Options when defending a settlement

[Encaitar]

Just thinking back to MTW, I'd like to see the defender given the following options when a settlement is first attacked (i.e. on the campaign map, an enemy stack moves up and tries to initiate a seige/assault).

1. Give battle.
Your forces within the castle march out to meet the enemy in a regular, open field battle (as opposed to having to sally forth later, which can be quite awkward). If you are defeated, the survivors retreat to the settlement and it becomes beseiged.

2. Prepare for seige.
Your forces remain within the settlement, and it becomes beseiged (as currently happens all the time in RTW).

3. Abandon the settlement.
Your forces flee, and the settlement is surrendered to the enemy.

[Ignoramus]

I agree. One thing I hated about Rome was that you couldn't surrender. Not every general was prepared to fight to the death.

[Hobot]

That's a damned fine idea I think
I'd like to add that surrendering should make your army retreat a fair distance in a random direction away from the enemy as a penalty for a hasty withdrawal. Basically same way as a navy losing a battle runs away for a good bit from the site of the engagement.
It is very useful to be able to engage the enemy on your own defensive terms when they approach the city, rather than having to sally forth into their waiting arms. Defense is always at a huge advantage with the way Total War battle mechanics work, and this would even give the AI a big boost, since it would be way harder for you to trap a fairly good army with a force that is only good on defense. E.g. You approach and lay siege with an army that consisted mostly of slow spear type infantry and a mix of ranged units. A terrible army to attack with, but one that is great for defense, and if you lay siege with it, you can easily starve the enemy out or force them into a battle on your terms. An automatic sally forth option, would both be realistic and give the AI (and the player) good added strategic options. I definately hope CA thinks about adding this either now or in a future expansion.

[SirGrotius]

Sounds reasonable to me, especially if you think you can take back the settlement in the not-too-distant future.

[Nathanael]

I would kill for those options, especially the ability to have a defensive battle first instead of just having to be sieged and then sally forth. It would definitely help keep the game from becoming Total Siege.

[hoom]

Yeah, that would be awesome!

I love the defensive & offensive implications of this idea

Too late for M2TW but could hope for the expansion...

[Sun of Chersonesos]

NICE IDEA! however i have one additional:-

• convince army to lift the seige, if a diplomat is within the settlement, then there is a better chance of it working and more options available, for example, bribe the army so u get the army and obviously the seige then stops

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

NOT In the history never happened that an army left the town when an enemy army is close.They would defeat you if you would leave from the town when they are so close.This option is not good.It happened ,but the army that was protecting the town left days before the enemy could arrive not when the enemy was 20 miles close.




1And it is not fair:you have your faction leader blocked in a city and a powerful enemy wants to attack him and you run and escape.
2The computer could abuse this option and you will never get a really good siege.




Maybe you should send 1/2 of your army and with the rest you will escape.

[Ciaran]

It happened ,but the army that was protecting the town left days before the enemy could arrive not when the enemy was 20 miles close.

Keep the scale of the TW game in mind, 1 turn = six months (at least for RTW, I´m not sure what´s up with the new time model for MTW 2), one campmap square = ??? square miles.

As for your points:
1) yes, your faction leader can escape, but you lose the city. There´s a limit how often you can retreat, obviously. I´ll not mention that it worked pretty well in MTW I.

2) I don´t see why not. Either the AI is weak, then they´ll retreat and abandon the city. Or they´ll give battle when they´re strng enough and, when they´re defeated they´ll be entrapped in the city. Finally, the AI decides it´s strong enough to hold out in a siege, but not to give battle, then they´ll retreat into the city and wait for external reinforcements. Again, I won´t mention that it worked well with MTW I.

[rory_20_uk]

I would also like to add that an enemy army can besiege a settlement (i.e. surround it to al intents and purposes) even if there is a friendly army directly behind the settlment. I feel that this army should have to be driven off before a siege can commence - as well as the possibility that armies can attempt to cause a localised lifting of the siefe. This could mean that the count down timer to capitulation freezes until the army is again driven off. Of course the beseiger can then opt to launch an attack to resolve the matter.

That all diplomacy ends unpon the commencing of a siege is hardly realistic. Both sides would rather a solution than both sides suffering losses (as a uman player, our value of life is somewhat different of course )

[Encaitar]

Looks like CA has indeed included these options.
http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...gAnch=imgAnch5
http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...gAnch=imgAnch6
(There's also a white flag button which I'm presuming/hoping is 'surrender and flee')

[Dark_Magician]

Just thinking back to MTW, I'd like to see the defender given the following options when a settlement is first attacked (i.e. on the campaign map, an enemy stack moves up and tries to initiate a seige/assault).

1. Give battle.
Your forces within the castle march out to meet the enemy in a regular, open field battle (as opposed to having to sally forth later, which can be quite awkward). If you are defeated, the survivors retreat to the settlement and it becomes beseiged.

2. Prepare for seige.
Your forces remain within the settlement, and it becomes beseiged (as currently happens all the time in RTW).

3. Abandon the settlement.
Your forces flee, and the settlement is surrendered to the enemy.

Surrender is fine idea. In addition I'd say that a big city should have by default one unit of city militia defending it because it is not normal when one can "fish" for cities accidently left unguarded and take them with minimal effort. In reality medieval cities normally enjoyed autonomy and employed own militias as they frequently do up to today

[Peasant Phill]

there will be (a) free unit(s) of militia for every settlement/city/castle. So they won't be unguarded unless the A.I. is unable to handle it, which I doubt.

[Hobot]

Well this is great news that they actually already have these features! Once again I'm more psyched than ever

[spong]

I think there should be the options to negotiate as someone mentioned earlier. I understand it might overcomplicate things though but it would be nice to negotiate terms rather than just fight or flee. Having said that it sounds as though the options they have implemented are very nice - I hated having to manually sally out of a settlement.