#MakeSiegesGreatAgain

littlenuke#9412

at least for game 3. Dwarf karaks should be awesome!!

on a side note, making dwarf karaks especially well designed giving them massive force multipliers, but then goving greenskins massive armies going against small garrisons would be very very thematic!

Cadia101

Shouldn’t it be #makesiegegreat ?
Because, you know... never been great in WH.

AxiosXiphos#9040

Cadia101 said:

Shouldn’t it be #makesiegegreat ?
Because, you know... never been great in WH.

I guess Attila? if you count that?

Regardless I am actually more interested in sieges being reworked then I am any future DLC or Warhammer 3 to be honest - it will have such a huge impact on the game.

Not to say I'm not interested in those too though...

GettoGecko#7861

*yawn*

Working equally across the board sieges are better than spectacular looking and mostly not working exploitable messes.

thebiglez

playing bannerlord the sieges are so epic, it really highlights how lackluster they are in TW.

First step should be maybe to remove the ladders.

Beast_of_Guanyin#8747

So aspire for a rose tinted view of the idyllic past while simultaneously having the game gutted? No thanks.

The game's limited to 40 stack armies. To have a fortress with "massive force multipliers" that's actually able to take or lose you'd need to redesign the game from the ground up. Even then you'd just be watching the map do the work for you, seems boring.

littlenuke#9412

thebiglez said:

playing bannerlord the sieges are so epic, it really highlights how lackluster they are in TW.
First step should be maybe to remove the ladders.

the first step is designing proper siege maps, ones that do not include massive indefensible blocks on the far left, and instead, have proper chokepoints, make walls have some value through clever design (overlapping tower fields of fire, rock drops etc) and generally improve the layout.

Cadia101

AxiosXiphos said:

Cadia101 said:

Shouldn’t it be #makesiegegreat ?
Because, you know... never been great in WH.

I guess Attila? if you count that?

Regardless I am actually more interested in sieges being reworked then I am any future DLC or Warhammer 3 to be honest - it will have such a huge impact on the game.

Not to say I'm not interested in those too though...

No Attila don’t count as I explicitly said : siege where never good in Warhammer. So I didn’t include siege in historical total war as bad.

BaronRodney#9956

Fully agree, OP, I want multi-layered fortresses for all Dwarf Karaks. If there then aren't enough soldiers in the garrison to defend the walls properly...well at least that's how dwarfs are meant to feel!

I am fairly confident that sieges will be looked at and tweaked in the future. It seems far more likely than not. However, I do think Gorilla has a point here. If we change up something so big it will have a huge impact on the campaign map gameplay and may even require a major overhaul of the game which just wouldn't happen.

I think we need to aim for somewhere in the middle of this. Even just fort battles for all dwarf cities like Helmgart, that would be a huge step in the right direction.

sieah

Dawi should be Unbreakable when defending their last Karaks.

littlenuke#9412

please CA, and why the false advertisment on the trailers, with cannons on walls??

BaronRodney#9956

littlenuke said:

please CA, and why the false advertisment on the trailers, with cannons on walls??

Oh dear. You posted a total war picture featuring a dwarf airship. The airship that launched a thousand threads.

On topic, I do hope that they allow us to put artillery up on the walls. That would be an obvious quality of life upgrade. I do think that the risk involved with putting them there given how quickly the enemy can get to the walls, would balance out the huge damage potential. Having said that, its possible with the firing arcs and walls in general that artillery just can't operate on walls at the minute and that's why they decided against it? Who knows. I'd welcome it as an addition though.

AkiAmaz

Come on, sieges are a mess.

There are so many things CA could do to make them better whilst not making them full settlements.

No magic ladders. Let ladders be buildable and have a flag for the unit carrying them.

Let siege towers be destroyed. Honestly anyone with sense would never target a tower when they could target the following unprotected units.

Let artillery go on walls.

Let monsters get up on walls.

Let monsters tear down walls.

Introduce a few more offense / defence options like some roadblocks that ToB have.

Sort out the bloody bugs.

Allow attacking forces to undermine walls instead of building towers.

Allow tunnelling for some races.

Look at Warhammer Siege and take some of the ideas from that book.

So much can be done without really affecting the current game.

littlenuke#9412

BaronRodney said:

littlenuke said:

please CA, and why the false advertisment on the trailers, with cannons on walls??

Oh dear. You posted a total war picture featuring a dwarf airship. The airship that launched a thousand threads.

On topic, I do hope that they allow us to put artillery up on the walls. That would be an obvious quality of life upgrade. I do think that the risk involved with putting them there given how quickly the enemy can get to the walls, would balance out the huge damage potential. Having said that, its possible with the firing arcs and walls in general that artillery just can't operate on walls at the minute and that's why they decided against it? Who knows. I'd welcome it as an addition though.

on a separate topic I believe such airships could be used as a sort of dwarven blackarcs, with designatable bombing runs from hangared gyrobombers etc

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

doclumbago#6250

+1 for OP

Ol_Nessie#9894

littlenuke said:

BaronRodney said:

littlenuke said:

please CA, and why the false advertisment on the trailers, with cannons on walls??

Oh dear. You posted a total war picture featuring a dwarf airship. The airship that launched a thousand threads.

On topic, I do hope that they allow us to put artillery up on the walls. That would be an obvious quality of life upgrade. I do think that the risk involved with putting them there given how quickly the enemy can get to the walls, would balance out the huge damage potential. Having said that, its possible with the firing arcs and walls in general that artillery just can't operate on walls at the minute and that's why they decided against it? Who knows. I'd welcome it as an addition though.

on a separate topic I believe such airships could be used as a sort of dwarven blackarcs, with designatable bombing runs from hangared gyrobombers etc

I've always thought that'd be a cool way to implement them without having them overlap with Gyrobombers. Instead of being in your armies, they'd travel the campaign map like agents with a sphere of influence like Black Arcs and could have a few bombardment abilities (obviously they shouldn't be available in Underway battles).

But I get that most people would want them as units. It'll just be a bit odd to see one fight in melee, and I think they'll be pretty vulnerable to both enemy artillery and flyers.

Tsiar

https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/d1oe0f/the_hunter_the_beast_ama_with_the_warhammer_ii/eztg6dr/?context=3

Who knows how extensive (or not) this "plan" is, but at least they're no longer pretending Warhammers atrocious garbage sieges are in any way good.

Lin_Huichi

At least make minor settlements fighting over a settlement and not another field battle.

Blaeys#7037

AkiAmaz said:

Come on, sieges are a mess.

There are so many things CA could do to make them better whilst not making them full settlements.

No magic ladders. Let ladders be buildable and have a flag for the unit carrying them.

Let siege towers be destroyed. Honestly anyone with sense would never target a tower when they could target the following unprotected units.

Let artillery go on walls.

Let monsters get up on walls.

Let monsters tear down walls.

Introduce a few more offense / defence options like some roadblocks that ToB have.

Sort out the bloody bugs.

Allow attacking forces to undermine walls instead of building towers.

Allow tunnelling for some races.

Look at Warhammer Siege and take some of the ideas from that book.

So much can be done without really affecting the current game.

This mirrors my thoughts very closely - especially the items related to ladders and artillery on walls.

Also, there needs to be a portion of the map that is out of range of the towers from the start. Holding cavalry back out of range until the walls are breached should be a viable strategy.

The most important changes, though, are the ones that players may dislike the most:

- Pocket ladders need to go away (having them buildable during siege phases is fine). They invalidate any real strategy in siege battles.
- Gates need to be much more resistant to melee attacks (similar to how they function in 3K)
- Towers need to be much deadlier, especially against infantry and low armor monsters.

Sieges are the - by far - weakest (least interesting or strategic) part of the game right now.

Tsiar

littlenuke said:

please CA, and why the false advertisment on the trailers, with cannons on walls??

Regarding karaks, they're like the only race where I can swallow the one wall approach. However, CA just had to ruin it and put the defences INSIDE the mountain. Rather than giving us a proper siege from the outside.

littlenuke#9412

I think all dwarven settlements, minor or major should have walls (for obvious lore reasons)

Grom_the_Paunch#8146

I'm open to the idea of "better sieges".

The trouble is they will likely always suck...
a) The walls are a bad place to be in this game 9 times out of 10. Sieges involve walls.
b) The AI is too dumb to take full advantage of any aspect of terrain because the player can do so many things. More features and details simply means more player options (read "potential exploits" if you want) which means bad news for AI. You can't program for every scenario, apparently.

littlenuke#9412

Grom_the_Paunch said:

I'm open to the idea of "better sieges".

The trouble is they will likely always suck...
a) The walls are a bad place to be in this game 9 times out of 10. Sieges involve walls.
b) The AI is too dumb to take full advantage of any aspect of terrain because the player can do so many things. More features and details simply means more player options (read "potential exploits" if you want) which means bad news for AI. You can't program for every scenario, apparently.

at least it would make it a viable multiplayer mode

ROMOBOY#7812

Grom_the_Paunch said:

I'm open to the idea of "better sieges".

The trouble is they will likely always suck...
a) The walls are a bad place to be in this game 9 times out of 10. Sieges involve walls.
b) The AI is too dumb to take full advantage of any aspect of terrain because the player can do so many things. More features and details simply means more player options (read "potential exploits" if you want) which means bad news for AI. You can't program for every scenario, apparently.

I agree. Cool sieges or not, the A.I. will still play like trash.

Rocketlegion#7423

It really is the one thing holding back Warhammer right now, playing 3k and sieges are so much better.

RomeoReject#1666

Ol_Nessie said:

littlenuke said:

BaronRodney said:

littlenuke said:

please CA, and why the false advertisment on the trailers, with cannons on walls??

Oh dear. You posted a total war picture featuring a dwarf airship. The airship that launched a thousand threads.

On topic, I do hope that they allow us to put artillery up on the walls. That would be an obvious quality of life upgrade. I do think that the risk involved with putting them there given how quickly the enemy can get to the walls, would balance out the huge damage potential. Having said that, its possible with the firing arcs and walls in general that artillery just can't operate on walls at the minute and that's why they decided against it? Who knows. I'd welcome it as an addition though.

on a separate topic I believe such airships could be used as a sort of dwarven blackarcs, with designatable bombing runs from hangared gyrobombers etc

I've always thought that'd be a cool way to implement them without having them overlap with Gyrobombers. Instead of being in your armies, they'd travel the campaign map like agents with a sphere of influence like Black Arcs and could have a few bombardment abilities (obviously they shouldn't be available in Underway battles).

But I get that most people would want them as units. It'll just be a bit odd to see one fight in melee, and I think they'll be pretty vulnerable to both enemy artillery and flyers.

Give them a ton of ammo, and give them a specific ability that prevents them from swooping down in melee, so that they're just always up in the air.

mightygloin#2446

Small settlement maps are also a must. It gets extremely boring to fight on a flat ground out of nowhere when you're supposed to defend a village or something.

psychoak#6605

The forts have pretty good setups, problem is they're terrible at the walls.

Walls are really the main issue here, that and an AI that sucks at sieges from both sides.

Defending Helmgart is super easy even at level 1. From the walls though? Impossible. You try to defend the walls, and your huge wall length and multiple gates combined with a short stack of melee infantry, translates to certain doom.

Defend the two ramps into the victory zone, with your archers positioned at the fore? You break half the troops as they come up that central ramp. and break the other half in two choke points you can shoot from the sides in. It goes from "can't beat a single stack of Orcs and Goblins" to "broke a double stack of Black Orcs with less than a hundred casualties".

Pocket ladders are a plague. The AI needs more brains. Siege maps need a lot of work.

If they do some of the Proving Grounds changes, that will be a big help in reinforcing all these understaffed minor garrisons that can't compete with infinite pocket ladders lining the whole length of the wall, but it's still going to need an AI.

Bonutz#3949

Yeah sieges suck. I end up auto-resolving almost all of them.

My suggestions for improving them:

- Artillery on the walls

- Multiple walled siege battles like Medieval 2

- Burning oil from gatehouses

- Deployments such as stakes, spike pits, fences etc

- More siege map variety, both for minor and major settlements. Minor settlements should have a small town to fight over. Some of the walled siege maps should have cool things like rivers running through them with a bridge as a choke point. Stuff like that. Unique capitols for factions should have their own custom siege map.

- Ethereal units should move through walls

- Monsters should be able to tear down walls

- attacking army should not be in range of the watchtowers upon starting the battle

- Skaven should be able to tunnel under the walls

- Likely will never happen but 360 degree sieges from older TW’s would be awesome.

- Army losses and routing kicks in way too quick during sieges. The trigger for army losses for the defending army should be much much lower...almost to the point of practically unbreakable.

- making gatehouses much taller in height so we can get bigger monsters

- Fix that damned gate bug

Djau#5149

Sieges need to be changed, though Im concerned how this will affect defensively weak factions in the early game.