Why does the besieging army lose men?

[NewJeffCT]

I have not picked up the expansion yet, but I want to know why do besiegers lose men now? I can see men that are trapped in a castle losing men over the years as their supplies run low with no way to re-supply themselves, but being outside the castle, it should be easy, or easier, to maintain your supply lines – no?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I imagine this represents the effects of disease, which could spread quickly through a camp, and desertion.

[Kristaps]

Quote[/b] (NewJeffCT @ May 13 2003,08:58)]I have not picked up the expansion yet, but I want to know why do besiegers lose men now? I can see men that are trapped in a castle losing men over the years as their supplies run low with no way to re-supply themselves, but being outside the castle, it should be easy, or easier, to maintain your supply lines – no?

Various reasons: some just quite out of boredom, some get stabbed or poisoned during the long nights by the local patriotic prostitutes, some just die of old age or sickness, while others hit the dust while taking a leak in the wrong place (the dark one, around the corner)...

[Red Harvest]

Disease will affect the besieger in their camps. There is also skirmishing occuring during a siege and at various times besiegers will take some archer fire. The populace of besieged provinces will be hostile to the invaders as well so you can expect some attrition from attacks by locals on your foraging parties. (Desertion would be a major issue with any sort of conscript army, but it really isn't modeled with units normally so I doubt it applies here.)

[eat cold steel]

Because people wouldn't stop complaining about it when they don't die.

[Bob the Insane]

Quote[/b] (eat cold steel @ May 13 2003,09:22)]Because people wouldn't stop complaining about it when they don't die.

LMAO.....

[Shahed]

They should lose men, as otherwise there is no incentive to end the siege, just sit there, wait it out, and presto fortress for free.

[rory_20_uk]

Look at things the other way around: can several hundred men sit in close proximity round a castle to ensure that no one can get in or out without there being at least slight amounts of trouble?
If the local populace is less than keen about the invaders, they might also add to the toll.
Regardless of exactly why this is the case, I think that it is a good idea, as it makes aggression a greater undertaking.

[Kristaps]

Also, now, it seems much more likely that the AI wouuld assault a castle rather than trying to lay siege on it. I noticed it while trying a new Byzantium campaign: turks invaded lesser armenia where I had a peasant garnizon in a keep. I thought I would get to the invaders in a few turns but much did I know: the turkish army of spearmen and horse archers assaulted the keep in the next turn just to get shot down by my castle defenses. The final humilation of the turkish remains by my blood-thirsty peasants was fun to watch

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

Historically, disease was a big problem for those laying seige to a castle. Sanitation in the camp was generally poor, but that wasn't such a problem when the army was on the move. If it stayed somewhere for a length of time, conditions deteriorated quickly.

Men did also desert or leave by permission during lengthy seiges if they were not given additional incentives for staying away from home for months, forget years. As someone said, that doesn't seem to be such a big factor in other aspects of the game, so disease & random losses to hostile locals probably accounts for it.

I think it is a good addition. From the point of gameplay, it does encourage assaultng the castle rather than sitting it out.

[Coucy]

Yep, agreed. Attacker siege attrition is a big step forward in both gameplay and realism. Glad to see it added in VI

[LeeJackson]

maybe besigers should lose forces, but tehre shoudl also be a minum garrison requirment. I had one archer hold a keep whiel it was under seig by 2k of my troops. I think this was a bit silly.

IMO each type of "fort" shoudl have a minum garrison requirement and if can't be ment the retraeting army flees the provance or just loses. The requiremnt could be small like 20 men. But I think their should be one.

[Captain Fishpants]

Haven't you ever seen "Beau Geste"?

Everyone in a castle is probably dead apart from one bloke, but he's going round the castle and propping up the dead guys to make it look like there's a full garrison

"Everyone fights at Fort Zinderneuf"

MikeB ~ CA

[Kristaps]

Quote[/b] (LeeJackson @ May 13 2003,10:49)]I had one archer hold a keep whiel it was under seig by 2k of my troops.

I agree that one archer is insufficient to operate all arrow and catapult towers + pour oil on approaching besiegers. However, I suspect, by design, the castle defenses are operated by 'other-invisible' defenders and the only 2 ways to 'get them' are:

(1) destroy the respective structures hosting the defenders (2) capture the castle section in which they operate.

Under this design the 'visible' castle defenders are just 'extras' that the structure is able to host. I have one problem with this design: if there are invisible castle defenders operating the defense structures, a castle should not fall even if it has no 'visible defenders'... i.e., one should be required to control all castle sections or destroy the structure entirely to capture the it.

An example: under the current design, if I remove all 'visible troops from a province and an enemy attacks it the next turn I would lose my control of the area AND the castle. However, if there are 'invisible' castle defenders should not they be holding the castle until the structure is assaulted or they are forced to die out in a prolonged siege...

Just wondering...

[andrewt]

I like the minimum units suggestion. Also, castle defenses should be weaker when there are fewer units inside. If I'm storming a castle with only 20 units as opposed to 100, less arrows should be fired and less oil poured. Lots of times, I would just use assassins to kill that lone guy inside the castle. The endgame of medieval (once you conquered around 30-50% of the provinces) is basically just the enemy retreating back to the castle and the player doing one castle assault after another. I rarely get a chance to get open field battles at the end.

[Daevyll]

Gameplay reasons: it gives an incentive to assault rather than besiege

Historical reasons: Desertion and disease as mentioned previously, and as a result of 'probing' attacks.

Also, it isnt exactly cheap to keep an army in the field for protracted periods of time. Especially in feudal times when large wars were waged by the same men who had to bring in the harvests... so it simply wasnt right that there was no additional 'cost' to the attacker waiting out a siege.

[The_Emperor]

Still it is a nice addition to the game... especially sicne we now have flaming arrows to use in an assault (Finally all those archers are useful once again)

[Bob the Insane]

I don't agree with a mininmum garrison requirement and I'll say why..

The forces in this game are abstract.. I mean, the population of europe at the time of Mediveal was a few million, which mean each province in the game either has 10's of thousands or 100's of thousands of people living there.. The concept that 100 peasants can keep them all in line is pretty abstract...

I use the following logic to help me accept the game:

The troops you see and control are troops loyal to the King (i.e. you). Each province has it's own local nobles and local troops which don't show in the game.. And it is the loyalty of these nobles whom give the loyalty rating for a province (no on really cares what peasant think away..).. So your 100 peasant soldier whom are loyal to the King simply have to keep the local nobles in line, not the whole population...

So castle walls and gates and towers are manned by local troops (probably militia from the local area).. These troops will only fight on if there are loyal King's soldiers on hand to 'encourage' them.. Thus once the Kings troops are defeated in a province the local nobles and troops surrender ASAP...

This logic also helps with revolts, for me a revolt is not the populous simply rising up, it is a revolt amoung the local nobles and they raise there own troops (possibly in secret and also hiring mercenaries) to take the province for themselves.. And depending on how rich are well backed the revolt is that decides what troops are available..

It works for me...

[Kalle]

I am very happy that the game now makes the besieging force loose men. If u want any kind of historical accuracy in a game like this - and i think u do as long as it does not subtract from the fun.

If u read any book of warfare in the past written by professional historians u will find that the force besieging a castle or town or something like that most often had a very hard time to supply for its needs.

An army would very soon have used up all local supplies and surplus supplies prolly was in the defending castle. The surroundings prolly were inhabited by hostile people hiding or burning their own supplies and so on. So supplying an army in hostile country have never been easy.

Even in the recent war in Iraq - US troops had to stop for days to await suppplyconvoys.

Then imagine how hard it would be and how long time it would take to get supply - say from Poland to Volhynia or Hungary during Medieval times.

Also as mentioned earlier desiese would spread in the camp.

Most soldiers in the history of war (maybe if u overlook the 20th century) did not die from actual combat but from starvation, freeezing, desiese, total tiredness and so on.

So this was a good add to the game historically accurate (at least more then before) and making sieging more difficult. Needed and wanted.

Thanks for it developers.

Kalle