would only have a couple of attack paths leading to channeling and excessive vulnerability to missle troops.

Scary stuff for the attacker.

[seienchin]

I think you are mixing two things here.The many battles of Kawanakajima werent about honourable duels, but even adversaries probing each other.Guess what would have happen to Takeda with decesive loss in Northern Shinano? Invasion of Hojo, Tokugawa, Saito and Anegakoji.For Uesugi, Invasion of Hojo, Ashina, Mogami, Hatakeyama, Shiina and Jinbo. Reality wasnt a totalwar game,where you could constantly put everything for a individual card.
.

Im not mixing anything. I just might have not chosen my words wisely. ^^ The fighting in sengoku jidai (Especcialy the early one) wasnt one line of men against another. It had more skirmishing character with lots of individual fights and that is why most battles werent decisive, for example the battles at kawanakajima.
And dont overdramatize loosing a battle. Tokugawa ieasu lost at mikatagahara and still wasnt defeated decisevly etc. The thing about the decisive battles Oda Nobunaga fought was, that he killed the enemies leaders or just every enemy including their families like he did with the warrior monks.
Anyway, if you think about the takeda and Uesugi fighting several times at kawanakajima and still beeing two of the mightiest clans, and the defeat of the warrior monks (Or anybody else he fought) against Oda nobunaga or Toyotmi hideyoshis conquests or sekigahara etc., you have to admitt, that there was indeed a change in the fighting rules. It wasnt just about the single battles, it was about completly destroying your enemy. When Takeda shingen for example conquered shinano he let most of the families in charge and took over their forces. Oda would have killed them, Tokugawa would have given their lands to his own retainers. There was a huge shift in the fighting rules between early sengoku jidai and Oda Nobunagas time.

[Kagemusha]

Im not mixing anything. I just might have not chosen my words wisely. ^^ The fighting in sengoku jidai (Especcialy the early one) wasnt one line of men against another. It had more skirmishing character with lots of individual fights and that is why most battles werent decisive, for example the battles at kawanakajima.
And dont overdramatize loosing a battle. Tokugawa ieasu lost at mikatagahara and still wasnt defeated decisevly etc. The thing about the decisive battles Oda Nobunaga fought was, that he killed the enemies leaders or just every enemy including their families like he did with the warrior monks.
Anyway, if you think about the takeda and Uesugi fighting several times at kawanakajima and still beeing two of the mightiest clans, and the defeat of the warrior monks (Or anybody else he fought) against Oda nobunaga or Toyotmi hideyoshis conquests or sekigahara etc., you have to admitt, that there was indeed a change in the fighting rules. It wasnt just about the single battles, it was about completly destroying your enemy. When Takeda shingen for example conquered shinano he let most of the families in charge and took over their forces. Oda would have killed them, Tokugawa would have given their lands to his own retainers. There was a huge shift in the fighting rules between early sengoku jidai and Oda Nobunagas time.

You know of migatahara?He was backed by Oda anothe clan with larger income then his, or do you have some information discarding t his, for battle of ,Mitagahara, Tokugawa Ieayasy threatend to shift his alliance to Takeda un less oda would save him.You are making it sound like Oda Nobunaga invented the destruction of his enemies, you are more then wrogn maybe You should ask that from Minamoto Yo Norimoto?

[General Malaise]

"Shogun: Total War doesn’t include the battles that arose from siege warfare because
the long, slow business of laying siege to a castle doesn’t make a very exciting game.
Sieges are covered in the strategic game in a straightforward fashion so that you don’t
have to worry about the details. Siege warfare was often neither heroic nor dramatic.
In fact, most of the time it was a fairly squalid affair. If you want to imagine what a
siege would have been like, think the most overcrowded camping holiday you’ve ever
had or heard about, with utterly dreadful food, no toilets, no reliable fresh water,
constant bad weather, no chance to wash for weeks on end and no chance to move
somewhere more interesting. Now add in random bouts of illness (caused by the
food, bad water, bad weather, lack of hygiene and overcrowding) and random
episodes of small-scale violence when the people you are besieging try to kill you or
you try to break in and kill them.

Of course, none of the intricacies (and boredom) of siege warfare mattered on many
occasions.At Osaka in 1615, for example (and at other sieges), the troops inside the
castle left the protection of the walls to fight it out with the enemy on an open
battlefield. Sometimes this was a good move, breaking the siege in one climactic
action. At other times, such as Osaka Castle, it simply meant the defenders were cut
down outside the walls rather than being starved or slaughtered within them." - from STW1's The Way of the Daimyo manual

I hope they remember the above in regards to STW2. The endless siege-fests that were present in Rome on really made the campaign a tiresome chore. It's fine if historical sieges were a large part of warfare, but there's no reason not to abstract and streamline them the way they did in STW1. No matter how fun they make charging or sallying from a castle in any event, it's still going to be dull when if it makes up every battle.

[aimlesswanderer]

Personally I don't find the sieges or castle assaults interesting - much prefer battles in the field. Sieges are too repetitive. I actually like the way the original STW handled them: the castle held out for as long as they had supplies, and the besieging army could just sit around and wait. You had the option of storming it, and the defenders could sally.

IIRC the big problem was that if defenders sallied and you didn't quite kill them all, the few survivors could then hold out for decades (since there were 10 instead of 800 people eating). That would be easy to fit.

[Karl08]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"Shogun: Total War doesn’t include the battles that arose from siege warfare because
the long, slow business of laying siege to a castle doesn’t make a very exciting game.
Sieges are covered in the strategic game in a straightforward fashion so that you don’t
have to worry about the details. Siege warfare was often neither heroic nor dramatic.
In fact, most of the time it was a fairly squalid affair. If you want to imagine what a
siege would have been like, think the most overcrowded camping holiday you’ve ever
had or heard about, with utterly dreadful food, no toilets, no reliable fresh water,
constant bad weather, no chance to wash for weeks on end and no chance to move
somewhere more interesting. Now add in random bouts of illness (caused by the
food, bad water, bad weather, lack of hygiene and overcrowding) and random
episodes of small-scale violence when the people you are besieging try to kill you or
you try to break in and kill them.

Of course, none of the intricacies (and boredom) of siege warfare mattered on many
occasions.At Osaka in 1615, for example (and at other sieges), the troops inside the
castle left the protection of the walls to fight it out with the enemy on an open
battlefield. Sometimes this was a good move, breaking the siege in one climactic
action. At other times, such as Osaka Castle, it simply meant the defenders were cut
down outside the walls rather than being starved or slaughtered within them."

- from STW1's The Way of the Daimyo manual

You know, that's something else I liked about the original Shogun. A nice, thick, physical MANUAL. Not a mere leaflet. I think STW is the last game I bought that came in a proper box, and I really miss those.