Castle Sieging

[SattP]

I was worried about how fun castle sieging actually will be. While the sieging engine and everything seems to be well thought out it just seems like a horribly ineffective way to carry out your plans. Why would you end the blockade and attack the castle? A lot of thought was put into the castle attacking but I don't think it will be taken full advantage of. Sadly, I'd rather just park a few units outside of a castle, wait a few years and have everyone inside die of hunger or what not than lose hundreds of men just to take full advantage of what the game is capable of.

Of course, this is all from a strategic stand point. The Antioch battle alone was one of the most fun I've had in a strategy game, but I just doubt attacking a castle will see the light of day in the strategic sense of the game. In other words, why attack a castle when you can just starve it to death? Is it any different from Shogun?

Oh yeah, and I'm new here.

[Mithrandir]

the same was the case in STW, only sieges were even harder there...

I think I read somewhere that there was an advantage t siege the castle over just starve 'em out...

------------------
Just aded another post :D
Mithrandir Poster of usefull information and entertaining posts

[A Nerd]

Perhaps if more depth was added to the castle seige...using a corpse to spread disease, engineers to dig under and topple the walls, ladder men to scale walls, sending threatnign messages to the insiders about impending doom and such...or perhaps you could just play loud music to get them to relent...

[Nelson]

Three reasons to assault a castle:

Assaulting the castle can capture the province for you sooner so you can start using it for income and building etc. as opposed to waiting.

The attack also counts as a win for the commander, assuming of course that you pull it off. I think it's always worthwhile to assault the castle in Shogun before it falls. It can be an easy win.

In Shogun an assault prevents castle down sizing, although I have no idea if this is true in Medieval. If it is that would save time and money in castle improvements.

[Emp. Conralius]

Quote Originally posted by SattP:
I was worried about how fun castle sieging actually will be. While the sieging engine and everything seems to be well thought out it just seems like a horribly ineffective way to carry out your plans. Why would you end the blockade and attack the castle? A lot of thought was put into the castle attacking but I don't think it will be taken full advantage of. Sadly, I'd rather just park a few units outside of a castle, wait a few years and have everyone inside die of hunger or what not than lose hundreds of men just to take full advantage of what the game is capable of.

Of course, this is all from a strategic stand point. The Antioch battle alone was one of the most fun I've had in a strategy game, but I just doubt attacking a castle will see the light of day in the strategic sense of the game. In other words, why attack a castle when you can just starve it to death? Is it any different from Shogun?

Oh yeah, and I'm new here.[/QUOTE]

Sometimes it just has to be done! For example: the Ottomans had to physically take Constantinople because it was being supplied by the Golden Horn (body of water, not the Mongols). And the Turks couldn't beat the Byzantine navy. They didn't have anything to combat Byzantium's great weapon: Greek Fire. Sometimes it has to be done.

[SattP]

Corn, I understand how it takes a historical role, but as a strategy game it seems that there's no point in assaulting a castle when you can just wait it out with zero risk.

[Emp. Conralius]

Don't get me wrong, you have a valid point. It's just more fun this way! And speaking strategicly, it was fater this way. First, the city must useup all there supplies, and then they starve.

[hecose]

I remember reading somewhere that if you besiege a castle, the defender can send another army from another province to save the army trapped in the castle. In such a battle, your army will be sandwiched between two enemy armies. So perhaps one of the advantages of attacking the castle is to take it before the defender can gather enough of an army to sandwich you.

[ThorfinnSkullsplitter]

I believe in MTW the besieger suffers losses too.So it would be advantageous to assault the castlebefore losing to many men trying to starve them out.

[Yager]

It really depends on the situation. If it a single province surrounded by your territories then it is advantageous to just wait it out. Better to let them starve than possibly die trying to root them out.

However, if there are hostile nations on three sides that means they have something to gain from assaulting you. The Jaffa campaign illustrates how it will look. Instead of being randomly placed without the castle to be seen, anytime a siege is attempted to be broken the castle will be on one side of those who are doing the siege.

Example, an army rests inside the city with supplies for a year. Your army is strong enough to deal with the enemy inside should they decide to come out. A year passes and word has gotten around of the siege. The faction you are sieging sends another army plus has rallied an ally to help. So you have them attack the siege forces, and at the same time you sally forth. This leaves the enemy between two great armies and a small force that is still going to be a hastle. How would you deal with that situation?

Whereas if you assault the moment you hit the target you avoid the enemy reinforcements.

[Papewaio]

Quote Originally posted by SattP:
Corn, I understand how it takes a historical role, but as a strategy game it seems that there's no point in assaulting a castle when you can just wait it out with zero risk.[/QUOTE]

True there is no risk. But just like life no risk, no gain!

Until you take the castle you cannot build in that province or create units. Also if you sit there it slows down your momentum so wait 6 years and then take another province or attack a province, attack the castle and then attack another province.

So by seiging you slow down your expansion. And it seems in this version you need castles to help with province loyalty. So if you don't take the castle soon the province may revolt and you end up facing a much stronger defender.

[Emp. Conralius]

Like Thorfinn said, you take losses too. And, from what I have expetienced, the better the fort, the more losses you recieve.

[SattP]

Quote Originally posted by Papewaio:
So if you don't take the castle soon the province may revolt and you end up facing a much stronger defender.[/QUOTE]It would be nice if even the lowest castles could hold out for 10+ years just to have an incentive to assault castles often. Or at least make it so people take advantage of the great new siege engine.

[DrNo]

One of the main reasons for not sitting around, is the vice & virtue elements of the game.
If your General sits waiting for the castle to fall he will change for the worse fast and get very fat.
It will be a key part of the game to keep your generals fighting often and stay in trim.

[A Nerd]

Will inactivity lead to sloth...why can't he meditate and find inner peace...or at least pray to God for victory...therefore making him more pious...build him so...then he does the rest as you have originally taught...like a nurtured child...not to change the subject...take your castle immediately...otherwise you are weak and hesitant!