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.