Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Siege ideas, suggestions

juankkjuankk Posts: 34Registered Users
edited January 12 in General Discussion
I was wondering after watching the last gameplay regarding to siege how would it be, do you think it will be (attack, sack, etc6 before attacking ? New ideas ?, different types of siege weapons? Which new systems would you include to siege battles ?
I also thou that maybe someday would it be great that before attacking depending on your army the defender could decide to give it to you if you don’t destroy it at all , I know it’s similarly included but something different that would be defender who decide it not the attacker

Comments

  • ThedossbossThedossboss Posts: 102Registered Users
    The surrender feature was present in napoleon, though I don't know if CA would implement something like that.

  • juankkjuankk Posts: 34Registered Users
    It would be great showing off your army and making the poor citizens give their home to your soldiers
  • GingerRoeBroGingerRoeBro Senior Member Posts: 2,324Registered Users
    Yeah, if you could offer to not destroy the army inside the city in return for surrendering the city I'd happily do this a lot.
    Bigger Budget for game 3?

    They're gonna need it for all of the monogod glory.
    Which will be the "4 distinct gods representing the different aspects of Chaos such as Khorne, Slaanesh, Tzeentch, and Nurgle." :blush: ^CA quote

    Thank you CA for seeing them as what they truly are.
    Let the Games Begin!
    https://warhammerfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/The_Great_Game
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 796Registered Users
    edited January 14
    A besieged city surrendering happened all the time in history. It should be there in the game. It would be way for the defenders to preserve any army garrisoned and manpower currently in the city. It should come at a cost of gold / resources, which can perhaps be tied to the political skill of the defending governor / general. It would be a good way to reduce the number of tedious incessant siege battles, without the crazy auto-resolve killing all your expensive units. Of course, the besieger would have the option to reject the surrender and try to kill everyone anyway.

    A besieging army should also be able to assault more than once. In the recent TW games, a failed assault means immediate end to the siege. This is not realistic. If the besieger does not lose too many men in the assault, the siege should continue (perhaps with a small timer setback) with another assault possible next turn after rebuilding the siege equipment.

    I wish there is an option to direct the defence towers to some extent, or at least ask them to stop firing. They tend to kill a lot of their own troops by inaccurately firing into a melee.

    I would also love the option to have cavalry be able to access to the ramparts of wide high level walls. Ramparts should be treated like normal terrain IMO, instead of preset unit positions.
    Post edited by mitthrawnuruodo on
  • juankkjuankk Posts: 34Registered Users

    A besieged city surrendering happened all the time in history. It should be there in the game. It would be way for the defenders to preserve any army garrisoned and manpower currently in the city. It should come at a cost of gold / resources, which can perhaps be tied to the political skill of the defending governor / general. It would be a good way to reduce the number of tedious incessant siege battles, without the crazy auto-resolve killing all your expensive units. Of course, the besieger would have the option to reject the surrender and try to kill everyone anyway.

    A besieging army should also be able to assault more than once. In the recent TW games, a failed assault means immediate end to the siege. This is not realistic. If the besieger does not lose too many men in the assault, the siege should continue (perhaps with a small timer setback) with another assault possible next turn after rebuilding the siege equipment.

    I wish there is an option to direct the defence towers to some extent, or at least ask them to stop firing. They tend to kill a lot of their own troops by inaccurately firing into a melee.

    I would also love the option to have cavalry be able to access to the ramparts of wide high level walls.

    I agree! I also thoug that could be wonderful MINING under walls ! I think it’s a really interesting feature that no total war game has got so far but it was present at every siege in ancient history
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 796Registered Users
    juankk said:

    A besieged city surrendering happened all the time in history. It should be there in the game. It would be way for the defenders to preserve any army garrisoned and manpower currently in the city. It should come at a cost of gold / resources, which can perhaps be tied to the political skill of the defending governor / general. It would be a good way to reduce the number of tedious incessant siege battles, without the crazy auto-resolve killing all your expensive units. Of course, the besieger would have the option to reject the surrender and try to kill everyone anyway.

    A besieging army should also be able to assault more than once. In the recent TW games, a failed assault means immediate end to the siege. This is not realistic. If the besieger does not lose too many men in the assault, the siege should continue (perhaps with a small timer setback) with another assault possible next turn after rebuilding the siege equipment.

    I wish there is an option to direct the defence towers to some extent, or at least ask them to stop firing. They tend to kill a lot of their own troops by inaccurately firing into a melee.

    I would also love the option to have cavalry be able to access to the ramparts of wide high level walls.

    I agree! I also thoug that could be wonderful MINING under walls ! I think it’s a really interesting feature that no total war game has got so far but it was present at every siege in ancient history
    Oh I forgot about those. They are called sappers. Rome 1 had them.

    Yeah it would be cool to have them back.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,082Registered Users
    Siege???

    Where are simple ladders?
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,305Registered Users
    Good stuff. Good stuff
  • acroguePatrickacroguePatrick Posts: 298Registered Users
    Stop making flat cities s and do multi-layered cities.
  • juankkjuankk Posts: 34Registered Users
    That’s really true , cities are all the same , even in Rome were history told us they were set in hills , appart from barbabarians all cities were flat :(
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,305Registered Users

    Stop making flat cities s and do multi-layered cities.

    Great idea. But that requires more work lol so I doubt it'll happen. Thrones of brittania cities are awesome. 100% they are awesome. Many are multi layered
  • acroguePatrickacroguePatrick Posts: 298Registered Users

    Stop making flat cities s and do multi-layered cities.

    Great idea. But that requires more work lol so I doubt it'll happen. Thrones of brittania cities are awesome. 100% they are awesome. Many are multi layered
    Agree!

    Why not, if they could do it in TOB, then they can make an effort here as well.
  • acroguePatrickacroguePatrick Posts: 298Registered Users
    juankk said:

    That’s really true , cities are all the same , even in Rome were history told us they were set in hills , appart from barbabarians all cities were flat :(

    RTW actually had more diverse multi-layered cities. Even the flat cities had more cosmetic design - look up the Egyptian and Eastern settlements
Sign In or Register to comment.