why the ai being slaughtered in plaza is a good thing

[Lord Ovaat]

The only alternative I can see to using square-control as the objective, would be to go to "last man standing". I reckon for most sieges that would be OK, but what about the sieges where defenders actually get stuck between buildings, in walls, etc. I learned early on, that when the computer asks if you want to "end battle" during a siege, you better say yes. LOL You can't kill them when they're stuck somewhere. Even archers usually can't hit them. So, you now occupy the city with 1500 troops, but you can't win because one lone chariot is stuck in the side of a building? And if you have the timer disabled, how does it ever end? Hit escape and exit battle? Not much of an option there, neither. Unit movement and pathfinding can be horrendously bad on some of the siege maps, which I'm sure is one of the things to be patched. But until then, I like things the way they are.

[Doug-Thompson]

The whole solution to the siege problem is to allow the option to turn the timer off, and then allow the option of "last man standing" victory conditions for sieges. This would allow the AI to play in a way that showed some instinct for self-preservation.

It's pretty obvious that the R:TW designers were told to pick up the pace in tactical battles and make them more "exciting." That explains just about everything that's questionable in realism terms: Foot units that move too fast, excessive kill rates, murderous archers. I also think that's what's behind the friendly fire problem and the disappearance of the spear rank bonus, because those aspects penalize the time-honored tactic of setting up a spear wall with a bunch of archers behind it, making battles more "fluid" and "exciting." It certainly explains the goofy "flying horses" or "horses as projectiles" effect in cavalry charges.

[Slaists]

for one, i think, the timer should be kept for seige battles (the time alotted to each particular attack is discussable though and some extra slack in this regard would be an improvement in my opinion). without the timer, i, as a human player, am tempted to exploit the situation by taking all or most of the walls and annihilate the AI forces using their own castle defenses... with the timer on, i just do not have enough time to accomplish this: the strike has to be surgically precise carrying the wave straight to the city square... and once there, i better have sufficient forces in reserve to keep it clean (even from routing enemy units which rally in the square) for three minutes.

all in all, i like the current system. however, i'd like a tad more time to be able to accomplish more epic seige attacks. as it stands now, the timer seems to set ridiculous time limits which in no way correspond to the engaged army size and wall defenses... i have had attacks in which i have only 20 minutes to take a fully garrisoned huge city and, at other times, i get 45 minutes to batter just a couple hoplite militia units...

as to the central square issue: with the timer on, one just runs out of time to shoot down the square defenders.

[TheDuck]

The whole solution to the siege problem is to allow the option to turn the timer off, and then allow the option of "last man standing" victory conditions for sieges. This would allow the AI to play in a way that showed some instinct for self-preservation.

It's pretty obvious that the R:TW designers were told to pick up the pace in tactical battles and make them more "exciting." That explains just about everything that's questionable in realism terms: Foot units that move too fast, excessive kill rates, murderous archers. I also think that's what's behind the friendly fire problem and the disappearance of the spear rank bonus, because those aspects penalize the time-honored tactic of setting up a spear wall with a bunch of archers behind it, making battles more "fluid" and "exciting." It certainly explains the goofy "flying horses" or "horses as projectiles" effect in cavalry charges.

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. I still think the game is very fun, but the tactical engine is very very different than the MTW one regarding how to lead your units in battle.

[Owen]

The whole solution to the siege problem is to allow the option to turn the timer off, and then allow the option of "last man standing" victory conditions for sieges. This would allow the AI to play in a way that showed some instinct for self-preservation.

While I posted recently to the effect that the time limit is so short as to make it virtually impossible to assault huge cities, I don't think removing the time limit is the answer either.

Consider the situation where an army decides to sally from a city with stone walls or greater. Unless the besiegers have a great numerical advantage and siege engines, they will be unable to destroy the city. However, the sally is only successful if the besiegers all either die or rout off the map. If the sallying forces rout back into the city, the besiegers can try chasing, but they will most likely be killed off by the arrow towers, burning oil and units rallying in the city square. In this situation, the only way for the besiegers to win is for the time limit to run out, after which the siege continues. This is as it should be.

Personally, I think the best solution is to double the timer for assaults and sallies in minor cities and triple it for large or huge cities.

Of course, it would also be good if failed assaults didn't have the bizarre effect of also lifting the siege and forcing the besiegers to withdraw as far as they can, but these things need to be dealt with one at a time.

[Oaty]

Lord Ovaat

I learned early on, that when the computer asks if you want to "end battle" during a siege, you better say yes. LOL You can't kill them when they're stuck somewhere. Even archers usually can't hit them. So, you now occupy the city with 1500 troops, but you can't win because one lone chariot is stuck in the side of a building?

Once you hit the continue button, the battle is already won and all you have to do is hit ESC and exit battle. No extra losses on either side when you do this. Same as MTW once you got the message the enemy was fleeing you no longer had to fight you just would'nt get any extra kills

As far as the central plaza I do'nt think it's too bad. When it's 10 ormore units against 1 or 2 it would have been a surrender more times than not historically.

Heres an assault I had against me. Tons of Gauls against my 3 hastati and 1 equites. I had the bumrush the gate tactic set up. Well there archers dictated otherwise. I fell back to one of those minisquares on the streets. Something the A.I. will do but will come back again. The problem here is the human can set up a free entry but they wo'nt let me have free access to the front of the city so I just keep shooting until they all finally fall back.

How the A.I. needs to set up to defend the wall, if they get shot at fall back and STAY there. Heck it might even be better for the A.I. to just set up at the town square and rush forward once a certain range limit comes into effect. If they get pushed back they are on or close to the squre so the rout won't last long.

Another solution is all units inside the city (defenders only of course) have unlimited morale but elimination of the enemy or holding the townsquare for 3 mins should still be the key feature.

Also maybe a little help on the town square deal as skirmishers esp chariots can be a pain. If the attacker has a 3 to 1 man ration on the town square for more than 3 mins it is won. That way that 1 worthless guy that keeps running around wo'nt reset the timer