Too many siege battles?

**dismal** · 01-05-2007, 22:03

Originally Posted by clairvaux

It didn't used to be this way in MTW.

As was discussed much when RTW came out, the risk-style MTW map was surely significantly easier on the campaign map AI. There was no "going around" to strike a softer more valuable target. There was just massing on the border, and pounding through.

I don't think the AI is quite up to the porous borders, even yet.

But I think it was worse in RTW. The AI's ability to conduct sieges has improved dramatically, at least with artillery.

I don't remember the "under-garrisoning" problem being so bad in RTW, however. This would be a very important campaign map AI fix, I think.

**RussianWinter** · 01-05-2007, 22:54

As was discussed much when RTW came out, the risk-style MTW map was surely significantly easier on the campaign map AI. There was no "going around" to strike a softer more valuable target. There was just massing on the border, and pounding through.

I don't think the AI is quite up to the porous borders, even yet.

Absolutely my same thoughts. I'm still waiting the days when CA realizes the current-style map was some damn fool idea and goes back to the MTW map, but somehow I doubt thats going to be soon.

**katank** · 01-06-2007, 00:40

I personally love the new map. There's so much more options and maneuver. They just need to produce a better AI. Something that the AI should try when they find their armies stranded behind my lines is to take one of my cities there.

One problem that they often face is that despite the fact that they have a full stack 1 turn's march from an ill defended city of mine, they try to make it back to relieve their city which is 2 or 3 turns' march away. I assault as soon as I can. Thus, they turn rebel. Meanwhile, if they take my city that's near them, they would merely trade cities and avoid faction elimination. The problem is that such complex evaluation algorithms are unlikely to be implemented soon.

I've also found the fact that I can't target their ram directly and have to try to shoot their dudes. So there's a point at which you can target the ram? That's darn good to know.

**Cpa><Hitman** · 01-06-2007, 06:04

you know surprisingly, i love siege battles, especially when i'm defending.. i wasn't always one for open terrian.. so i have no problems with it :D

**Silvio Dante** · 01-06-2007, 20:16

If you play as a Muslim faction, there's a lot more field battles.

The problem is defintely the number of settlements in Catholic areas. France and Spain are particularly over-crowded. It's like playing those RTR mods where they packed in as many cities as they could, reducing the game to a boring siege fest.

**katank** · 01-06-2007, 20:49

Field battles can be fun. If you don't feel like exploiting the AI, crush their field armies first before sieging their cities. Playing in the steppes, eastern europe, or North Africa etc. will also result in far more spaces in which to conduct field battles.

**manbaps** · 01-06-2007, 20:58

Perhaps the answer to this is you should have the option to meet the army outside the gates of the city/castle; and if you retreat/rout you then go to a siege. A bit like how it was in MTW1. This way you could also be more tactical like softening up the troops before entering the castle. Though would CA ever implement this, never cus it might actually make the game more interesting.

**dismal** · 01-08-2007, 17:40

Originally Posted by katank

I personally love the new map. There's so much more options and maneuver. They just need to produce a better AI. Something that the AI should try when they find their armies stranded behind my lines is to take one of my cities there.

One problem that they often face is that despite the fact that they have a full stack 1 turn's march from an ill defended city of mine, they try to make it back to relieve their city which is 2 or 3 turns' march away. I assault as soon as I can. Thus, they turn rebel. Meanwhile, if they take my city that's near them, they would merely trade cities and avoid faction elimination. The problem is that such complex evaluation algorithms are unlikely to be implemented soon.

I agree that new map an better AI would be the best answer.

But is coding the AI to defned its cities all that hard? Honestly, I think it would be a big help if there were an algorithm that kept nearby troops inside the walls anytime there is an army within 2 turns march.

If the guys were in the city when I attack it, they'd extract some level of damage and wouldn't be stranded behind my lines trying to figure out what to do.

I was marching on a city yesterday, and when I'm one turn away the AI emptied it down to 2-3 units. There were probably 2.5 stacks worth of potential defenders in the area standing around while I went right by to take the city. (I took some screenies which I'll try to add later.)

I don't know how hard it would be to revamp the campaign map AI, but I think "underdefending cities" is a serious flaw right now -- possibly the most serious flaw in the game.

I bet if you watched 100 human players, they would all garrison their border cities, and would all try as hard as possible to increase the garrison when an aggressive army was bearing down on their city. The AI seems to have other priorities. Like quiet walks in the countryside.