Siege rework?

drogarito#2548

So are you happy with siege rework? It seems that the ai cannot use deployables in a good way, which makes them meaningless and obsolete....

And in case of ogres attacking the city,it is as if walls are made of paper, which totally nullifies defenses because almost every unit can attack walls.

Also in Cathayan city, I haven't seen the AI using these 'bridges' as a choke point and it seems in general that the ai's siege intelligence is worrysome.

All in all,the sieges don't look reworked at all....

#610044

been reworked in a bad way, lets try it first of course but by the looks of it its a terrible in current state. Ogres also destroy way too quick, walls need atleast 1000% more HP

drogarito#2548

And there is no artillery on walls which really sucks. And those siege towers and ladders are sooo boring. They are in every tw game. Nurglings, skaven and others should be able to climb walls. Goddamn it. Can you imagine how cool it would be for deathrunners to climb walls in stealth and attack archers or artillery units out of nowhere?

Pico0

Well on one side I'm happy that the siege for minor settlement are not just land battle anymore because it give more diversity, both as the attacking and defending forces, plus major settlement siege seems to have a more interesting layout as well.

On the other side, the AI really does not seem to be anywhere near competent from what we have seen so far in sieges (unfortunately it also seems the case in land battle to a lesser extent, for exemple the AI is still suiciding its flyers into your lines unsupported).
Also as you said walls have been made yet even more irrelevant because a lot of unit can now destroy them. It also means that siege engine like siege tower and ram will have even less reason to be used, and attacking the gate will probably be less useful as well. I really hope CA will try to improve the siege before release, but I doubt they will.

Overall I'm not satisfied by what I've seen of the siege rework. There are some good ideas but still a long way to go to make it enjoyable. A big part of it has to do with the AI (I think battle AI is also really rough around the edges and could use some work).

drogarito#2548

We need unique wall artillery and unique siege engines for every race. And we need walls strengthened.

Dragantis#9204

From time to time, I read about siege rework that include wall strengthening, removing ladders adding artillery on walls. What I think is, that if somehow those changes were include in game, siege would get a lot more boring than they are now. Your ideas would end on deployment stage, put artillery and archer on walls and just watch how everything approaching is massacred.

drogarito#2548

You don't need to put all of your artillery on one side of the wall. actually the attacker could attack you from the other side and render your artillery defenses useless. And that's what inner walls and the center fortress are for.

drogarito#2548

And can you imagine Hobogobbos catapulting their own units to the city with some giant catapult or something? I would give money for that! But it seems that CA is not creative at all when it comes to the siege rework...

Captain_Rex#1635

Yes I absolutely love the Siege rework, couldn’t be happier!

fasterkamil

I like most of the new stuff but I have a couple of disappointments. For starters, no 360 settlements is a big NO for me. I don't know what the community thinks on this, but for me, I've played most TW games and I've ALWAYS loved 360 sieges in other games like Rome 1, Medieval 2, Rome 2, and Attila. I really don't understand why we DON'T get them with this rework for WH3.

Secondly, walls still look not that important, unless they have some hidden bonuses that CA haven't told us about that makes it worth staying up on them, such as additional leadership and melee defense for defenders on walls. Or some magical bonuses they get to help defend against the invaders, I don't know. Just, I love the warfare on walls, but during the lifecycle of WH2, deploying your troops on the chokepoints/streets of your settlements has been much more viable than trying to defend the walls themselves, hope that's not the case with WH3.

Lastly, I really hope all races have tons of different cool-looking maps both for minor cities and for major cities so that we can solve the biggest problem with the sieges: playing the same map and the same battle over and over again.

Rasmus242

Depends on if they've really reworked all races siege maps to be different in a fun way like they said. For me the worst part was how similar all siege maps felt. Those expecting more advanced and impactful siege mechanics are probably a bit disappointed but personally I'm not one of them.

Hopefully they fix up the AI a bit before release (but I wouldn't hold my breath) too.

Neodeinos#5871

I reserve my judgement for when I get my hands on the game but I do think it looks promising.

Pede#6322

I like the idea's they implemented, but I'm afraid the AI can't utilize a lager siege map, which is very unfortunate.

Sadly i expect sieges in huge maps with few soldiers where they are all attacking the western gate full force and end the battle there.

AnnoyedOneEyedGuy

indifferent, ill play 2-4 then autoresolve the rest unless i have to play it to win

Jman5#8318

I am happier with WH3's siege than what we had with Warhammer 2. It's definitely been improved significantly, and we shouldn't ignore that.

Am I happy with the state of siege warfare as we've seen it? No.

There are significant AI problems that desperately need to be addressed.

- too much pointless running around
- not defending key areas/chokepoints properly
- not deploying troops smartly
- AI has significant issues with deployables. There needs to be a 10 second grace period at the start where deployables can go up instantly. That way the AI isn't stuck with his pants down at the start when he has no deployables set up for the first 3 minutes.
- They still haven't addressed being able to sit outside the walls and bombarding a garrison to death with missiles and spells.


There are mechanic/balance issues that I wish had been addressed

- ladders/siege equipment hasn't been re-worked at all it seems. This is disappointing in the extreme.
- garrisons are woefully undermanned for the size of the map
- hacking down gates/walls seems just as fast as using a battering ram. (you have to take move speed into account CA!)
- They missed a really great opportunity to actually make each race have unique mechanics when it comes to siege warfare.
- No artillery on walls? This truly shocked me that they weren't able to get this working.
- Deployable point system should have also included actual unit reinforcements where you basically conscript locals to fight. Would have helped the AI immensely.
- Can't deploy outside the walls even with vanguard units.

drogarito#2548

In battle-deployables were the worst idea they could have implemented. The AI is too dumb to do it properly.

DrazhoaththeAshen#9598

Neodeinos said:

I reserve my judgement for when I get my hands on the game but I do think it looks promising.

It is hard to really argue anything else. We have seen only brief snippets of how siege will work in game. I like the ideas CA brought to the table. I would rather be an optimist than a pessimist. So I agree, reserved judgment until I actually experience it for myself.

busbee247#5862

I do have some early concerns about the ai being capable of adequately using the new systems. Unlike other people I don't have a weird obsession with walls. From a gameplay perspective walls are just about the most boring thing possible

LennoxPoodle

epic_162578572945FgdWSzp said:

I do have some early concerns about the ai being capable of adequately using the new systems. Unlike other people I don't have a weird obsession with walls. From a gameplay perspective walls are just about the most boring thing possible

The issue is, that walls currently barely serve any purpose. Should it be possible, even common to overcome them? Yeah, else it's going to be an uninteresting fight! It should cost the attacker and take time though, working as an effective speedbump (to build up supplies) and force multiplier (having shifted the balance a bit in the defenders through attrition).
The easiest way to achieve that would be having docked defenders drop rocks on wall attackers, slowing their progress (up the ladders or smashing through) and inflicting casualties and burning oil (or whatever depending on race) that does the same as AoE in front of gates. Ofc both should be negated by siege equipment, towers never having the atackers directly below the wall and rams similarly keeping them out of the oil's range (whilst being immune itself).

Also, as @Jman5 pointed out, CA needs to make knocking down gates and walls with monsters, characters, MI and siege attackers take long enough that rams are the better option, travel time included.

Reeks#2417

Let me say it like this:

I'm not overly stoked with what i have seen so far but if Ca went ahead and made it so deployables only worked pre-battle and artillery could be placed on walls( and if they fixed the gate and artillery bug) i would be one happy beaver where sieges are regarded.

ITA_Vae_Victis

It doesn't look like a "siege" rework, it's more like CA asked themselves how they could make minor settlement battles interesting, and then put the same pointless walls with the same overpowered ladders around the city and called it a "siege" rework. If after the first 30-60 seconds the "siege" is indistinguishable from a minor settlement battle, we have a problem with the "siege" part of it IMHO.


As for the AI, last we saw the game it was downright worrisome in cities. Not only it used basically nothing at its disposal, but seemed completely lost and half the time it only shuffled its units around aimlessly while the player butchered the hell out of it. I refuse to think CA considers that AI final and won't even try to improve it before release, but so far it looks as confused as the WH2 AI put in a custom city map, if not more, which is not exactly a great showing for something they supposedly worked a lot on:

We started with the 3K AI as it provided us with a good base to work from, the 3K settlement AI had been very well received and worked well for our new settlement layouts. From there we put a lot of work in to how we author our siege AI graph to make it easier to design and more flexible to work with, which has also improved the pathfinding within settlements. With the introduction of the ‘districts’ concept via the capture locations and supply points, the AI can now separate and manage large parts of the settlement map and say, ‘this area over that area, this district is more threatened than that one.’ They can then prioritise or fall back if one is overtaken by the attacker. For the settlement battles they also know how to build towers and barricades, which is something they don’t have to do in Survival battles.

If you saw any of this in the half dozen city battles CA showed us, you are more perceptive than I am. All I saw was units being dropped here and there then walk back and forth in the same 50 square feet around them for incomprehensible reasons until they were killed (sometimes without even fighting back at all).

Reeks#2417

Reeks said:

Let me say it like this:

I'm not overly stoked with what i have seen so far but if Ca went ahead and made it so deployables only worked pre-battle and artillery could be placed on walls( and if they fixed the gate and artillery bug) i would be one happy beaver where sieges are regarded.

Btw
I would love unique siege maps as well
And a AI able to handle sieges

Wyvax#7456

Minor settlement battles look pretty decent, but the siege rework leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I like both TW, traditional RTS and tower defense games, but part of the identity of TW is it NOT being the latter too, namely not building and rebuilding structures in real time on the battlefield. It's a piece of realism that should stay put even if the setting itself is fantastical. Capturing strategic points such as towers or siege equipment or setting up permanent deployables pre battle would be alright, but not this near instant build stuff.

Similarly, walls are still useless, and designed to serve only as a minor speedbump rather than an actual wall that needs serious siege preparations to overcome, such as sapping (remember sapping?) or dedicated artillery superiority to bring down, or just sheer overwhelming numbers Skaven style to wear down the defenders through attrition. Ass ladders are part of the problem here, they were implemented far better in the older titles, AI bugs included as siege equipment that needed to be prepared beforehand just like towers and battering rams. Oh and don't get me started on Ogres being able to bash down walls yet for some strange reason Kroxigors, Dragon Ogres, Trolls, Fimir and other jacked monstrous infantry cannot. Talk about arbitrary, lowest of the low effort band-aid fixes to a perceived roster weakness, just let MI in general use siege towers to get onto walls, and limit them to bashing down gates. Leave wallbreaker to actual titanic monsters like Shaggoths, Giants, Idols, Dread Saurians and specialist units such as Warp Grinders were it actually makes sense and doesn't break the player's immersion.

Three sided sieges is an improvement, and the overpass roads for archers and artillery are an awesome inclusion, credit where credit is due. But the lack of concentric systems of walls, as seen in actual fortifications in history as well as in past (and present) TW games is a major disappointment. No wall mounted artillery as was included in other titles and promoted in the original Dwarf trailer (false marketing much?). Just the same old sieges, just the walls have more angles in them.

The lack of meaningful distinctions between races in regard to siege defenses. Touched on above with dawi cannons. But taking a dwarfen Karak should be far more difficult than taking an orc fort. Similarly, a castle controlled by the undead should have vastly different defenses than an Imperial or Brettonian city/castle. These don't have to be to overboard but simple effects such as a very slight Invocation of Nehek effect on the walls that only effects zombies for example. Or deep water that can be seen on many of the Lizardmen siege maps could provide for natural barriers that only aquatic units could cross for unique flanking maneuvers, swimming across rivers used to be a trait some units had in older TWs after all but has since been abandoned like many other unique concepts this franchise has done away with. Just anything other than copy paste bound spell abilities like the stupid Warp Bomb ability. No CA, that's just magic on a different dais, not something novel. The same goes for options in attack. Ghosts not being able to phase through walls, GS spider units should be able to climb, as would skaven ninja type units such as Gutter Runners.

In short. I'm not happy with them. They've gone from being the worst in the series to being marginally better in all the areas that don't matter and including features that make zero sense in a battlefield sim, while ignoring all the great features that once existed in the franchise or the possible ways to make each roster truly feel unique, thereby making sieges as engaging as an open field battle.

capybarasiesta89#4722

As I said in previous post I am kind of happy with certain things and not happy with AI, and certain elements still not addressed like fighting for walls is not worth, noticed that arrow towers are a bit more powerful so maybe.

I am going to reserve my jugdment until I see competent people playing it, not pre recorder below average player nothing personal, but that was painful to watch ( I refer to CA videos), also I wanna see siege layouts for all maps and that includes WH1 and WH2 Races how they've been improved since this is going to be main thing comes Immortal Empires.

AxiosXiphos#9040

Literally we haven't even tried it yet... just a few battles from an in-development build.

MonochromaticSpider#5650

So far it mostly looks awful to me, but I haven't tried it yet, so maybe it's not as bad as it looks.

But 360 minor settlement chokepoint nonsense means the AI will be out of position against stalking units and fast movers and the player is in cheese heaven. I mean, visually it looks nice but if the AI can't navigate it properly then single character victories become even more feasible.

And much bigger siege maps with lots and lots of twisty turns and chokepoints and whatnot means the AI is extremely unlikely to be able to respond properly to flying units and fast units and stalking units whereas the player probably gets to abuse those narrow corridors like crazy. Just imagine a couple of Skryre rattling guns at the end and the AI slowly moving units into that lane one by one. Dakka dakka dakka. Dakka dakka. Dakka dakka dakka. Dakka. End battle.

Bigger maps also means these battles will be slower. There will be much more pure maneuvering to attack from the right spot and manipulate AI forces into the wrong spot. Hopefully it won't be Rome 1 levels of bad but I'm not too optimistic at the moment.

Lastly, huge sieges maps combined with flying units that can land on the main capture point... Even freaking Carrion might end up being half-decent in WH3. The Counts are getting hammered badly by the magic nerf but vargheists or even bats might end up being extremely strong in siege battles, if they get to toggle flight. And HE eagles might finally get the recognition they deserve.

LennoxPoodle

MonochromaticSpider said:

So far it mostly looks awful to me, but I haven't tried it yet, so maybe it's not as bad as it looks.

But 360 minor settlement chokepoint nonsense means the AI will be out of position against stalking units and fast movers and the player is in cheese heaven. I mean, visually it looks nice but if the AI can't navigate it properly then single character victories become even more feasible.

And much bigger siege maps with lots and lots of twisty turns and chokepoints and whatnot means the AI is extremely unlikely to be able to respond properly to flying units and fast units and stalking units whereas the player probably gets to abuse those narrow corridors like crazy. Just imagine a couple of Skryre rattling guns at the end and the AI slowly moving units into that lane one by one. Dakka dakka dakka. Dakka dakka. Dakka dakka dakka. Dakka. End battle.

Bigger maps also means these battles will be slower. There will be much more pure maneuvering to attack from the right spot and manipulate AI forces into the wrong spot. Hopefully it won't be Rome 1 levels of bad but I'm not too optimistic at the moment.

Lastly, huge sieges maps combined with flying units that can land on the main capture point... Even freaking Carrion might end up being half-decent in WH3. The Counts are getting hammered badly by the magic nerf but vargheists or even bats might end up being extremely strong in siege battles, if they get to toggle flight. And HE eagles might finally get the recognition they deserve.

Iirc they stated that flying units can't capture points. It's a bit gamey, but serves its purpose.

Tennisgolfboll#5877

The mythic siege rework years in the making is a disgrace.