Getting rid of troop loss from besiegement

[Darkgreen]

Does anyone think the idea of the besieged forces troops loosing a couple troops per unit per turn a rather annoying aspect of the game? I do. I understand why it is there, both for it’s realistic and gameplay values, but overall it just comes off as annoying aspect of the game. I hate having to retrain every unit in my stack if they go a turn or two or three until I can bring in a relief force to attack. It just seems like those units should be able to hold out longer.

Rather than just gripe, I offer a potential solution. Why not get rid of troop loss from being besieged while dividing in half the amount of time a city/castle can hold out (or reduce in some way that time). There could also be a morale penalty (perhaps cumulative for each besieged turn) for the defending force, which I think would be quite realistic.

So it wouldn’t take as long for a city/castle to fall from being besieged. This would quicken the pace of the game a bit I think. A good thing in my book.

This would also cause, from a defensive standpoint, a player to have relief forces readily available or settlements more capable of defending themselves or both of these. A good thing? A bad thing? Please discuss.

In some situations, this will cause the attacker to make the decision of attacking or lifting the siege depending on what they know about the enemy relief forces nearby. However, the shortening of the amount of time it takes for a city/castle to fall I think would still make it a viable strategy in many situations to try and wait out the defender.

Troops being lost from besiegement is something that has bugged me since I started playing RTW. I was kind of hoping that it wasn’t going to be in MTW2.

Anyway, I would love to hear what other people think.

[Bob the Insane]

I don't think you can do anything about this in a mod, i.e. hardcoded functionality...

Personally i go the other way, I miss the besieging army also losing men at a slower rate that was introduced in a MTW patch (or was it VI?)...

[Carl]

Before you start retraining, simply merge all unit in the settlement that you can merge and you should be left with just 2 or 3 units to retrain.

[Traffik]

What I don't understand is that there is a troop loss from being besieged yet an army a long ways from home will never suffer any casualties based on disease, cold, or hunger. I'm not a fan of the troop loss from besiegement and it does get quite annoying to retrain troops especially if you are very diverse in your unit stacks.

[Darkgreen]

Before you start retraining, simply merge all unit in the settlement that you can merge and you should be left with just 2 or 3 units to retrain.

Oh, I know, and I often do this. I guess what really gets my goat is when I have castle trainable only troops that are in a city. Even with merging, I still have to lug an army to the nearest castle and back again. Sometimes after merging I just get rid of the “leftovers” stack and bring recruits from the nearest castle. In any event, for me this is undesirable micromanagement that could be greatly lessened by getting rid of troop loss from besiegement. And, as I said above, I think my idea would add an interesting new dimension to the game as well as liven up the pace.

[Carl]

Oh, I know, and I often do this. I guess what really gets my goat is when I have castle trainable only troops that are in a city. Even with merging, I still have to lug an army to the nearest castle and back again. Sometimes after merging I just get rid of the “leftovers” stack and bring recruits from the nearest castle. In any event, for me this is undesirable micromanagement that could be greatly lessened by getting rid of troop loss from besiegement

This is the consequence of using castle troops in cities, cities produce troops themselves for one reason in general. To provide their own Garrison forces, 80% of city troops should never be used in Field battles, (because castle equivalents are better), likewise 80% of castle units should never be used in cities because the upkeep for the extra benefits they give you isn't worth it unless the target in question is going to be regularly sieged, at which point you need troops you can retrain in the city anyway so you don't really want castle troops then either.

[Shahed]

I'm happy with it as is, except I'd like to see the beseiging army lose troops as well.

I understand why people would find it annoying, more micromanagement.
The easiest way currently is to merge from highest to lowest valor and retrain after a siege.

I almost never use castle troops in cities, or vice versa because I try to avoid the return trips to retrain as much as possible. I do use them when I know that this city will be under attack.

[Darkgreen]

This is the consequence of using castle troops in cities, cities produce troops themselves for one reason in general. To provide their own Garrison forces, 80% of city troops should never be used in Field battles, (because castle equivalents are better), likewise 80% of castle units should never be used in cities because the upkeep for the extra benefits they give you isn't worth it unless the target in question is going to be regularly sieged, at which point you need troops you can retrain in the city anyway so you don't really want castle troops then either.

I understand this “consequence,” but couldn’t we have some sort of consequence that didn’t have this annoying side effect?
Perhaps castle troops in cities would have a higher upkeep?
Isn’t it consequence enough to not be able to train castle troops in cities?

I don’t know about other people, but I find it quite necessary to oftentimes have castle units in my cities. To try and arrange having only city units in cities would open up a whole new headache of annoying micromanagement or a logistical nightmare. That is just me, maybe some people would consider that a fun part of the game.

[Carl]

I understand this “consequence,” but couldn’t we have some sort of consequence that didn’t have this annoying side effect?

Te idea is probably to be annoying as it's their way of pushing you into using city troops for garrisons, making settlements weaker, except for frontier castles.

It's their way of making holding a city harder.

[Darkgreen]

Te idea is probably to be annoying as it's their way of pushing you into using city troops for garrisons, making settlements weaker, except for frontier castles.

It's their way of making holding a city harder.

Yes, I realize all of this. Can’t we have ways to make a city hard to keep that are not annoying?

[Whacker]

I'd like to see something that everyone would like: make it moddable.

Specifically:

1. Ability to change it so beseiger loses forces, and by what amount.
2. Ability to change it so that beseiged loses forces, and by what amount.
3. Ability to set whether besieged can still recruit or retrain troops while under siege.

Everyone wins this way.

[Darkgreen]

I'd like to see something that everyone would like: make it moddable.

Specifically:

1. Ability to change it so beseiger loses forces, and by what amount.
2. Ability to change it so that beseiged loses forces, and by what amount.
3. Ability to set whether besieged can still recruit or retrain troops while under siege.

Everyone wins this way.

That would be a nice option, but would the AI have to be changed in some way to make this viable? Would the AI be making moves based on old rules?

[Whacker]

Honestly I don't think the AI explicitly takes 1 and 2 into account. The only thing it looks for is relative strength given it's forces vs. yours/whomevers.

As for point 3, I'd have to assume that the AI would be smart enough to retrain and try to beef up it's forces each turn if it could. After all it does try and reinforce when it's besieged where it's feasible/capable. Sure it's not perfect but it's ... adequate.

So my ultimate response would be I think for the most part it's capable of handling this, possibly without any tweaking.

[Martok]

Quick question (I've not played Medieval 2 enough to know this): Does the civilian population suffer losses during sieges as well, or does it only affect military units?

I ask because I'm wondering if any thought was ever given to limiting the attrition to just the settlement's civilian population. It wouldn't be realistic, but it would cut down on the micromanaging of units between castles and cities. Any thoughts?

[Darkgreen]

Quick question (I've not played Medieval 2 enough to know this): Does the civilian population suffer losses during sieges as well, or does it only affect military units?

I ask because I'm wondering if any thought was ever given to limiting the attrition to just the settlement's civilian population. It wouldn't be realistic, but it would cut down on the micromanaging of units between castles and cities. Any thoughts?

Ya, that’s another great idea and substitute to troop loss during a siege.

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

Honestly I don't think the AI explicitly takes 1 and 2 into account. The only thing it looks for is relative strength given it's forces vs. yours/whomevers.

As for point 3, I'd have to assume that the AI would be smart enough to retrain and try to beef up it's forces each turn if it could. After all it does try and reinforce when it's besieged where it's feasible/capable. Sure it's not perfect but it's ... adequate.

So my ultimate response would be I think for the most part it's capable of handling this, possibly without any tweaking.

I have never seen such a poor AI.