Seiges

**screwtype** · 05-21-2006, 11:45

The game turns are really too long to simulate what you are suggesting holybandit. But personally, I'd like to see it taking longer to actually batter those walls down. The way they just collapse after having a couple of rocks hit them is ludicrous. They should be much tougher to break down, which would give a correspondingly greater sense of achievement if and when you finally broke through.

**O'ETAIPOS** · 05-21-2006, 16:11

There is one bigger issue - some fortreses were just imposible to capture by starvation with only the army. If there was a port on in city and attackers had weak navy then they could sit for decades without effect.

Other problem is that small army cant siege big city because they are not possible to cut it from suplies. This is Hannibal's problem - his 40000 strong army was not able to neither assault nor siege Rome because of the city size.

In RTW even one unit could starve huge city to death.

Another issue. Home defence. It would be great if during siege new units appear it city, according to it's size, to represent people living in city who defend they're homes. Those units would be automaticaly disbanded after the siege is over. And losses will affect city population.

**Mooks** · 05-21-2006, 16:24

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

There is one bigger issue - some fortreses were just imposible to capture by starvation with only the army. If there was a port on in city and attackers had weak navy then they could sit for decades without effect.

Other problem is that small army cant siege big city because they are not possible to cut it from suplies. This is Hannibal's problem - his 40000 strong army was not able to neither assault nor siege Rome because of the city size.

In RTW even one unit could starve huge city to death.

Another issue. Home defence. It would be great if during siege new units appear it city, according to it's size, to represent people living in city who defend they're homes. Those units would be automaticaly disbanded after the siege is over. And losses will affect city population.

Your last idea...is great.

**soibean** · 05-21-2006, 18:13

I agree...
I always though of the people in the towers in RTW as the home defence, and the defenders thank the gods that each archer is an expert sniper

I think low class militia units should appear during a siege, nothing too well trained but enough to have a minor effect... they are defending their homes and lives after all

**B-Wing** · 05-21-2006, 21:08

Originally Posted by O'ETAIPOS

...Home defence. It would be great if during siege new units appear it city, according to it's size, to represent people living in city who defend they're homes. Those units would be automaticaly disbanded after the siege is over. And losses will affect city population.

I think that's a great idea! Kind of like horde units from RTW:BI.

As for revamping the siege process, I'd like it to be more realistic. As Furious and screwtype mentioned, when artillery was used in sieges, they battered the walls continually for months. To represent this, I would make it so that each turn a town is under siege, its walls will take damage, determined by the amount and type of long-range artillery (catapults, trebuchets, cannons, etc.) and the "level" of the walls. This would have no relation to the amount of time it would take for the city to give in due to starvation. It could be shorter or longer. But once the defenses are sufficiently pounded, you could assault the city. In the battle, the walls would be just weak enough that you to still have to use a number of volleys from your siege equipment in real-time (which is just for show, really) to actually knock holes through them.

That way, you still get to use siege equipment in real-time battles, but successfuly besieging a city would require much more time than it takes to simply build the equipment and assault (as it is in RTW). Plus, if the siege was lifted for some reason, the city would still be damaged to varying degrees, requiring repairs.

**Kralizec** · 05-21-2006, 21:51

As for revamping the siege process, I'd like it to be more realistic. As Furious and screwtype mentioned, when artillery was used in sieges, they battered the walls continually for months. To represent this, I would make it so that each turn a town is under siege, its walls will take damage, determined by the amount and type of long-range artillery (catapults, trebuchets, cannons, etc.) and the "level" of the walls. This would have no relation to the amount of time it would take for the city to give in due to starvation. It could be shorter or longer. But once the defenses are sufficiently pounded, you could assault the city. In the battle, the walls would be just weak enough that you to still have to use a number of volleys from your siege equipment in real-time (which is just for show, really) to actually knock holes through them.

Good idea, I was thinking of something very similar.
Different types of siege weapons accomplish this with different ways. If you use sappers, the walls will be breached at some locations but the towers are left intact (due to their deeper foundations). If you use cannons or trebuchets (I'm not sure the latter was historicly capable of breaching walls), some towers will be damaged too. If you use a ram, the gates will have been damaged, but your men will take more casualties during the campaign map siege.
Lastly if your stack has a cannon, trebuchet or a catapult, the defenders should take increased casualties. The main purpose of the last two would have been to continuously fire stones or even dead carcasses into the city to demoralise the enemy, afterall.
Siege towers require the least tweaking, they seem reasonably well depicted in RTW.

I'm not well versed in medieval history, so all this is IMHO

**Zalmoxis** · 05-21-2006, 21:56

Those all sound pretty good, but then catapults and onagers will be unable to inflict damage when you attack the city with your army, correct?

**Kralizec** · 05-21-2006, 22:06

I suppose you could chose to use your artillery when you send your men unto the breach, but if it's to be realistic their awful accuracy will result in at least some friendly fire.

**Divinus Arma** · 05-21-2006, 22:46

They don't seige in a day in the game. They choose a day to assault.

And IMHO, it would be nice if there wasn't a timelimit exactly, but something a little different.

It would be AWESOME to see the day progress from morning and into the night. It would be nice to end the assault at your choosing, but still maintain the seige.

Just imagine: The day progressing into night, and torches being lit throughout the army on both sides... Your attacking army is exhausted and you decide to retire them for the evening...

These assaults were long and strenuous ordeals, not the rapid fire game we see in RTW. We need a better system than an arbitrary time limit. What exactly, I am not sure yet.