Will sieges be too easy to defend?

Sebor02

In general sieges were already easy to defend when having a decent garrison force let alone with one of your armies inside.

Defenders now get a lot more tools and options to defend their city while the attackers get very little.

The big bonus for attackers are:
- being able to smash walls with monsters
- more angles of attack.

Will that be enough to offset the defenders new defend features? Or will defenindg cities become a breeze?

AnnoyedOneEyedGuy

find out in 60 something days

Pede#6322

I still don't see no reason to not just pull all units back and defend chokepoints near the cap flag.
The new huge siege maps will make the AI drip feed units into the city so they arrive 1 at a time to meet your united forces in strong chokepoints.

CaesarSahlertz

Sieges are supposed to be a force multiplier for the defenders, so... Yes? It is going to be comparatively easy for the defender..

Nitros14#7973

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

Vanilla_Gorilla#8529

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Nitros14#7973

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

Vanilla_Gorilla#8529

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Nitros14#7973

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Vanilla_Gorilla#8529

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Nitros14#7973

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Vanilla_Gorilla#8529

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Nitros14#7973

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think sieging isn't fun then?

I personally do think it's fun.

Vanilla_Gorilla#8529

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think sieging isn't fun then?

I personally do think it's fun.

Waiting 15 turns for a settlement to be given to you without a battle isn't fun. Waiting X turns till the settlement is forced to fight you isn't fun.

Oddzilla#9930

Well it seems like defenders got a lot of new tools in the rework, and there aren't additional new mechanics for attackers to compensate(though I guess the ability of some monstrous units to destroy walls counts as one.)

I'm gonna say seige defenses will likely be pretty easy, probably even easier to cheese as well.

Nitros14#7973

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think sieging isn't fun then?

I personally do think it's fun.

Waiting 15 turns for a settlement to be given to you without a battle isn't fun. Waiting X turns till the settlement is forced to fight you isn't fun.

I disagree, the tension of maintaining the siege with the threat that the enemy might get an army together and relieve the siege is good, which also leads to more field battles and less siege battles in a game where siege assaults are the dominant form of battle. The delayed gratification of reducing a powerful fortress is fun.

It's also good for the game's health generally because it limits the excessive pace of expansion that tends to make the campaign map one note and unfun.

And when city defences are strong it leads to incredibly fun battles on the defence when the AI brings overwhelming force to assault you. You can take a serious number of them with you and the battle feels meaningful.

Emrysor

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think sieging isn't fun then?

I personally do think it's fun.

Waiting 15 turns for a settlement to be given to you without a battle isn't fun. Waiting X turns till the settlement is forced to fight you isn't fun.

Then explain what is fun? Sieging has always been a costly affair in history. You want the AI to be forced fighting you outside the walls or defend the walls? Your responses so far can be perceived as trolling.

Vanilla_Gorilla#8529

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think sieging isn't fun then?

I personally do think it's fun.

Waiting 15 turns for a settlement to be given to you without a battle isn't fun. Waiting X turns till the settlement is forced to fight you isn't fun.

I disagree, the tension of maintaining the siege with the threat that the enemy might get an army together and relieve the siege is good, which also leads to more field battles and less siege battles in a game where siege assaults are the dominant form of battle. The delayed gratification of reducing a powerful fortress is fun.

It's also good for the game's health generally because it limits the excessive pace of expansion that tends to make the campaign map one note and unfun.

And when city defences are strong it leads to incredibly fun battles on the defence when the AI brings overwhelming force to assault you. You can take a serious number of them with you and the battle feels meaningful.

Being able to easily defeat a 40 stack with a city's normal garrison isn't fun.

Whether or not you like it is much of the muchness. The game is built around battles. Big ol epic battles. Clicking end turn for 8 turns while your best army is sieging isn't that.

Vanilla_Gorilla#8529

Emrysor said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think sieging isn't fun then?

I personally do think it's fun.

Waiting 15 turns for a settlement to be given to you without a battle isn't fun. Waiting X turns till the settlement is forced to fight you isn't fun.

Then explain what is fun? Sieging has always been a costly affair in history. You want the AI to be forced fighting you outside the walls or defend the walls? Your responses so far can be perceived as trolling.

BOOM, CRASH, SMASH, Big battle time Bay-Bay! I like big battles, siege battles, land battles, s'all good. What I don't like is pressing the end turn button for 8 turns in a row till the enemy is forced to sally out because the sieges are too bad to play. Like the bad old Medieval 2 days.

If you think I'm a troll there's a report button you can press, that's none of my business or concern.

Nitros14#7973

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

BOOM, CRASH, SMASH, Big battle time Bay-Bay! I like big battles, siege battles, land battles, s'all good. What I don't like is pressing the end turn button for 8 turns in a row till the enemy is forced to sally out because the sieges are too bad to play. Like the bad old Medieval 2 days.

If you think I'm a troll there's a report button you can press, that's none of my business or concern.

The siege battles are bad primarily because they're too afraid to make the defence strong. That creates interesting problems for attackers and fun opportunities for defenders. At the moment you mostly just shoot the defenders off the walls and then the rest rout.

I think a problem in the game is things move fast enough that there's not a lot of meaning in the battles and you end up with a very grindy end game fighting the same battles every turn. That's a problem not just with sieges but with replenishment and recruitment as well.

I actually would like some time to hit end turn without fighting another siege battle every 1-2 turns because I advance so fast through enemy territory.

manpersal#3961

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think sieging isn't fun then?

I personally do think it's fun.

Waiting 15 turns for a settlement to be given to you without a battle isn't fun. Waiting X turns till the settlement is forced to fight you isn't fun.

I disagree, the tension of maintaining the siege with the threat that the enemy might get an army together and relieve the siege is good, which also leads to more field battles and less siege battles in a game where siege assaults are the dominant form of battle. The delayed gratification of reducing a powerful fortress is fun.

It's also good for the game's health generally because it limits the excessive pace of expansion that tends to make the campaign map one note and unfun.

And when city defences are strong it leads to incredibly fun battles on the defence when the AI brings overwhelming force to assault you. You can take a serious number of them with you and the battle feels meaningful.

With ROR, Ogres and cheats the AI can pull together one army in one turn, not to mention that said cheats let the AI having another army attacking your territory when you can barely afford a full stack. I'm all for long sieges and all, but there're too many things to fix before you can patiently wait 6-7 turns for a garrison to start taking attrition.

Emrysor

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think sieging isn't fun then?

I personally do think it's fun.

Waiting 15 turns for a settlement to be given to you without a battle isn't fun. Waiting X turns till the settlement is forced to fight you isn't fun.

I disagree, the tension of maintaining the siege with the threat that the enemy might get an army together and relieve the siege is good, which also leads to more field battles and less siege battles in a game where siege assaults are the dominant form of battle. The delayed gratification of reducing a powerful fortress is fun.

It's also good for the game's health generally because it limits the excessive pace of expansion that tends to make the campaign map one note and unfun.

And when city defences are strong it leads to incredibly fun battles on the defence when the AI brings overwhelming force to assault you. You can take a serious number of them with you and the battle feels meaningful.

Being able to easily defeat a 40 stack with a city's normal garrison isn't fun.

Whether or not you like it is much of the muchness. The game is built around battles. Big ol epic battles. Clicking end turn for 8 turns while your best army is sieging isn't that.

That is precisely the reason people built castles to defeat much larger forces,. Sometimes the defenders were outnumbered 2/1 or 3/1 and without siege equipment the attacking force had no chance to storm the city/castle. Monsters are now able to attack walls too so more siege equipment. That means you have pocket ladders and able to breach where you want. So you get your wish for epic battles. If you do not have siege equipment then it sucks on you and you should be stuck on starving them out or untill you produce siege equipment.

Nitros14#7973

manpersal said:

With ROR, Ogres and cheats the AI can pull together one army in one turn, not to mention that said cheats let the AI having another army attacking your territory when you can barely afford a full stack. I'm all for long sieges and all, but there're too many things to fix before you can patiently wait 6-7 turns for a garrison to start taking attrition.

Yeah, the game has lots of problems to fix, for sure. See my post above.

Emrysor

manpersal said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think sieging isn't fun then?

I personally do think it's fun.

Waiting 15 turns for a settlement to be given to you without a battle isn't fun. Waiting X turns till the settlement is forced to fight you isn't fun.

I disagree, the tension of maintaining the siege with the threat that the enemy might get an army together and relieve the siege is good, which also leads to more field battles and less siege battles in a game where siege assaults are the dominant form of battle. The delayed gratification of reducing a powerful fortress is fun.

It's also good for the game's health generally because it limits the excessive pace of expansion that tends to make the campaign map one note and unfun.

And when city defences are strong it leads to incredibly fun battles on the defence when the AI brings overwhelming force to assault you. You can take a serious number of them with you and the battle feels meaningful.

With ROR, Ogres and cheats the AI can pull together one army in one turn, not to mention that said cheats let the AI having another army attacking your territory when you can barely afford a full stack. I'm all for long sieges and all, but there're too many things to fix before you can patiently wait 6-7 turns for a garrison to start taking attrition.

The problem is what you say that the AI produce units too fast so beating an army isn't meaningful. That problem is only on hard difficulty and above though. I think a solution could be more ways to cause attrition. There are accounts that mongols used to catapult dead bodies infested with plagues into cities to cause outbreaks to force the city to surrender.

Imo sieges should be hard to win, but the AI shouldn't be able to send fresh army after army when you already killed like 70% of their population.

The siege timer as it stands can be reduce or find more ways to give player agency to deal with it.

manpersal#3961

Nitros14 said:

manpersal said:

With ROR, Ogres and cheats the AI can pull together one army in one turn, not to mention that said cheats let the AI having another army attacking your territory when you can barely afford a full stack. I'm all for long sieges and all, but there're too many things to fix before you can patiently wait 6-7 turns for a garrison to start taking attrition.

Yeah, the game has lots of problems to fix, for sure. See my post above.

Emrysor said:

manpersal said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think sieging isn't fun then?

I personally do think it's fun.

Waiting 15 turns for a settlement to be given to you without a battle isn't fun. Waiting X turns till the settlement is forced to fight you isn't fun.

I disagree, the tension of maintaining the siege with the threat that the enemy might get an army together and relieve the siege is good, which also leads to more field battles and less siege battles in a game where siege assaults are the dominant form of battle. The delayed gratification of reducing a powerful fortress is fun.

It's also good for the game's health generally because it limits the excessive pace of expansion that tends to make the campaign map one note and unfun.

And when city defences are strong it leads to incredibly fun battles on the defence when the AI brings overwhelming force to assault you. You can take a serious number of them with you and the battle feels meaningful.

With ROR, Ogres and cheats the AI can pull together one army in one turn, not to mention that said cheats let the AI having another army attacking your territory when you can barely afford a full stack. I'm all for long sieges and all, but there're too many things to fix before you can patiently wait 6-7 turns for a garrison to start taking attrition.

The problem is what you say that the AI produce units too fast so beating an army isn't meaningful. That problem is only on hard difficulty and above though. I think a solution could be more ways to cause attrition. There are accounts that mongols used to catapult dead bodies infested with plagues into cities to cause outbreaks to force the city to surrender.

Imo sieges should be hard to win, but the AI shouldn't be able to send fresh army after army when you already killed like 70% of their population.

The siege timer as it stands can be reduce or find more ways to give player agency to deal with it.

I'm not hopeful that CA will seriously look at how difficulty stacks. I still think that Medieval 2 system would be the best, with provinces having a limited recruitment pool for every unit and being unable to recruit for a few turns after recruiting said units. But probably a lot of people would freak out if they weren't able to recruit a full stack of Sisters of Avelorn or shades in 3 turns.

Vanilla_Gorilla#8529

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

BOOM, CRASH, SMASH, Big battle time Bay-Bay! I like big battles, siege battles, land battles, s'all good. What I don't like is pressing the end turn button for 8 turns in a row till the enemy is forced to sally out because the sieges are too bad to play. Like the bad old Medieval 2 days.

If you think I'm a troll there's a report button you can press, that's none of my business or concern.

The siege battles are bad primarily because they're too afraid to make the defence strong. That creates interesting problems for attackers and fun opportunities for defenders. At the moment you mostly just shoot the defenders off the walls and then the rest rout.

I think a problem in the game is things move fast enough that there's not a lot of meaning in the battles and you end up with a very grindy end game fighting the same battles every turn. That's a problem not just with sieges but with replenishment and recruitment as well.

I actually would like some time to hit end turn without fighting another siege battle every 1-2 turns because I advance so fast through enemy territory.

Defence is strong. The current 1.5x modifier is exactly where it should be. Beyond that it's not fun, it's boring.

Killertut#9655

i am gonna put skaven weapons teams on the wall. i especially wanna see warpfire throwers and dwarfen flamers melt the approaching enemies.

bli-nk#6314

Pede said:

I still don't see no reason to not just pull all units back and defend chokepoints near the cap flag.
The new huge siege maps will make the AI drip feed units into the city so they arrive 1 at a time to meet your united forces in strong chokepoints.

The AI is somewhat competent at managing to bring its forces into the center of the settlement from different angles in 3K. If you have a small garrison you usually cannot afford to sit and wait but have to attack the weaker group of the enemy and then race back to defend the flag before your units lost morale and rout.

If you have a medium garrison it usually make more sense to put your strongest defensive units vs the stronger enemy attack in a chokepoint and then use the bulk of your forces to defeat the other enemy attacks then rush to help vs the final group.

Of course 3K didn't have magic or flying units which can drastically change the balance of power more rapidly than anything other than Lu Bu or similr flames of the phoenix characters in 3K so knowing which of the enemy groups is the most powerful will be a bit more difficult not to mention enemy flying units can simply bypass a lot of the walls/barricades.

Mr_Finley7#4571

I think they should make the siege surrender timer more influenceable with lord skills, followers, traits, etc. so that you can meaningfully force siege attrition in 5 turns or fewer. Then you won’t be sitting around for 15 turns to starve out a settlement.

CaesarSahlertz

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Emrysor said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Vanilla_Gorilla said:

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

That's not fun.

Apparently your idea of fun is "I get to do whatever I want at all times instantly with only token resistance or challenge."

I remember your responses in other threads.

I have no idea who you are or why you think past threads are relevant to this thread.

Why even have replenishment in the game, all units are replenished to full after battles instantly because waiting isn't fun right? Shouldn't have turns either, waiting isn't fun let's give the player infinite movement (Oh wait they did that with Taurox and it was boring).

Strawmen.

Not at all, it's precisely relevant. You think that siegeing shouldn't be required because waiting isn't fun.

Strawman.

Would you be so kind as to explain why you think sieging isn't fun then?

I personally do think it's fun.

Waiting 15 turns for a settlement to be given to you without a battle isn't fun. Waiting X turns till the settlement is forced to fight you isn't fun.

Then explain what is fun? Sieging has always been a costly affair in history. You want the AI to be forced fighting you outside the walls or defend the walls? Your responses so far can be perceived as trolling.

BOOM, CRASH, SMASH, Big battle time Bay-Bay! I like big battles, siege battles, land battles, s'all good. What I don't like is pressing the end turn button for 8 turns in a row till the enemy is forced to sally out because the sieges are too bad to play. Like the bad old Medieval 2 days.

If you think I'm a troll there's a report button you can press, that's none of my business or concern.

Do you only have a single army when you play?

MonochromaticSpider#5650

Nitros14 said:

Sieges SHOULD be easy to defend.

Walls are supposed to be a force multiplier, it shouldn't be easy to expand your territory.

The way it is now people almost always assault instead of siegeing, which is exactly opposite as to how it should work. Reducing a strongly held fortress should take time. Attacking immediately should be suicide.

Small point of contention, walls were a force multiplier back before gunpowder and flying units were a big part of armies, and obviously magic and all sorts of monsters were not really a factor either.

Walls are not much of a force multiplier against howitzers and airplanes, however. And they are similarly not that great against tanks. I don't know how much a wall helps against magic but I would not get my hopes up.