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: 210Registered 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
«1

Comments

  • ThedossbossThedossboss Posts: 139Registered Users
    The surrender feature was present in napoleon, though I don't know if CA would implement something like that.

  • juankkjuankk Posts: 210Registered Users
    It would be great showing off your army and making the poor citizens give their home to your soldiers
  • GingerRoeBroGingerRoeBro Senior Member Posts: 2,740Registered 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: 1,500Registered 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: 210Registered 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
  • juankkjuankk Posts: 210Registered Users
    I know it’s difficult that you take it into account and much more for this title but please CA take into account for other titles in future the feature of being able to dig under walls and set mining to destroy walls , it’s been constantly used along history and it would bring a really big realism to games by developing such technology in tech tree and applying in in field battles , thanks for your attention
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 1,500Registered 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.
  • SakotadejanSakotadejan Posts: 158Registered Users
    Bro, are you serious? You have the exact same discussion made yesterday or day before. Why would you make another one with the same name when you can just write what would you like to see in that one that is alredy made?
  • juankkjuankk Posts: 210Registered Users
    Maybe because I also wanted to draw attention of CA ,is very interesting share ideas with other members but how is it going to be useful if CA doesn’t realise about it ?
  • iceniiicenii Senior Member The PhilippinesPosts: 1,328Registered Users
    Well it was a feature in Rome1 so maybe sapping will make a return someday.
    I cannot force you to believe the truth but i can allow you to believe a lie. Quote by me " Icenii ".
  • juankkjuankk Posts: 210Registered Users
    What a pitty i though that maybe today we were going to have some gameplay :(
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Posts: 1,165Registered Users
    Took this as basic element in games as of late. How does a force with 0 siege weapons knock down a stonewall after a turn otherwise?
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 17,860Registered Users
    No, the Bugs Bunny tunneling should not come back, that was just absolutely ridiculous. They way Attila did it, with it happening during the siege on the campaign if you besiege for X turns was just much better.
  • Warlord_Lu_BuWarlord_Lu_Bu Posts: 1,569Registered Users
    I would like to see a return to this mechanic... made more sense than breaking down a solid wall with 5-6 catapault shots.

    But I don't think we will, we already got the Grapple Hook warriors... which I suppose is an improvement over the portable ladders.
    "I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 17,840Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    edited January 15
    Quick comment. Continued flagging as Spam posts that one may disagree with may have consequences the persona posting may not like as the Moderation team has to spend an inordinate amount time on extra review of the posts and the thread content.

    Since we are volunteers and not paid for this time it does put a extra burden level on ensuring we are 'fair and unbiased' while ensuring compliance the Forum Terms and Conditions set up by Creative Assembly to ensure everyone has an opportunity to post comments for discussion on the forum.

    Keep the discussion on the OP's topic, or don't post.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • juankkjuankk Posts: 210Registered Users
    dge1 said:

    Quick comment. Continued flagging as Spam posts that one may disagree with may have consequences the persona posting may not like as the Moderation team has to spend an inordinate amount time on extra review of the posts and the thread content.

    Since we are volunteers and not paid for this time it does put a extra burden level on ensuring we are 'fair and unbiased' while ensuring compliance the Forum Terms and Conditions set up by Creative Assembly to ensure everyone has an opportunity to post comments for discussion on the forum.

    Keep the discussion on the OP's topic, or don't post.

    Please explain to me what did we do wrong? Talk about the game is that a felony?
  • CanuoveaCanuovea Posts: 12,575Registered Users, Moderators
    juankk said:

    dge1 said:

    Quick comment. Continued flagging as Spam posts that one may disagree with may have consequences the persona posting may not like as the Moderation team has to spend an inordinate amount time on extra review of the posts and the thread content.

    Since we are volunteers and not paid for this time it does put a extra burden level on ensuring we are 'fair and unbiased' while ensuring compliance the Forum Terms and Conditions set up by Creative Assembly to ensure everyone has an opportunity to post comments for discussion on the forum.

    Keep the discussion on the OP's topic, or don't post.

    Please explain to me what did we do wrong? Talk about the game is that a felony?
    The use of the "Spam" flag as a dislike button is not the correct use of it. It creates extra work for us... and we know who is doing the improper flagging.
    -Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
    -Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
    -The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.
    -...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!
    -5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
  • juankkjuankk Posts: 210Registered Users
    Canuovea said:

    juankk said:

    dge1 said:

    Quick comment. Continued flagging as Spam posts that one may disagree with may have consequences the persona posting may not like as the Moderation team has to spend an inordinate amount time on extra review of the posts and the thread content.

    Since we are volunteers and not paid for this time it does put a extra burden level on ensuring we are 'fair and unbiased' while ensuring compliance the Forum Terms and Conditions set up by Creative Assembly to ensure everyone has an opportunity to post comments for discussion on the forum.

    Keep the discussion on the OP's topic, or don't post.

    Please explain to me what did we do wrong? Talk about the game is that a felony?
    The use of the "Spam" flag as a dislike button is not the correct use of it. It creates extra work for us... and we know who is doing the improper flagging.
    First of all I didn’t know what the flag was, and secondly I haven’t used at all , I’ve only used quotes to point wich message I wanted to answer. I just want to share my ideas and concerns with other players :)
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,209Registered Users
    Siege???

    Where are simple ladders?
  • BalaminienGSBalaminienGS Posts: 10Registered Users
    edited January 15
    juankk said:

    Canuovea said:

    juankk said:

    dge1 said:

    Quick comment. Continued flagging as Spam posts that one may disagree with may have consequences the persona posting may not like as the Moderation team has to spend an inordinate amount time on extra review of the posts and the thread content.

    Since we are volunteers and not paid for this time it does put a extra burden level on ensuring we are 'fair and unbiased' while ensuring compliance the Forum Terms and Conditions set up by Creative Assembly to ensure everyone has an opportunity to post comments for discussion on the forum.

    Keep the discussion on the OP's topic, or don't post.

    Please explain to me what did we do wrong? Talk about the game is that a felony?
    The use of the "Spam" flag as a dislike button is not the correct use of it. It creates extra work for us... and we know who is doing the improper flagging.
    First of all I didn’t know what the flag was, and secondly I haven’t used at all , I’ve only used quotes to point wich message I wanted to answer. I just want to share my ideas and concerns with other players :)
    "Report Spam" isn't a stand in for a dislike button (though a "respectfully disagree" option could ease that issue).

    Now on the topic at hand, yes a sapping option would be neat, but I suspect that the siege combat has been tested and balanced (or the attempt at it) to work with the options that are currently available. CA has already utilized the feature and so I can assure you they know it's there in history (and the franchise).
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    Good stuff. Good stuff
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    edited January 15

    Bro, are you serious? You have the exact same discussion made yesterday or day before. Why would you make another one with the same name when you can just write what would you like to see in that one that is alredy made?

    Bro, are you serious? That's ur response to his post? I for one love this thread. If you don't, ride your boar back to the land of rats and dinosaurs. Just kidding. But cut the guy some slack.
  • acroguePatrickacroguePatrick Posts: 332Registered Users
    Stop making flat cities s and do multi-layered cities.
  • juankkjuankk Posts: 210Registered 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: 2,357Registered 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
  • IntranetusaIntranetusa Junior Member Posts: 598Registered Users
    juankk said:

    I know it’s difficult that you take it into account and much more for this title but please CA take into account for other titles in future the feature of being able to dig under walls and set mining to destroy walls , it’s been constantly used along history and it would bring a really big realism to games by developing such technology in tech tree and applying in in field battles , thanks for your attention

    Didn't we have this option in earlier games such as RTW1, but they removed this feature in later games?
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Posts: 1,165Registered Users

    Didn't we have this option in earlier games such as RTW1, but they removed this feature in later games?

    As said above it's came back in the recent games with it being done between turns to damage city walls.
  • acroguePatrickacroguePatrick Posts: 332Registered 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: 332Registered 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
  • juankkjuankk Posts: 210Registered Users
    As title says , I wonder if there will be a mad editor and does anybody know how many different siege weapons there will be?, campaign it’s wonderul in the other side I don’t feel a quite big change regarding to battles to be honest, for such a big new title I hoped a big change with more physics , battles effects and more layered cities and so on. Letting appart naval welfare (omg), hope to see variety in siege weapons .
Sign In or Register to comment.