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.


Problem with AI sieges

Subr1185Subr1185 Registered Users Posts: 39
So if an AI besieges me and it would take 5 turns to grind my settlement down, by the time it's my turn, I only have 4 turns left to break the siege. Not only that, but the worst part is that the building that was under my control when I ended my turn does not provide me with any income that it was supposed to provide me with because it got besieged during end turn. That's just not fair. I did not even lose the building - the AI does not need to spend any forces to besiege a settlement, and they deny me the resources even though they haven't even had it besieged for one full turn. CA, please fix this - I understand the AI get buffs on higher difficulty, but this is simply unfair and makes no sense in terms of game mechanics. Just make it so that if the building is under the player's control when they hit end turn, it provides the income it's supposed to, and only reduce the siege turn timer when the AI manages to keep it besieged for one FULL turn - as in, from their move to their move. I think it makes a lot of sense and should be an easy fix. Thanks.


  • KalistratKalistrat Junior Member Ukraine/DnipropetrovskRegistered Users Posts: 229
    I do not consider that this a mistake.

    This is the rule of the turn-based strategy.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,001
    I think this is yet another bug that was fixed in a previous patch, and then reintroduced in a following patch.
  • Subr1185Subr1185 Registered Users Posts: 39
    Dude, what are you talking about? How can this be a rule in a TBS game? The AI does not spend any soldiers or resources to start the siege, but I lose all of my income for that turn. And they take basically no risk doing it - they just walk up to my building, and they don't even need to hold it for a full turn. How is that OK?
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,673
    edited July 2020

    I think this is yet another bug that was fixed in a previous patch, and then reintroduced in a following patch.

    Nah they just changed the fact that the garrison would immediately suffer from attrition if you were sieged with low reserves (which was really unfair)

    There are still a bunch of unfair stuff still in the game such as this and the fact the AI factions actually replenish at the start of the player turn...
  • KalistratKalistrat Junior Member Ukraine/DnipropetrovskRegistered Users Posts: 229
    edited July 2020
    So, for example:

    Recruit units/earning income: In the first turn, the first player has an advantage over the second, because in the second turn the first player gets earlier units/income than the second player. Since the earning income occurring at the same time of receiving a new turn, but not at the end of the current move.

    Since your city was under siege when you received a new turn, you did not earning income.

    The first player also has an advantage in the choice of tactics of warfare, when the second player has only a choice of countermeasures. It's almost like in chess.

    But I agree with you that it’s stupid when a smaller army has the opportunity to besiege an army that is larger. The player must have the choice to respond to the siege, before receiving a new turn.

    P.S. Sorry for my English
Sign In or Register to comment.