Stronghold: Total War

[Darkmoor_Dragon]

The solution, I believe, lies in having a lot of the siege element of the castles taking place on the strategic map.

Whilst the actual breaching of the walls (filling in of moats, building of ramps etc etc) takes place on the battle maps then sieges will never feel "realistically difficult" simply because you *have to* blow the walls down in a fast time otherwise the battle takes too long.

I've always felt that simply marching up to a castle and auto-majically encircling it without the need for either specialised equipment, units or additional costs/time isnt much fun.

Much better to have to take a specialised baggage siege train with you, not as units on the battle maps, but as "agents" on the strategic map - Without them you cant besiege a castle.

So that when you reach the battle map you have already made any breaches, crossed the most by filling it in, made any tunnels to collapse walls and so on and so forth via your actions on the strategic map.

And the agent should be represented on the battle map as a small force of units in their own right, thus allowing for the castle defenders to sally (and unless supported by a "proper"army relatively easy to defeat.)

As agents its also easy enough to tie in cinematic events to make the sieges visual interesting, walls crumbling, tunnels collapsing and so on and so forth. You also avoid situations where the player simply lines up a couple of cannons and blows everything in sight up, walls, towers and units - you can essentially remove that entirely from the (battle) game to prevent exploitation of such units, or render them vastly reduced effectiveness against buildings and walls so that they can still be used but not to batter down walls in seconds. (And you can keep rams in but make them far less easy to destroy and make barbican and gate defences far stronger - that way you can have multiple units sacrificed to using the battering ram to open a gate should you wish to pursue a quick (but not easy) resolution to the siege.)

Essentially the only piece of the taking of a castle that really needs to take part on the battle map is the final storming of the castle, whereas at the moment you are having to do both the siege and the storming in the same battle.

Until gunpowder it was very rare for a besieger to batter down every wall in sight and tower because it just took too long to do( IF it could be done at all remember), instead you would get a single breach made or a tower or wall section collapsed, followed by an assault.

(And obviously the AI needs some help too)

[Zanshin]

I've always felt that simply marching up to a castle and auto-majically encircling it without the need for either specialised equipment, units or additional costs/time isnt much fun.

The opposite isn't really fun either. After all, imagine you reach a castle with three of it's four sides directly over a 400 ft. fall directly to the sea and a 20ft. moat in the fourth.

The drawbridge only let's way to an iron covered door that leads to a 150ft. passage with two 90º corners, 2 portcullis and the real door at the end (try to fit a ram in there).

The towers have balistas as yours but with a height advantage, or they are taller, smaller and have a full unit of archers on top. Oh, and the 12ft. thick stone walls simply don't fall to a miserable catapult.

If you do try to invade, you find hidden spike pits, tar fields that are lit as your troops advance and packs of flaming oil covered pigs that run towards your elephants. Then, for the first wounded, burnt and bitten units that reach the walls with a weak ladder, there are large stones, boiling oil and arrows (which actually can be shot downwards).

Then, the second unit of half-dead men with ladders walk over the corpses of their friends only to find that the unit on top on the walls wont let them walk without a problem, they'll throw down the ladder as soon as it's put.

etc...

And the agent should be represented on the battle map as a small force of units in their own right, thus allowing for the castle defenders to sally (and unless supported by a "proper"army relatively easy to defeat.)

Then the players would ask you, why are those agents only killable during sally?
And, if you let them be attacked by armies, they are not agents, they are units. Enginer, miner, worker or catapult for the attacker and oil thrower, tower balista unit, etc... for the defender.


However, they chose a simple siege system that let's you run around with your king, some spearmen and a small group of peasants and assault a brutal fortress.
The only problem is that suspension of disbelief falls apart when some things, like the lack of moat, are simply too obvious to ignore.

[Zenicetus]

However, they chose a simple siege system that let's you run around with your king, some spearmen and a small group of peasants and assault a brutal fortress. The only problem is that suspension of disbelief falls apart when some things, like the lack of moat, are simply too obvious to ignore.

On the other hand... it's a game. It's supposed to be fun, with different things you can do. If we had moats at every castle (which not all castles had), then there would be no ladders, no siege towers, no epic fights on top of the walls, no breaching walls with artillery. It takes away some of the "cinematic" aspects of the game, which attracts new players and makes for marketable game video promos. All of which helps fund the continuation of the TW series.

One of the primary reasons for a moat was to prevent sapping walls, since filling in or bridging a moat isn't that difficult. Since sapping isn't in the game anyway, I don't think the lack of moats is game-crippling. As it is, the AI can barely handle sieges. I'd like to see more capable siege attack and siege defense AI, before any new features like moats were added.

Back to the OP's question, I would like a heavily siege oriented game, but I think it would have to be a separate, dedicated game engine and title. And I'd want a big part of that game to be designing my own fortifications, from scratch. I played one of the early castle-building PC games (can't remember the name), where you could design your castle curtain walls and tower layout, and it was a lot of fun.

[Burns]

The AI has a poor concept of holding a large fortification. Even in custom battles with full stacks they tend to make breaches and rush everything in. Once I hack down that assault I can usually pull back with the AI having little ability to take the second or third sections. The best way to take a castle or citadel is to outnumber the defenders. Perhaps AI should better organize its wars and assaults. I guarantee the defending would be a lot harder if the AI actually brought in more men for the assault. Thats how war works. I have to agree on the extreme effectiveness of the siege engines. It is simply way too easy to take down a section of wall. But since walls control the development of cities its an unavoidable expenditure.

I would personally add a few more things to enhance both attack and defense. There should be some field tools that would protect your troops when approaching fortifications. Such things existed. Then there is the Pavise shield. Boiling oil needs to be re-introduced. Walls need an HP increase, they are plainly too weak.

Though I have to say, the AI is better at attacking then in Rome. They actually attack several points along the wall but often times they still have a tendency to rush a single breach, although more often than not they inflict painful casualties. The main problem is that the AI is just stumped after that. There is another gimmick I can think of. Why should taking a castle all have to be done in one turn? I mean, you COULD if you had the resources (say. governed by the immediate availability of reserves of additional units). But if you didnt well why not simply siege and take the first circuit of walls then end the battle with the enemy inside the next circuit of walls. Thus in the next battle, you'd actually have the ability to deploy your units within the captured circuit of the castle. To balance it out, it would also be important that the defender could recruit emergency units that are only available during siege, and are only around as long as the siege lasts or the castle/city is taken. That would be make sieges more dramatic, and challenging.