Quick Siege Question

[Tricky Lady]

I'm pretty sure the defenders lose men (attrition I suppose?). I sieged a few turns "till the end" with my Pontic armies as they consisted practically entirely of cavalry. Every turn the defenders lost about 5-10 men per unit (so the Greek hoplites went from 80 to +- 50 when the city fell).
I didn't lose a single man in the siege.

[Empedocles]

I believe attackers should loose men in a siege to reflect rallies made by the defenders and disease (they were really common in armies in a siege).
It was common practice for the defender to let some units away at night and attack the enemy camp

Diego, from Argentina

[Vlad Tzepes]

Attackers don't lose men while sieging. Defenders do. This is kind of weird, as MTW-VI insisted on the "realism" new feature that forced gamers to attack castles because of the attrition rate.

IMHO, some attrition should be experienced by attackers in any situation, even when marching, somewhat like the Europa Universalis system. Anyway, to have the defenders die in the city and the besiegers thrive outside is unrealistic at least.

[Sin Qua Non]

I believe attackers should loose men in a siege to reflect rallies made by the defenders and disease (they were really common in armies in a siege).

Totally agree. I also miss that from MTW:VI. It's like the besiegers are having one big picnic out there! You burned the fields (and some of our farmers), remember? The EU2 supportable limit for provinces might be nice, but RTW doesn't even need something that complex. Just a limiting factor, possibly based on how many defenders there are, and maybe their composition. If 2 men are left in town, it's safe to say no sorties are forthcoming. But if 50% of the defenders are cavalry, you bet there will be some harrassment sorties!