Castle Sieges

[Reenk Roink]

The previews have made a big deal about the new castle sieges and the improved AI that comes with it, so I've got some hope, but I too hated the siegefest that was Rome and Medieval II. Nothing worse than making a grand army to attack another faction with delusions of a epic open field battle to decide the fate only to end up using that army to push away several 2 unit armies into a city and then siege it. The battle then just becomes a jumbled mess.

I would like to see a siege here and there, as it would be cool to keep small sieging armies to take cities while your main army wins on the field, but let's not overdo it like before.

Another thing was that in Rome, the walls were either these twig pallisades or these behemoth stone towers, both highly unrealistic. M2TW did better at this, but the already poor pathfinding went to hell there...

[Kagemusha]

The previews have made a big deal about the new castle sieges and the improved AI that comes with it, so I've got some hope, but I too hated the siegefest that was Rome and Medieval II. Nothing worse than making a grand army to attack another faction with delusions of a epic open field battle to decide the fate only to end up using that army to push away several 2 unit armies into a city and then siege it. The battle then just becomes a jumbled mess.

I would like to see a siege here and there, as it would be cool to keep small sieging armies to take cities while your main army wins on the field, but let's not overdo it like before.

Another thing was that in Rome, the walls were either these twig pallisades or these behemoth stone towers, both highly unrealistic. M2TW did better at this, but the already poor pathfinding went to hell there...

I am sorry to say this Reenk, but if CA is going for historical accuracy, the sieges were essential part of warfare in Sengoku period Japan and most warfare consisted of sieges and counter sieges. Usual pattern for warfare between two Clans was that the agressor would besige one of the defenders or allied castle in order to see how the enemy would react.If the enemy would be passive the agressor would try and take the castle in order to expand his domain. If the enemy would mobilize and or call in allied forces the agressor would scout the strength of the enemy and based on that he would decide either to engage the enemy in field battle or retreat back to the safety of his own fortressess. Most of the time opting the latter option. This was because decisive battles were really that. If the other party would be crushed.All his neighbours would most likely invade his domain and that would be the end of his Clan.
Even most of the larger battles like the famous battle of Nagashino, where the Takeda force under the son Of Takeda Shingen,Katsyori was crushed, stemmed from a siege as before the arrival of the allied Tokugawa and Oda armies.Katsyori was besieging Nagashino castle, while that time the enemy decided to give battle and the result was decisive, but just not the way Katsyori had calculated.

[A Nerd]

but if CA is going for historical accuracy, the sieges were essential part of warfare in Sengoku period Japan and most warfare consisted of sieges and counter sieges.

I like historical accuracy as much as the next guy, but a big chunk of the TW series has always been the field battle and it's tactic. I'm not saying sieges lack tactic, but to employ tactic and have it remain novel such that you spend hours on the game, the number of castle layouts would have to be vast or at least there would have to be more than one castle per province. What would be the point of applying too much detail to the game if all to the combat system was to seige or be sieged? This would more than likely negate weather, fatigue (for attacker would tire faster than defender) and certain units, calvary for example, might be considered obsolete. I would prefer historically accurate combat per say, but not necessarially the reason for it. Meet on the field then the castle, or in the castle if I fear leaving to meet you on the field...more former than latter. Perhaps fighting clan wars in a historical fashion would be fun, I don't know. All I know is that the original STW allowed for hours of entertainment the way it was and I would hope the sequel would provide as much if not more. But this is but one persons opinion, a person who is nominally (if at all) versed in Japanese history. :)

Even most of the larger battles like the famous battle of Nagashino, where the Takeda force under the son Of Takeda Shingen,Katsyori was crushed, stemmed from a siege as before the arrival of the allied Tokugawa and Oda armies.Katsyori was besieging Nagashino castle, while that time the enemy decided to give battle and the result was decisive, but just not the way Katsyori had calculated.

Interesting potential of the new diplomacy model. Hopefully not abused leading to campaigns that end before they start!

[Kagemusha]

I like historical accuracy as much as the next guy, but a big chunk of the TW series has always been the field battle and it's tactic. I'm not saying sieges lack tactic, but to employ tactic and have it remain novel such that you spend hours on the game, the number of castle layouts would have to be vast or at least there would have to be more than one castle per province. What would be the point of applying too much detail to the game if all to the combat system was to seige or be sieged? This would more than likely negate weather, fatigue (for attacker would tire faster than defender) and certain units, calvary for example, might be considered obsolete. I would prefer historically accurate combat per say, but not necessarially the reason for it. Meet on the field then the castle, or in the castle if I fear leaving to meet you on the field...more former than latter. Perhaps fighting clan wars in a historical fashion would be fun, I don't know. All I know is that the original STW allowed for hours of entertainment the way it was and I would hope the sequel would provide as much if not more. But this is but one persons opinion, a person who is nominally (if at all) versed in Japanese history. :)



Interesting potential of the new diplomacy model. Hopefully not abused leading to campaigns that end before they start!

I am not saying in any degree that sieges should be the only mode of battle as they certainly werent. I think one great thing would be to mix the two. How about enemy army attacking your besieging force, while the castle garrison would sally out from the castle? How would that sound for a challence? I cant see how this could be anyway impossible for the engine, but then i dont know the limits of it. Pesonally i would love these kind of scenarios as it would be lot more harder to decide how many men would you have to leave to contain the garrison, while with how many and how to fight the agressor.

[A Nerd]

I am not saying in any degree that sieges should be the only mode of battle as they certainly werent. I think one great thing would be to mix the two. How about enemy army attacking your besieging force, while the castle garrison would sally out from the castle? How would that sound for a challence? I cant see how this could be anyway impossible for the engine, but then i dont know the limits of it. Pesonally i would love these kind of scenarios as it would be lot more harder to decide how many men would you have to leave to contain the garrison, while with how many and how to fight the agressor.

I like this idea, sounds better than the M2TW siege practice. But how would the 3d map be implemented in such a scenario? Or even 2D for that matter? I suppose if you were attacked on a 2D map you could be given the option to sally or remain inside, you wouldn't need many maps though (depending on the number of castles of course). I actually like the 2D map so I would have no problem with this. You just might loose terrain variances, choke points, rivers and the like. History aside, such things made the TWs of the past entertaining. There must be a nice way to blend the two, historically accurate sieges and less historical field battles. Perhaps garrisons and field armies could be recruited seperately? Produce troops for the garrison that can only be used during a siege and troops produced exclusivly for the field (who could retreat to a castle if defeated on the field, well, what was left of them). This might blend the two, I don't really know. What do you think?

[Kagemusha]

I like this idea, sounds better than the M2TW siege practice. But how would the 3d map be implemented in such a scenario? Or even 2D for that matter? I suppose if you were attacked on a 2D map you could be given the option to sally or remain inside, you wouldn't need many maps though (depending on the number of castles of course). I actually like the 2D map so I would have no problem with this. You just might loose terrain variances, choke points, rivers and the like. History aside, such things made the TWs of the past entertaining. There must be a nice way to blend the two, historically accurate sieges and less historical field battles. Perhaps garrisons and field armies could be recruited seperately? Produce troops for the garrison that can only be used during a siege and troops produced exclusivly for the field (who could retreat to a castle if defeated on the field, well, what was left of them). This might blend the two, I don't really know. What do you think?

Incase you were the defender.I think it couuld be handled with a single option that once an allied or your own army would attack the besiegers.You would be asked to sally or not. I cant see any reason why a field battle could not occur in a battle map that contains a castle. In any case the battle maps should be enlargened. In this case you should just leave eanough units to match the enemy near the gates, while choosing where to meet the rest of the enemy.

[Reenk Roink]

I am sorry to say this Reenk, but if CA is going for historical accuracy, the sieges were essential part of warfare in Sengoku period Japan and most warfare consisted of sieges and counter sieges. Usual pattern for warfare between two Clans was that the agressor would besige one of the defenders or allied castle in order to see how the enemy would react.If the enemy would be passive the agressor would try and take the castle in order to expand his domain. If the enemy would mobilize and or call in allied forces the agressor would scout the strength of the enemy and based on that he would decide either to engage the enemy in field battle or retreat back to the safety of his own fortressess. Most of the time opting the latter option. This was because decisive battles were really that. If the other party would be crushed.All his neighbours would most likely invade his domain and that would be the end of his Clan.
Even most of the larger battles like the famous battle of Nagashino, where the Takeda force under the son Of Takeda Shingen,Katsyori was crushed, stemmed from a siege as before the arrival of the allied Tokugawa and Oda armies.Katsyori was besieging Nagashino castle, while that time the enemy decided to give battle and the result was decisive, but just not the way Katsyori had calculated.

Nice post Kage, thanks for that historical background. If it historically accurate than I'm willing to put up with it more. It wasn't as common in ancient times I believe, so that is what frustrated me in Rome.

If they can actually make the siege gameplay fun however, I will of course like sieges as much or even more than open field battles.

[A Nerd]

If they can actually make the siege gameplay fun however, I will of course like sieges as much or even more than open field battles

Field battles shouldn't be dissmissed however. They are what made the franchise. Siege battles do sound fun as Kagemusha has said and hopefully are applied as such in STW2, but if the game is nothing but seige battles, I think they will lose their appeal as they did in RTW and M2TW (that style of siege being quite novel at the time). A nice mix of historically accurate sieges and field battles coupled with the frequency of both a la STW and MTW, would be perfection in my opinion. Ah, I can only dream however, let's hope CA (and Sega) listen to some of the interested in informed posters here at the .org and don't rush out an unfinished product!

[andrewt]

They always talk about making siege battles more fun but haven't delivered yet. I just think it's one of the weakest parts of the franchise and it would be nice if we don't have them all the time.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Judging by this picture:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

i'd say sieges will be pretty epic

[Kagemusha]

In couple days when i have time i will post about the siege engines used in Japan. You can prepare for some interesting things,like traction trebuchets used only againts the enemy men, not the walls. Also to me it is weird that it is said over and over that Japanese didint use ladders because of sloped stone walls of castles. Sure you dont need ladders to climb the stone foundation of Tenshu, or stone basin of a wall, but how will you get over those meters high plastered, or wooden walls in top of any sloped wall?

[Barkhorn1x]

They always talk about making siege battles more fun but haven't delivered yet. I just think it's one of the weakest parts of the franchise and it would be nice if we don't have them all the time.

Indeed. Nothing like using some tactical finess out in the open. Oh, and I really hate excessive losses caused by pathing issues.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

The castles look huge.... XD So carry out a siege will be very difficult. (As it should be.) Japanese castles would have slots in them for archers and gunners to fire from, (pretty standard stuff.) As well as openings to drop rocks on invaders from. XD Cleverly made from chutes that jutted forth from the castle. (And looking rather ornamental I might add.) Some of these chutes would even employ a teppo man.

There will probably be large courtyards, and the keep to deal with. The keep will be riddled with defenses. (Maybe. In real life it would have what I described above.) Setting fire to the enemy castle will never be a bad idea.... XD I have a feeling the AI will take advantage of this too.

Sieges may be boring, and breaking castle after castle gets old fast. But I'm always glad to be able to use mine in a defense. These Japanese castles will be fun to defend. :D Since they'll borrow from the local geography, hopefully their different enough to be interesting.

I get tired os sieges just like anyone else. : / But it won't be all sieges all the time. And at least it's a new venue. :D