Anyone Else Hate Assaulting Settlements?

[Quickening]

Finished my English campaign earlier today and it reminded me how frustrating and dull assaulting and defending cities is. The pathfinding is infuriating beyond belief very often.

But that was nothing compared to when I tried an Egyptian campaign for the first time.
The rebel settlements of Dongola and Jedda are a bloody nightmare. Especially Jedda. After getting slaughtered attempting to take these places the first time I started my campaign again and got the same results. I don't want to waste precious turns at the start besieging them and it seems like such a waste to ignore them.

God dammit!

[TevashSzat]

Always autosolve when besieging someone since you tend to get less casualties than what is possible since the game doesn't take into account of the wall and defender advantages when autoresolving.

[Quickening]

Always autosolve when besieging someone since you tend to get less casualties than what is possible since the game doesn't take into account of the wall and defender advantages when autoresolving.

Yeah but then I may as well play Europa Universalis 3.

[HoreTore]

I do not recommend auto-calcing at all, actually... The only times I do, is when I have a full stack army vs a unit or two...Just can't stand my horrible framerate to whack a few stragglers...

But I do believe you need to reconsider your siege tactics. Simply running a ram through the gate and then pour all your troops inside aint the best way to do it.

[Quickening]

I do not recommend auto-calcing at all, actually... The only times I do, is when I have a full stack army vs a unit or two...Just can't stand my horrible framerate to whack a few stragglers...

But I do believe you need to reconsider your siege tactics. Simply running a ram through the gate and then pour all your troops inside aint the best way to do it.

What is then when, for much of the game you only have access to battering rams?

[econ21]

I dislike assaulting settlements - I tend to starve the cities out to avoid the chore. Often it is either too easy (the garrison is pitiful) or too hard (try storming Caernarvon early on as England in VH/VH - it can be a laugh, with three defending longbows on the walls playing merry hell with your militia's morale).

However, if you force yourself to do it - as I had to in our HRE PBM in the throne room - it can be fun working out some tactics to minimise casualties even when all you have are a ram or two (or none), some militia and a general. Here's what I came up with:

The "he's behind you" tactic:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...46&postcount=3

The "ladder feints" tactic:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...4&postcount=12

The "how to take a settlement with no siege engines" tactic:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...9&postcount=21

Cambyses II said the above were exploiting the AI rather than genuine tactics and he had a point, but still it was interesting discovering them. But an underlying principle is to overload the defence with multiple threats and so be able to work a force into the settlement without having to simply hack through a breach. It's harder to pull off with castles (only one gate).

[HoreTore]

Hm, dongola and jedda only have the first level of walls? Then they should be incredibly easy to take... First off, don't assault the gate. Instead, take your army to one side of the city, and batter down a wall section. shoot the defenders through the hole, then charge. Always seek out ways to hit the enemy from two directions, and keep them away from the center as long as possible.

[Budwise]

Yeah but then I may as well play Europa Universalis 3.

Not to sound rude and all but then what do you want. Autoresolve is a solution to your dull problem and it works in your favor. If you don't like assaulting, then seige, you don't like that either then you can autoresolve. But, you don't like that either. What the hell do you want to fix this problem?

[Ciaran]

I think siege battles in M2TW are a vast improvement over RTW.
The cities are no longer the dreaded labyrinths, wall towers only fire when defending units are close and they don´t unduly support the attacker once they´re captured.

[Sentinel]

I love to use mortars when sieging castles. Once you have put a hole in the wall the AI usually moves most of its garrison into a big huddle inside the second wall. If you don’t send anyone in through the breach this group hug just stays there.

There is usually a point down the side of the castle (where they are just in range), that you can position your mortars to fire over the walls.

The ideal target.

Two or three mortars can take out halve a stack of defenders in this position.

[Quickening]

Not to sound rude and all but then what do you want. Autoresolve is a solution to your dull problem and it works in your favor. If you don't like assaulting, then seige, you don't like that either then you can autoresolve. But, you don't like that either. What the hell do you want to fix this problem?

Well I say that because lets face it, Total War is all about the battles. And when the city assaults are marred with such infuriating pathfinding it is a little bit annoying.
And yes I can't understand anyone who buys the Total War series and then autoresolves the battles because the campaign side of things has been done a million times better elsewhere. Civilization 4, Europa Universalis 3 and Galactic Civilizations 2 to name a few.
Total War is about the battles. If you aren't going to play them then there is little point buying the Total War series in my opinion. It's like buying a pizza and scraping all the topping off it. Just buy bread.

[Dave1984]

I don't autoresolve my siege assault battles but I don't "assault", either, I siege until the enemy sallies or surrenders. It's one of them, or nothing, as the assualts are so dull and every single one is almost the same- there's no grand sweeping movements, no manouever, no room for strategy beyond "make another hole behind them". And there are way too many of them, that's why I still play with the big map mod, simply so I can play open field battles more often.

[Forward Observer]

Finished my English campaign earlier today and it reminded me how frustrating and dull assaulting and defending cities is. The pathfinding is infuriating beyond belief very often.

But that was nothing compared to when I tried an Egyptian campaign for the first time.
The rebel settlements of Dongola and Jedda are a bloody nightmare. Especially Jedda. After getting slaughtered attempting to take these places the first time I started my campaign again and got the same results. I don't want to waste precious turns at the start besieging them and it seems like such a waste to ignore them.

God dammit!

What is then when, for much of the game you only have access to battering rams?

After reading this I fired up a quick Egyptian campaign just to see how hard it could be. By only turn 8, I had an army of about 3 militia archers, 2 militia spearmen, 1 Saracen spear unit, two Arab cav, one mamluk missile cav along with two 2x ballistae units on the way to Jedda. I think it took about 4 or 5 more turns just to get there, and in the mean time I had been assigned to take Jerusalem by the council.

Jedda was a dinky little town with only two crossed streets. Their crossing formed the town square. If the place had been any smaller both city limit signs would have been on the same post, but the square was packed with over 330 troops--militia infantry, Arab cav, camel missile cav, and those Turkish archers that have such a long range.

There is no way one could take the town only 5 or 6 units, but I could have beaten it with half of my 600 man force simply because I had brought along the ballista units. I lined a ballista unit up on each of two crossed streets and let em have at it.

Those ballistae accounted for 276 kills between the two units. When I could no longer get a good angle on the remaining 60 or so enemy troops i sent my men in to mop up. Final score--I lost 10 and they lost 332

By turn 14 I had assaulted and taken Jerusalem with a full stack including two 2X catapult units and two 2X ballistae units.

Now I was playing normal difficulty, and one might not get results this good at a higher difficulty, but I did not do this to brag about my abilities as an armchair general. I'm no better than the next military genius. My real point is that artillery made all the difference in these battles and it just does not take that long to obtain them

In every campaign I tackle, I start a ballista maker on the first turn. It takes 3 turns to complete at 1600 florins, and one turn to pop out a 370 florin ballista.

This means that you can put an army in the field equipped with a high powered deadly accurate Medieval RPG in only 4 turns. This is a weapon that will take out up to 10 troops at a time in full enfilade, and can take down any wooden fort or any gate of any size citadel, while your troops can set back and have a few cups of expresso.

Check my sig and you'll know where I am coming from.

Cheers