Sigh. Annoying Siege Battles

[Quickening]

Okay so I tend to besiege my enemies rather than lose lots of men in an assault. But sometimes something happens that really annoys me.
The AI comes out to break my siege as you'd expect. But after I defeat them they flee to the centre of their citadel and do nothing. If I haven't breached the first wall by running my men through as the AI flees through the gate, them Im screwed. I have to quit the battle with results in a loss for me.
Even if I was lucky enough to get some men through, I have to wait an age for my infantry to get all the way to the centre of the city. This is stupid. Since Im laying siege, and have just defeated the enemy which was trying to break said siege, I should be able to get back to the campaign map and the siege should continue from there.

Thoughts?

[dismal]

Use the Time limit.

[Quickening]

Use the Time limit.

I don't like the time limit. But I suppose I have no choice really. Although it still involves sitting there twiddling your thumbs for about half an hour.

[HoreTore]

Uhm... Just wait until the time limit expires.

You'll get a draw, and if it was in the last turn of the siege, you'll get the province(or maybe if you kill all but a couple of the enemies too, not sure on that).

Turn it up to 3 times speed, and go make yourself a nice cup of tea. When you get back, the battle will be over :)

[dunno]

When an enemy sallies and is defeated you no-longer have to wait for the timer to run out in-order to win.

Unless I'm interpreting this wrong, it looks like it is being taken care of in the upcoming patch.

[Forward Observer]

First of all, I never attempt a seige without an engine or two regardless of whether I plan of assaulting or not, and I also do not play with the timer on.

I also rarely besiege a settlement when I have not already sent one or more syies ahead to give me a shot at having the gates opened. I'm not sure if this function works when the enemy sallies, but at least it lets me know what kind of army I am up against.


In your case, why don't you go ahead and simply cue up the building of seige towers, rams, and ladders when you first besiege a settlement.

It doesn't cost anything but some free points based on your army size, and even if you don't plan on an assault you will alway have them to overcome the situation you just described. Once you have men over the wall and inside the settlement, everybody else can enter.

Cheers

[Foz]

In your case, why don't you go ahead and simply cue up the building of seige towers, rams, and ladders when you first besiege a settlement.

It doesn't cost anything but some free points based on your army size, and even if you don't plan on an assault you will alway have them to overcome the situation you just described. Once you have men over the wall and inside the settlement, everybody else can enter.

Cheers

Well put, FO. As you say it's free to do, and at least then you're ready to assault should you decide you want to, and can bring down the walls or climb them if they sally and then retreat. I've taken to just queuing up my normal assault materials when the siege screen first comes up. I figure If my army has to sit there idly for years at a time, they might as well at least make wooden implements of death while they're at it. I also may decide to assault before they give up if enough men starve, which is yet another good reason to have the necessary tools at hand.

[Whacker]

Good points about the siege equipment, making it a habit to automatically queue stuff up will often help out as FO and Foz said.

That said, I think the best way to handle this type of situation is to force a battle timer, even if the player has it set to off. That way, the sallying force has some incentive to actually DO what they're doing. If they fail or second guess and decide to retreat back to the town square and wait it out, the timer will expire and a draw will occur, and neither side gains or loses anything except any battle casualties. It's either this, or somehow giving the player the option to start a timer manually in this situation when playing a timerless battle. /shrug

[holycow]

agree with above, if you're already sitting there for 6-8 turns, why not que some ladders, etc.

On a side note, sure do wish trebuchets are buildable on site. Historically I don't think anyone dragged around trebs, but built them at the seige site, no??

back to seiges, has anyone noticed that no AI army comes to break a seige from another city/castle/. Have you seen AI do that? Wasn't that the point of hunkering down behind defenses so friendly armies can come from outside to break seige? Well, something for next patch then??

[TevashSzat]

holycow is right. If I were the egyptians or moors, I wouldn't want to be the one pushing a huge trebuchet across hundreds of miles of desert as my army marches.

[RyanW]

True on building siege engines on site, but they require some parts that can't be easily built in the field. I've always imagined that armies with siege engines are actually hauling carts with the tools, supplies, and personnel necessary to build them from local lumber.

I just ignore the hole that field battles open in that image.

[Whacker]

On a side note, sure do wish trebuchets are buildable on site. Historically I don't think anyone dragged around trebs, but built them at the seige site, no??

That's actually a really good point. After thinking about that I'm torn between being able to build siege equipment on site and my desire to lug it around with me and use it in a normal battle. Can't think of a good compromise for this situation, at least something that I'd be ok with.

back to seiges, has anyone noticed that no AI army comes to break a seige from another city/castle/. Have you seen AI do that? Wasn't that the point of hunkering down behind defenses so friendly armies can come from outside to break seige? Well, something for next patch then??

I've had the AI do this quite often actually, both to me and other AI besiegers that were within my visual range.. /shrug

[KHPike]

Usually the AI won't counterattack unless his reinforcing stack has a decent to overwhelming advantage.

[Foz]

I think at the very least you have to consider that siege engines probably would not be dragged around in a usable state. Even if you suppose that the army would take the equipment with it, it just wouldn't make much sense to drag a trebuchet around fully assembled: it's tall enough that it should make a good all terrain vehicle for the 5 seconds before it falls on its side trying to get up a hill.

For the purposes of rationalizing their use in general, though, it's worth noting that field battles of the time were probably not the off-the-cuff affairs that you would be led to believe from how quickly they happen in the game. The armies probably would have known days ahead of time that they would meet soon, so rather than rushing straight at the enemy army, the generals may build camp, complete various preparations for the coming battle (scout the site, see to provisions, discuss tactics, etc), and then rest on the eve of battle. I always just imagined the siege engine teams used this time to reassemble their weapons for the coming battle. Even if it turns out this isn't really how things were done (we need a history expert!!!) it's reasonable enough that I think it'll keep me from worrying about it.

The only real deal breaker left then is those pesky ambushes... grr!

[Dreadnought1]

First of all, I never attempt a seige without an engine or two regardless of whether I plan of assaulting or not, and I also do not play with the timer on.

I also rarely besiege a settlement when I have not already sent one or more syies ahead to give me a shot at having the gates opened.

[clipped]

In your case, why don't you go ahead and simply cue up the building of seige towers, rams, and ladders when you first besiege a settlement.

Cheers

In regard to bringing along a seige engine or two, I agree wholeheartedly.
Even a single ballista to beat the hell out of the gates will generally do the trick. If the enemy sally and you have ballistas/culverins/catapults, you often get to flail them with fire and iron as they're all grouped together coming out of the gate ("Yah, lots of kills and extra experience for the crews!")...

With building rams and towers, I've done that only to find they get in the way when the enemy do sally forth - then it becomes a race to drop them and reform a decent line. Yes, they are "free" but they can be a pain sitting in front of one of your units....

In the case of all the enemy routing back into the castle/town and closing the gate behind them, I suppose a single ram would generally suffice but if an enemy unit rallies and stays near the gate, you'll cop return fire!

I find it easier to bring at least one ballista/artillery piece along for the siege. If you're going to party, make sure you bring the right gear!

Cheers,
Dreadnought1

[R'as al Ghul]

I'm playing with time limit=on. I've never run out of time and I play all battles myself. I hardly need half of the timer whether defending or attacking. I often put the timer on 3* to speed up the second half if I haven't already routed or destroyed the enemy. It's plenty of time, I'd try it.
I've also disabled the ballistas ability to shoot at walls and I've made all walls and gates stronger. This makes sieges a bit more worthwhile for me. I'm also using Darth's siege AI mod. I've even lost a siege attack due to moral penalties.
I don't build artillery buildings as a rule and I seldom build artillery from captured buildings. When sieging, I queue up rams and towers or ladders for 1-2 turns, then I'll attack. It's more difficult than being able to conveniently destroying towers etc. and more fun to me.

[holycow]

True on building siege engines on site, but they require some parts that can't be easily built in the field. I've always imagined that armies with siege engines are actually hauling carts with the tools, supplies, and personnel necessary to build them from local lumber.

I just ignore the hole that field battles open in that image.

Historically, I think armies had baggage trains w/all sorts of necessities from smiths, capenters, engineers, and the time honoured female companions, etc.

I think we have to accept the notion that these armies have capenters, engineers, and tools, etc giving us the ability to build seige towers on site, but then stop short of trebs. Where's the logic in that?? If there's the lumber/equipment to build a wooden tower on wheels, then why not a treb.

How's this for an idea, a military building like an academy or some such, that produces carpenter/engineer/smith units!! then only with these units in your army can you build seige equipment/forts/etc.

[Foz]

How's this for an idea, a military building like an academy or some such, that produces carpenter/engineer/smith units!! then only with these units in your army can you build seige equipment/forts/etc.

Yeah, baby! I can see it now...

*Foz clicks to send his builder units into the fray*
Carpenters, attack! Smash their faces in with your hammers.
Engineers, attack! Smite the enemy with your mighty levels and slide rules.
Smiths, attack! Lob forth thine anvils, that they might crush the dogs.

I would NEVER EVER use them to build anything, just for absolutely hilarious combat units.

Maybe the carpenters could swing planks of lumber instead... yes, the idea has merit!

Seriously though, your idea is an interesting one. I have a notion for different implementation though: make them recruitable ancillaries. It would neatly take care of keeping them off of the battlefield, yet provide an easy way for them to travel with any given general while not hogging those valuable unit slots. I'm not sure how or if this would be possible to implement - perhaps with some cobbling things together: I'm thinking like recruiting them as a unit, but just as a placeholder to trigger the ancillary event. That way you'd incur the recruitment fee, but be given the ancillary instead of having a campaign map unit. Still not sure how to wipe the unit from the map then once the ancillary is acquired, though.

Another possibility would be to simply grant them from a given building: use an old one or maybe create a new one just to give out the various builder ancillaries at the end of each turn.

The real problem is figuring out how things get built or recruited during a siege, though. I haven't looked at all into how the game currently allows us to build ladders, towers, and rams, and so have no idea what is necessary to allow trebs or other siege engines to be built or recruited during a siege, or how to link ancillaries/units to the process to control what (if anything) can be built.

Even with all the missing information, though, it's an intriguing idea.

[Whacker]

Maybe the carpenters could swing planks of lumber instead... yes, the idea has merit!

Now you just ruined the game forever for me. I had a mental image of Hacksaw Jim Dugan flailing a 2x4 at a blue-painted skirt-wearing Mel Gibson.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I am decidedly against the carpenter/siege building ancils idea, but it is really interesting to consier!

[Agent Smith]

I think at the very least you have to consider that siege engines probably would not be dragged around in a usable state. Even if you suppose that the army would take the equipment with it, it just wouldn't make much sense to drag a trebuchet around fully assembled: it's tall enough that it should make a good all terrain vehicle for the 5 seconds before it falls on its side trying to get up a hill.

I'm nost sure how many of you played Age of Empires 2, but they did that with trebuchets. They bagan packed and on wagons, and you had to wheel them to there location, unpack them, and then begin firing. That seems more realistic. But, with catapults, weren't they usually built on wagons to begin with?

[Whacker]

I'm nost sure how many of you played Age of Empires 2, but they did that with trebuchets. They bagan packed and on wagons, and you had to wheel them to there location, unpack them, and then begin firing. That seems more realistic. But, with catapults, weren't they usually built on wagons to begin with?

I seem to recall reading that mobile versions existed, but they had to be braced/tied down somehow when they were deployed. Depending on the strength of the 'pult, the y force component would ensure some interesting backward travel if the operators didn't ensure that it was properly braced. Sounds like a bad Looney Tunes bit to me.

[white riot]

When they're running away chase 'em with your cav, they'll follow them through the gate and take the gatehouse in the process.

[Quickening]

When they're running away chase 'em with your cav, they'll follow them through the gate and take the gatehouse in the process.

Yeah as I said in my OP, I did that. However we all know how dodgy the AI is with its pathfinding and so that isn't always possible. Besides, it shouldn't be the way.

[dismal]

The gate doesn't always open for routers either. (As it should not - I sure wish I had a "lock and do not open this gate under any circumstances" button -- as some games have. A topic for another day.)

I have noticed that the AI does not necessarily send its reinforcements into battle even when it is the attacker. It may put them on a hill and wait for you to attack.

This what the timer is for. There are several battles per campaign (maybe 5?) where the timer saves the day. I have never once fought a battle where I didn't have enough time. Why anyone would turn off the timer is way beyond me.

[holycow]

I'm nost sure how many of you played Age of Empires 2, but they did that with trebuchets. They bagan packed and on wagons, and you had to wheel them to there location, unpack them, and then begin firing. That seems more realistic. But, with catapults, weren't they usually built on wagons to begin with?

I did play AoE and I wish some elements of that game were available for TW.

I remember reading somewhere that catapults were dragged around with armies, but only to places where wood was scarce. Priority given to mobility . And with all equipement, if wood was not locally available, they'd bring it from somewhere else. I've not heard or seen catapults on wagons, but why not. and if catapults why not trebs? However, I was just bellyaching that youcan build a humongous wooden tower on wheels but not a treb.


from earlier post, I didn't mean 3 different units smith/engineer/carpenter. I meant just one (1) engineer type unit, call it whatever you will, that would build and staff the equipement whatever it might be - ram/tower/treb/etc. I was just thinking by this time in history, engineers were more and more important on the battlefield/seiges/fortifications. They dug zig-zag trenches in front of walls giving their crews some shelter and closing the distance to within range of their guns/mortars and then it was game over for the beseiged. They sighted lines of fire, dug placements for artillery, designed better forts to withstand better guns, etc. I did consider an engineer ancillary, but too inconsistent for game play. How about the ability to train/hire engineer ancillaries if you have say military academy or some such building??? that'll give your general more abilities/traits than just random odds.

Wasn't it Hacksaw Jim Duncan? not Dugan? Well if you have Hacksaw I pick Andre the Giant - someone's got to push that treb around. Then instead of cow carcass I'll fling Jake the Snake over the wall.

[holycow]

2 quick things,

1. please excuse the green gas - must've been something I ate, I think it was the grass from France
2. STOP throwing my deceased body all over creation!!

Thank you for your cooperation - Holycow

[Whacker]

Wasn't it Hacksaw Jim Duncan? not Dugan? Well if you have Hacksaw I pick Andre the Giant - someone's got to push that treb around. Then instead of cow carcass I'll fling Jake the Snake over the wall.

We were both wrong, it's actually "Duggan". I was going to say I'll take the Legion of Doom and the Ultimate Warrior to haul my siege gear around. For ammo? I'd say the Bushwhackers, those guys were nuts.

/back on topic

OK so I've thought a bit more about this "engineer" unit idea and changed my tune. It's definitely a radical departure from the way TW games have handled this in the past, BUT if done right it could prove interesting. Keep in mind when reading below that I'm taking some liberties with "realism" and that the TW games are an approximation of history, not a historical sim. My thoughts are that all siege equipment would be built on-site by the engineering unit, and the amount of siege gear available would directly depend on 1. the number of engineers in the unit (scaled appropriately based on the game setting) and number of engineering units and 2. the current era, NOT tech level. The time taken to build each piece of equipment has some predefined value just like on the siege menu windows. Further, I'd like to see the addition of some items for them to make, like sharpened stakes placeable anywhere, and the whole trench/pit thing is actually a damn good idea holycow. The engineer units would man the equipment themselves, and be succeptible to attack/fire/arty/etc. The trick would be to balance it out such that it would be near suicide to field an all-engineer army and build nothing but siege equipment. I'd also think that the engineers themselves would be very vulnerable to any kind of attack to help offset their capabilities, AND they should also cost a good deal.

Thoughts/comments/flames?



Edit: I couldn't resist

1. please excuse the green gas - must've been something I ate, I think it was the grass from France

Je détecte des odeurs de bovin. (courtesy of Babelfish)

2. STOP throwing my deceased body all over creation!!

But we aren't. It's only about a half... or a third... give or take.

[Forward Observer]

The Stronghold games also allowed one to build engines on site.

You had to hire or train engineers and then after selecting what you wanted the engineers would erect a little tent. After a while the tent would disappear and a catapult, treb, or whatever would be left behind. You could also move the engine after it was built.

I think Stronghold 2 used the wagon transport idea---at least for trebuchets anyway. I haven't played either in quite some time, but since the combat in those games were primarily about siege warfare, there were some nice ideas that would have been great if they could have been incorporated in Medieval2

The ability to dig wet moats, to undermine walls, drop boiling oil, boulders, or burning logs from the battlements, and finally the ability to place missile units and small siege engines on the tops of towers all added a lot of variety the the sieges.

Still, with what I am reading into the new patch, I think sieges are going to get a bit more challenging than they are now.

One thing that would seem easy to implement would be to add a little variety or randomness to the amount of time that a city or castle can hold out. Unless it is very early in the game almost all settlements can hold out from 6 and 8 turns. At the default turn rate that equals an impossible 12 to 16 years.

I'd like to see a much more reasonable time like 1 to 4 turns occasionally, but then maybe the developers thought that would make the game too easy and that everybody would simply skip assaults after they had done one or two just like in the first MTW.

Cheers