Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Why does the besieging army lose men?

  1. #1
    Member Member NewJeffCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    CT, USA
    Posts
    317

    Default

    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?

  2. #2
    Medical Welshman in London. Senior Member Big King Sanctaphrax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Cardiff in the summer, London during term time.
    Posts
    7,988

    Default

    I imagine this represents the effects of disease, which could spread quickly through a camp, and desertion.
    Co-Lord of BKS and Beirut's Kingdom of Peace and Love.

    "Handsome features, rugged exteriors, intellectual chick magnets, we're pretty much twins."-Beirut

    "Rhy, where's your helicopter now? Where's your ******* helicopter now?"-Mephistopheles.



  3. #3
    Member Member Kristaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livonia
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    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)...
    Kristaps aka Kurlander
    A Livonian Rebel

  4. #4
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default

    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.)
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  5. #5

    Talking

    Because people wouldn't stop complaining about it when they don't die.
    Disclaimer: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of The Creative Assembly or SEGA.

  6. #6
    Ricardus Insanusaum Member Bob the Insane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,911

    Default

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

  7. #7
    Guardian of the Fleet Senior Member Shahed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Leading the formation !
    Posts
    7,918

    Default



    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.
    A Gamecenter with a dedicated Total War fanbase!
    Check out our Facebook!
    Email: shahed@outpost.be


  8. #8
    Darkside Medic Senior Member rory_20_uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Taplow, UK
    Posts
    8,480

    Default

    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.
    An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
    Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
    "If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
    If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
    The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill

  9. #9
    Member Member Kristaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livonia
    Posts
    464

    Default

    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



    Kristaps aka Kurlander
    A Livonian Rebel

  10. #10
    Member Member Mori Gabriel Syme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Athens, Georgia USA
    Posts
    212

    Default

    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.

  11. #11
    Member Member Coucy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    63

    Default

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

  12. #12

    Default

    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.
    All you can do is pray for a quick death... which you ain't gonna get -Mr. Blonde

  13. #13
    Whimsysmith & Designy Bloke CA Captain Fishpants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Beyond the galactic boundary...
    Posts
    453

    Default

    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
    Gentlemen should exercise caution and wear stout-sided boots when using the Fintry-Kyle Escape Apparatus. Ladies, children, servants and those of a nervous disposition should be strongly encouraged to seek other means of hurried egress.

    The formal bit: Any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of The Creative Assembly or SEGA.

  14. #14
    Member Member Kristaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livonia
    Posts
    464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    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...



    Kristaps aka Kurlander
    A Livonian Rebel

  15. #15

    Default

    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.

  16. #16
    Member Member Daevyll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    277

    Default

    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.

  17. #17
    For TosaInu and the Org Senior Member The_Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The United Kingdom of Great Britain
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    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)
    "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

  18. #18
    Ricardus Insanusaum Member Bob the Insane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,911

    Default

    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...

  19. #19
    Member Member Kalle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    389

    Default

    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
    Playing computer strategy games of course, history, got a masters degree, outdoor living and nature, reading, movies wining and dining and much much more.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO