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

Sieges in WH3 don't need new layouts, they need new mechanics

Mr_CarsteinMr_Carstein Posts: 20Registered Users
I think it's fairly rational to say that siege battles will not get a revamp. At least not the layout of each map, because the time it would take to change all the maps would be a ridiculously time-consuming undertaking. What I feel would enhance sieges isn't really the layout, but the way each siege feels depending on the faction that you're attacking.

Every faction has a unique feel to them on the campaign and in land battles, but sieges somehow always play out the same way and feel too similar to each other.

So instead of just changing siege maps, they could add new mechanics for each race to make sieges feel different and more exciting.

I've already mentioned in a previous post that having civilians in siege battles could make interesting scenarios were as a defender you have to protect the civilians and as an attacker you can kill as many as possible to lower the enemies moral/give them penalties on the campaign map.

But here I will talk about some ideas that I had which could make each faction feel different when defending in a siege battle. So here it goes:

Dwarfs - Sieging a Karak/Dwarfen stronghold should not be easy. The Dwarfs could gain powerful defensive buffs and spaces on their walls to put siege engines on. This way CA doesn't have to change the entire layout of all maps, all they gotta do is just change a wall tile-set.
By that I mean, if now there's only 1 model for dwarfen walls, they could add a second variety that is more roundly shaped on which the dwarfs can place their siege weapons.
Or they just make a different set that has cannons mounted on different levels of the wall. Setting ladders on those walls would be a bad idea cause the cannons could just blow them off. As an alternative to cannons you could also place cauldrons full of burning oil to pour down on enemies who try to climb up. Dwarfen walls and gates should have runes on them which make them much more resistant to damage. Maybe a wall variety that adds runes that cause damage over time to undead that are near the wall? A rune system with different buffs for the Dawi could be REALLY cool. A rune dedicated to a specific god which you can choose in the campaign that will give your armies on them unique benefits.

Dwarfs can also have an area within the capture point where they could grab ammunition for their ranged and artillery units, but that ammunition should be finite. Perhaps it could get upgraded with certain buildings or research?

Vampire Counts/Vampire Coast - Attacking vampires could make skeletal arms reach out of the walls to pull down soldiers who're climbing up the ladders, or they could have stone gargoyles which periodically cause a shockwave that causes terror. Vampire Counts can also periodically get zombies as reinforcements outside/inside the city, to give this sense of numberless masses that will overwhelm the attackers unless they defeat the vampire lord/necromancer.

Tomb Kings - Attacking a tomb king settlement should have fragile liche priests assigned to x parts of the wall which give an AoE heal and resurrection to undead minions. The attacker would have to focus these lich priests first otherwise they'd face tides of skellies. Similar to the vampire counts, the Tomb Kings will get constructs as reinforcements after a longer time period.

Human factions - I think humans can get the same "cannons-on-walls" and ammunition treatment as the dwarfs, But the only human faction that should really stand out in terms of siege defences is Middenland, cause of their great cannon. Kislev could use a snowstorm army ability which blows people off of the edge of the walls and from ladders, or they can freeze siege engines for a short time on their track.

Greenskins - Greenskins gotta have some sort of "enrage" mechanic to make it dangerous if you drag out a siege on them. The longer the siege takes the more fightiness they gain. It could work as a sort of bar like the DE or TK have. With each stage of fightiness that you pass, you gain some buffs such as leadership, extra charge speed and charge rating. Once they reach max fightiness, they will get a large number of reinforcements (5-7 regiments) with units from any tier. units. The idea behind this is that the longer the fight takes the more other greenskins and monsters in the area are attracted to the fighting, just like described in the lore with certain beasts that the greenskins fight alongside with.

High Elves - HE can have a sort of ritual mechanic. If they get besieged they can have a mage within the city that starts channelling a ritual. The ritual grants increased winds of magic and recharge rate (which can be increased be certain buildings) for not only the HE but also their enemies, but the enemies have increased miscast chances (can be increased via buildings), At higher settlement/wall levels they can also have army abilities which can cast a mist in an area to make their forces unattackable by enemy units and untargetable by spells (except for vortex, bombardment and cone spells) for a small duration, enough to pull them out of a sticky situation. Enemies can also get slowed by that same mist so it can also be a good way to kite enemies.

HE should be about overwhelming their foes with magic and using hit and run tactics.

If the mage is killed, the HE lose these abilities.

Dark Elves - DE could have an army ability (let's call it "Gaze of Khaine" for now) which acts as an AoE buff that can be moved by the player for x seconds before it disappears. The AoE should be small enough to only affect unit/regiment. It will grant a large amount of offensive stat buffs and grant frenzy and enrage, and this can happen to both enemy or ally.
You can use this army ability to either buff a single powerful unit to make them into a killing machine or shift it to an area where you want an enemy to lose control at the cost of also becoming dangerous. That way you can at least

If the AI cannot handle moving an AoE spell around then it could just be a point and select type of ability like Soul Leech.

Along with their murderous prowess I think the DE would be in a relatively good spot.

Wood Elves - WE should feel like a pain in the ass to beat when you fight them in the forests of Athel Loren. In a WE siege, their ranged units get the snipe trait as long as they are in forest areas and all WE units gain movement speed within said forests, because they know every nook and cranny in their own region. They should move fast within the shadows and strike fast and hard before they return to attack from somewhere else.

As a cool army ability, they can grow trees in an AoE which will give them the same buffs as previously mentioned and become a detriment to their foes if they go in them because they'll get the regular forest penalties.

Skaven - Similar to the dwarfs, they should have unique wall assets that either let them mount their weapon teams/artillery on it or as an alternative they can have a wall asset that has weapons that shoot warp bullets or warp lightning at their approaching enemies. Skaven should also have an area where they can grab ammunition (as already mentioned, the ammunition should be finite but increasable via buildings/research).

Near the capture point the Skaven can have a powerful machine which needs to get charged up for a set amount of time. If the Skaven aren't defeated before the timer runs out, they can unleash the device which will shoot arcs of warp lightning in random areas within the city and walls, which will cause horrendous damage. They might either completely break the enemy or themselves, but this sort of self sabotage and random chance is what makes Skaven into what they are. A second variety of this device can be one that can fire concentrated blasts of warpfire into an area, but the fires are so volatile that they can spread quickly and turn the entire city into a giant BBQ.

It would feel very skavenlike to have such firepower and cause near-mindless destruction.

Lizardmen - If a Lizardmen temple-city is attacked, their Slann awakens from their slumber to aid their forces. This would also be a neat way of seeing more Slanns throughout a campaign when heading to Lustria/the Southland Jungles. The Slann is situated in the capture point and can create a dome in a large area around it that will block projectiles for a duration. Like what we see Teclis do in the WH2 cinematic, only larger. Kinda like how Kroak held a dome around Itza for 10 years to prevent daemons from getting in, but this would have to be a really toned down shield.

To make it more interesting, apart from the dome that I previously mentioned, you can have the choice of casting another version which causes severe damage to enemies who get in. Imagine daemons squeezing through the dome and getting melted in seconds.

Apart from creating a barrier, the Slann can also repair destroyed walls with their telekinetic powers. And again, if the Slann dies, the lizardmen will lose these abilities, UNLESS another slann from the defending army is there to help.

And of course, the Lizardmen are a very magic focused faction. So due to the Slann, the Lizardmen will gain a large WoM pool and WoM recharge rate and if a Rite summoned Slann joins the battle, these WoM buffs are increased.

Norsca - When attacking a Norscan stronghold, they can call upon an AI controlled Champion of the dark gods after a certain amount of time, if the power bar is against their favour. Imagine holding your ground for 8 minutes and racking up kills, and you slowly start feeling your forces losing momentum, when suddenly Valkia the Bloody swoops down after deeming you worthy and shifting the tide of battle.

And finally, certain units could behave differently when in a siege. I think ethereal units should have the option of just passing through walls if you click behind a wall. And spider-riders and potential future units like Flayerkin should should be able to climb walls without having to line up for a ladder.

And these were just some ideas I had fun with folks. What do ya'll think?

Comments

  • TumbleTumble Posts: 446Registered Users
    No I think this is all highly fanciful adding summons and things. Several factions get some abilities they can cast on the map when they have activated a certain rite or have a particular building. They do not succeed make the sieges any more compelling to play. While adding unique map settlement layouts is a tall order, they can add just 1-2 more varieties to factions and achieve a lot while answering the criticisms of sieges being samey and over simplified.
    A good recent example are the small farm settlement structures in 3 kingdoms. The structures just add destructable barricades but it creates a few choke points to choose to defend from (or be forced to attack). So that's one optional addition.
    Where I would try and stretch it a bit would be to change capital city sieges to be more like from other games in the series. There's only a handful that qualify (Altdorf, Couronne, Drakenhof, KaK, K8P, Skavenblight, Lothern, Naggarond, Hexoatl) so is it really too much work?
  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Posts: 1,983Registered Users
    I do agree more mechanics are the likely solution, as opposed to a total re-vamp of siege maps, but I'm sure these exact mechanics are what we should expect.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    edited August 15
    We're more likely to get more layouts than all these fancy additions.

    Not that we're likely to get more layouts in the first place...
  • WaaaghCheifWaaaghCheif Junior Member Posts: 243Registered Users
    Not getting new mechanics I've made my peace with, but not getting any layouts would be downright, here it comes, lazy.

    Look on the Battle Map Browser and sieges in Warhammer, they all have the same copy-pasted layout, the only thing changed is the rotation of the map.
  • Nitros14Nitros14 Junior Member Posts: 1,577Registered Users
    I'd like to see a significant upkeep increase/replenishment decrease to Dwarfs, with a corresponding increase in their ability to defend in sieges. Would capture the lore better.
  • Combat_WombatCombat_Wombat Posts: 4,092Registered Users
    Nitros14 said:

    I'd like to see a significant upkeep increase/replenishment decrease to Dwarfs, with a corresponding increase in their ability to defend in sieges. Would capture the lore better.

    Double layered sieges, choke points, Places.To.Put.Cannons, you know... the kinds of things that would make sense for besieged dwarves.
  • BDLMBDLM Posts: 31Registered Users
    You start off by saying 'it'd be too much work to do x' but then a lot of your suggestions require a lot of work. If you're assuming that they will not overhaul sieges as they are, then I think some ideas that might be easier would be more spells like the high elf one (Vaul's somethin') that damages walls, augment certain units/factions with faster ladder speeds, faction bonuses during sieges, and designs that take into account whats fighting on them. Even if you say 'ok, the old maps are just going to be busted forever/for a while, new siege maps should include elevated sections for/near the capture point so that particularly cannon-style siege weapons are useful for defending. Large units also struggle with navigating some of the maps so wider paths in some areas that might make a player want to go towards one side with alot of large units but the other with infantry might help add flavor.

    After playing 3K I would love love love a siege rework but if we're getting it as it is, theres still plenty i hope they realize they can do to improve it dramatically.
  • Fiasco35Fiasco35 Posts: 156Registered Users
    All that they really need to do is fix the AI on siege battles. The AI is horrendous at siege defense. Try playing a siege against a human opponent that is experienced at siege defense, it's completely different. Istead of AFK AI units sitting on walls or in the town center, your oppenent will put archers on the walls and then run them away when your infantry reaches the walls and replace them with infantry so the archers can continue to shoot you from the ground. The cavalry wont just sit inside the city, they will charge out of one of the gates and kill all of your archers and siege engines while your men are trying to get to the wall and then harrass the guys that are trying to climb ladders. The AI never destroys my siege towers, when i play against a human i pretty much always expect to lose one if they have any siege equipement.

    It's a far cry from the AI that will just deploy 1/2 of it's army on the wall then go afk. If the AI was actually decent in siege battles the siege battles would be a lot more interesting. I do like your idea about making spots to put cannons on the walls, would make them a lot more useful in siege defense.
  • doclumbagodoclumbago Posts: 1,239Registered Users
    Playing the GCCM Mod it is clear that AI cannot handle complex layouts at the moment.

    Considering this fact I thin alist of unique abilities and summons would make sieges a better experience.

    I would like to see some variations in the layout like the Gates of Ulthuan.
    Anything the Ai can handle.
    Some bombardments, special abilities, all that too. Agree with OP.


    Now may I add:

    Sieging should be done differently by every race.
    Right now we just have differently stylized towers and rams noone should use.

    Greenskins:
    -Spider Riders & Arachnaroks should be able to climb walls
    (assuming that walls can have Artillery and Monsters on them)
    -Goblins should be able to burrow underneath

    Dwarves

    -should be able to build a variety of high class siege engines.
    -Miners should be able to burrow underneath

    Wood Elves
    -Treekin should be able to crush Walls
    -Dryads should climb walls without Stamina loss

    now you can see where I´m going I leave the rest to your imaginations...





  • Mr_CarsteinMr_Carstein Posts: 20Registered Users
    BDLM said:

    You start off by saying 'it'd be too much work to do x' but then a lot of your suggestions require a lot of work. If you're assuming that they will not overhaul sieges as they are, then I think some ideas that might be easier would be more spells like the high elf one (Vaul's somethin') that damages walls, augment certain units/factions with faster ladder speeds, faction bonuses during sieges, and designs that take into account whats fighting on them. Even if you say 'ok, the old maps are just going to be busted forever/for a while, new siege maps should include elevated sections for/near the capture point so that particularly cannon-style siege weapons are useful for defending. Large units also struggle with navigating some of the maps so wider paths in some areas that might make a player want to go towards one side with alot of large units but the other with infantry might help add flavor.

    After playing 3K I would love love love a siege rework but if we're getting it as it is, theres still plenty i hope they realize they can do to improve it dramatically.


    These are all mostly just ideas and to see what others think. I don't expect any of this to make it in but they're just to see how people feel about more race variety in siege battles.

    I find your suggestions would also be good enough to make sieges more interesting. I personally would rather they make certain units act uniquely in sieges and that factions which are known to be hard to crack down in the lore also feel that way in the game.
  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Posts: 1,983Registered Users
    We can already see some attempts by CA to spice up sieges with summons and special abilities granted by defensive buildings. It wouldn't be surprising to see more of that.

    I doubt maps will get much bigger, though, or get more fall back positions. Unless you have a full garrison and a full stack in the city the current maps already leave your forces stretched thin, unable to defend every position. Bigger maps will only amplify this.
  • FraxinusFraxinus Posts: 258Registered Users
    Let me just say: no.

    A Chaos (WoC / Beastmen) campaign is already mind-shreddingly tedious because the AI builds walls in every single Gods-cursed settlement so the late-game is just an unending grind of dozens of siege battles.

    And may Tzeentch help you if you get tired of the constant sieges and decide to try to autoresolve, because for some reason the game considers twelve stacks of swordsmen, spearmen and handgunners with a couple Empire Knights and a single Mortar to be an even match for a twenty-stack army led by a level 40 Chaos Lord full of three-gold-chevron Chosen and Dragon Ogres. Autoresolve can and will wipe out your Hellcannons for no reason whatsoever, and those things take two turns to recruit because life is pain.

    I'm all for making siege battles more interesting, but for the love of the Gods they don't need to be any harder or more tedious. The only way I would support changes like these would be if they also didn't allow minor settlements to have walls, that way sieges would only happen in province capitols.
  • Arthas_MenethilArthas_Menethil Senior Member Posts: 4,911Registered Users


    Wood Elves - WE should feel like a pain in the ass to beat when you fight them in the forests of Athel Loren. In a WE siege, their ranged units get the snipe trait as long as they are in forest areas and all WE units gain movement speed within said forests, because they know every nook and cranny in their own region. They should move fast within the shadows and strike fast and hard before they return to attack from somewhere else.

    As a cool army ability, they can grow trees in an AoE which will give them the same buffs as previously mentioned and become a detriment to their foes if they go in them because they'll get the regular forest penalties.


    And these were just some ideas I had fun with folks. What do ya'll think?

    It should be remembered that the WE sieges don't have that many forested areas due to how projectiles work in this game so it's more of an open area in order for the WE to utilize their main strength i.e their ranged fire power.
    So...the Light's vaunted justice has finally arrived. Shall I lay down Frostmourne and throw myself at your mercy, Fordring?

  • angry_rat_loverangry_rat_lover Posts: 182Registered Users
    These are some pretty good ideas, I agree with all of them
  • EliacTheEmeraldTeethEliacTheEmeraldTeeth Posts: 387Registered Users
    Let's be honest. We didn't get sieges rework with 2nd game, so propably we will neither get it in 3rd game. Also all maps (siege or not) seem tiny compared to ones in previous gsmes like Empire or Rome.
    I assure you, we are very real. And we have come for you and your realm.
  • Lord_DistamorfinLord_Distamorfin Posts: 236Registered Users

    Let's be honest. We didn't get sieges rework with 2nd game, so propably we will neither get it in 3rd game. Also all maps (siege or not) seem tiny compared to ones in previous gsmes like Empire or Rome.

    To be fair, game 2 came out a little over a year after game 1. The gap between game 2 and game 3 is already coming up on twice as long and we aren't getting game 3 anytime soon. There's plenty of development time for an overhaul of these trash sieges.
    And considering the next Saga game coming out will feature a city known for its mighty walls, I think it's reasonable to expect that CA will use it as an opportunity to experiment with siege maps and AI.
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Posts: 7,088Registered Users
    Sieges need AI that plays rather than goes AFK
    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
  • Nitros14Nitros14 Junior Member Posts: 1,577Registered Users
    AI just suicides onto the walls if you have a lot of ranged.
  • arghozarghoz Junior Member Posts: 241Registered Users
    Sieging dwarf settlements should definitely be harder yes, currently there's really no big noticable diffrence between most factions when sieging their settlements (in terms of towers, wall strength etc.).

    One thing i would like to see is them adding a few bigger wall sections where you could place ur artillery. When playing a artillery-heavy faction its quite annoying that the artillery is stuck on the ground when it realistically would be of much more use on a wall.
  • Lin_HuichiLin_Huichi Posts: 181Registered Users
    I'm fine since I use GCCM. Vanilla sieges are awful, every other Total War has better sieges, even Medieval Total War. (Yes the first one).
Sign In or Register to comment.