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

Will sieges be too easy to defend?

2

Comments

  • Mogwai_Man#4978Mogwai_Man#4978 Registered Users Posts: 6,096

    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.

    You already can, it's just that not every faction is able to.
  • MonochromaticSpider#5650MonochromaticSpider#5650 Registered Users Posts: 2,188
    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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.
    People built castles at a time when flying monsters, enormous guns, and jerks that conjure fireballs and firenados out of thin air were not really part of the threat matrix. You will perhaps note that castle-building isn't really how we build defensive bulwarks these days, and we still haven't figured out how to do magic.

    If all you have to storm the castle are some really old catapults and regular dudes with swords then yeah, storming a castle is very unfeasible. But Elves are not dudes with swords. Greenies are not dudes with swords. And Elves on dragons or Greenies accompanied by 20 foot tall spiders are very, very much not just "regular dudes with swords".

    Once you involve these fantasy elements then some of the historical constants must necessarily be revised.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,828

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Drybrush Disciple, Sophisticated Savage.
  • #57875#57875 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,225
    VG went from "he's pretty funny" to "wtf not him again"
    ( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 7,073

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
  • MonochromaticSpider#5650MonochromaticSpider#5650 Registered Users Posts: 2,188

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    It takes a while before one can afford all that many armies, and the settlement management isn't really that big a task until much later in the campaign (much, much later if we're spending 15 turns on each siege).

    So just for a change, I reckon that the big ape actually has a reasonable point. Just clicking end turn isn't particularly fun.

  • Sebor02Sebor02 Registered Users Posts: 387

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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.
    People built castles at a time when flying monsters, enormous guns, and jerks that conjure fireballs and firenados out of thin air were not really part of the threat matrix. You will perhaps note that castle-building isn't really how we build defensive bulwarks these days, and we still haven't figured out how to do magic.

    If all you have to storm the castle are some really old catapults and regular dudes with swords then yeah, storming a castle is very unfeasible. But Elves are not dudes with swords. Greenies are not dudes with swords. And Elves on dragons or Greenies accompanied by 20 foot tall spiders are very, very much not just "regular dudes with swords".

    Once you involve these fantasy elements then some of the historical constants must necessarily be revised.
    This is true, with monsters, flyers, gunpowder, magic and heroes in mind when you think about it hiding in a castle you cant escape is more of a death trap for yourself as walls should be not much of issue for the attacker.

    like if the setting was realistic walls would probably be done away it or only used to ward of bandits and skirmishes. for any big battles you would either retreat or Sally out.

    that said this just a game and not everything needs to make sense as fun should be the priority.
  • Jman5#8318Jman5#8318 Registered Users Posts: 2,171
    For the player? Probably. For the AI? Not that I have seen.

    CA has got to get the AI squared away on basic issues if they want it to be able to put up a competent defense.


    Better deployment:

    In one siege video, the AI deployed its two sentinels in the very back of the map and then spent most of the battle wearing them out running to the front lines. Better deployment logic is one of the real low-hanging fruits when it comes to improving the AI.

    Less running around, less hyper-reactivity:

    CA has managed to make their AI TOO reactive. The result is that they run around constantly which makes them perform way worse than if they just stood there and fought. Watching the AI immediately flee off the wall without even a second of trying to hold it makes me wonder why you even bothered to put troops there in the first place. The AI needs to be taught how to run to key areas and then HOLD.

    Deployables are an issue:

    So early in development putting deployables up was super fast. However some time around them releasing the siege battle videos, they massively increased the deploy timer. Unfortunately this badly kneecapped the AI. For good reason the AI does not put deployables down until after the battle starts. Otherwise the player could cheese it out by suddenly moving their army at the last second and then starting the battle.

    However, with the new longer deploy timers, it creates a new problem which is that none of the deployables are actually deployed in time! By the time they are up the attacker is usually already pressing through that area.

    I would like some 5-10 second grace period at the start of the battle where defenders can put up deployables instantly. I also think the construction timer was way too harsh and needs to be brought back.


    AI on attack needs to be better at flanking

    One of the reasons it's so easy to defend against the AI is because if you put a huge force on a central chokepoint, the AI will send a similarly huge force to attack that chokepoint. Alternative pathways are largely ignored which is EXACTLY what the defenders want. Think about Fort battles where you put all your defense onto that central ramp and the AI dutifully charges nearly everything into the meat grinder. It barely sends anything around.

    CA has got to teach the AI how to think the other way. If you have exposed flanks, the AI should be sending a few staunch spearmen to hold your main force in place while the bulk of its forces are blowing through your exposed flanks. This is tactics 101 to attack where you are weak and it's something I expect to see out of a Total War AI.
  • UgandaJim#4927UgandaJim#4927 Registered Users Posts: 687

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    It takes a while before one can afford all that many armies, and the settlement management isn't really that big a task until much later in the campaign (much, much later if we're spending 15 turns on each siege).

    So just for a change, I reckon that the big ape actually has a reasonable point. Just clicking end turn isn't particularly fun.

    Yeah but at the beginning of the game you dont have big Siege battles either. most of the catles dont have walls. So no his point is not valid. He is simply trolling like always.
  • MonochromaticSpider#5650MonochromaticSpider#5650 Registered Users Posts: 2,188
    .
    UgandaJim said:

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    It takes a while before one can afford all that many armies, and the settlement management isn't really that big a task until much later in the campaign (much, much later if we're spending 15 turns on each siege).

    So just for a change, I reckon that the big ape actually has a reasonable point. Just clicking end turn isn't particularly fun.

    Yeah but at the beginning of the game you dont have big Siege battles either. most of the catles dont have walls. So no his point is not valid. He is simply trolling like always.
    Unless you're going for some particular builds, I reckon you'll have a full stack after 5 turns or so. And all province capitals always have walls. And I don't know about you, but I don't get a second army that can actually do all that much until quite a bit into the campaign. The revenue generation just doesn't allow it.

    Which takes us back to the point, which I reckon was valid. Just hitting end turn isn't fun. Fighting a battle is. Some of the time, anyway.

    As for the furred one, you know what they say about broken clocks and occasionally also about a blind hen. It then stands to reason that a vanillafied hominid of significant stature could then also come across a valid point, even if totally by accident. Which is a big part of why we still have this philosophical concept of argumentum ad hominem being a thing.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 7,073

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    It takes a while before one can afford all that many armies, and the settlement management isn't really that big a task until much later in the campaign (much, much later if we're spending 15 turns on each siege).

    So just for a change, I reckon that the big ape actually has a reasonable point. Just clicking end turn isn't particularly fun.

    This is a strategy game, not an action game. If you need constant gratification and action, then you should try another genre.
  • MonochromaticSpider#5650MonochromaticSpider#5650 Registered Users Posts: 2,188

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    It takes a while before one can afford all that many armies, and the settlement management isn't really that big a task until much later in the campaign (much, much later if we're spending 15 turns on each siege).

    So just for a change, I reckon that the big ape actually has a reasonable point. Just clicking end turn isn't particularly fun.

    This is a strategy game, not an action game. If you need constant gratification and action, then you should try another genre.
    This is a strategy game, not a clicker game. If your idea of fun is to just click the same button over and over in order to see a number change then you probably should try another genre. :smile:

    We can trade BS for as long as you care for, but you're still pushing a very difficult claim in trying to convince anyone that just clicking end turn a whole bunch of times with very little else going on is actually "fun". And it's not really much of a game of strategy to click the same button over and over either.

  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 7,073

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    It takes a while before one can afford all that many armies, and the settlement management isn't really that big a task until much later in the campaign (much, much later if we're spending 15 turns on each siege).

    So just for a change, I reckon that the big ape actually has a reasonable point. Just clicking end turn isn't particularly fun.

    This is a strategy game, not an action game. If you need constant gratification and action, then you should try another genre.
    This is a strategy game, not a clicker game. If your idea of fun is to just click the same button over and over in order to see a number change then you probably should try another genre. :smile:

    We can trade BS for as long as you care for, but you're still pushing a very difficult claim in trying to convince anyone that just clicking end turn a whole bunch of times with very little else going on is actually "fun". And it's not really much of a game of strategy to click the same button over and over either.

    Except mine wasn't BS... Committing to a sieges is a strategic decisision and has a cost inherent to it, both in risk and time. That some people needs constant gratification and non-stop action, should have absolutely no bearing on this.
  • MonochromaticSpider#5650MonochromaticSpider#5650 Registered Users Posts: 2,188

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    It takes a while before one can afford all that many armies, and the settlement management isn't really that big a task until much later in the campaign (much, much later if we're spending 15 turns on each siege).

    So just for a change, I reckon that the big ape actually has a reasonable point. Just clicking end turn isn't particularly fun.

    This is a strategy game, not an action game. If you need constant gratification and action, then you should try another genre.
    This is a strategy game, not a clicker game. If your idea of fun is to just click the same button over and over in order to see a number change then you probably should try another genre. :smile:

    We can trade BS for as long as you care for, but you're still pushing a very difficult claim in trying to convince anyone that just clicking end turn a whole bunch of times with very little else going on is actually "fun". And it's not really much of a game of strategy to click the same button over and over either.

    Except mine wasn't BS... Committing to a sieges is a strategic decisision and has a cost inherent to it, both in risk and time. That some people needs constant gratification and non-stop action, should have absolutely no bearing on this.
    Except yours was absolutely BS. Just clicking end turn for 10 turns or more is not good gameplay in a strategy game and it is not fun. Pretending that actually it is great and people who dislike it are just people who want action games is about as BS as it gets.

    If you just want to click on a button then I can easily make you a very nice "strategy game" in Excel. :smile:
  • Mr_Finley7#4571Mr_Finley7#4571 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,417
    Sebor02 said:

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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.
    People built castles at a time when flying monsters, enormous guns, and jerks that conjure fireballs and firenados out of thin air were not really part of the threat matrix. You will perhaps note that castle-building isn't really how we build defensive bulwarks these days, and we still haven't figured out how to do magic.

    If all you have to storm the castle are some really old catapults and regular dudes with swords then yeah, storming a castle is very unfeasible. But Elves are not dudes with swords. Greenies are not dudes with swords. And Elves on dragons or Greenies accompanied by 20 foot tall spiders are very, very much not just "regular dudes with swords".

    Once you involve these fantasy elements then some of the historical constants must necessarily be revised.
    This is true, with monsters, flyers, gunpowder, magic and heroes in mind when you think about it hiding in a castle you cant escape is more of a death trap for yourself as walls should be not much of issue for the attacker.

    like if the setting was realistic walls would probably be done away it or only used to ward of bandits and skirmishes. for any big battles you would either retreat or Sally out.

    that said this just a game and not everything needs to make sense as fun should be the priority.
    Flyers are relatively rare in the sense that they can’t carry the success of an assault on their own. As far as magic and gunpowder go, remember that magic is used just as much to strengthen walls and complement fantastically advanced elf and dwarfen engineering and architecture as much as it is used at tearing them down.

    I’d say it’s reasonable for fortresses to be just as useful in the WH world, perhaps more so, as the average empire citizen has no real defense against ravening monsters and such
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,828

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    Nope.
    There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Drybrush Disciple, Sophisticated Savage.
  • MonochromaticSpider#5650MonochromaticSpider#5650 Registered Users Posts: 2,188

    Sebor02 said:

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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.
    People built castles at a time when flying monsters, enormous guns, and jerks that conjure fireballs and firenados out of thin air were not really part of the threat matrix. You will perhaps note that castle-building isn't really how we build defensive bulwarks these days, and we still haven't figured out how to do magic.

    If all you have to storm the castle are some really old catapults and regular dudes with swords then yeah, storming a castle is very unfeasible. But Elves are not dudes with swords. Greenies are not dudes with swords. And Elves on dragons or Greenies accompanied by 20 foot tall spiders are very, very much not just "regular dudes with swords".

    Once you involve these fantasy elements then some of the historical constants must necessarily be revised.
    This is true, with monsters, flyers, gunpowder, magic and heroes in mind when you think about it hiding in a castle you cant escape is more of a death trap for yourself as walls should be not much of issue for the attacker.

    like if the setting was realistic walls would probably be done away it or only used to ward of bandits and skirmishes. for any big battles you would either retreat or Sally out.

    that said this just a game and not everything needs to make sense as fun should be the priority.
    Flyers are relatively rare in the sense that they can’t carry the success of an assault on their own. As far as magic and gunpowder go, remember that magic is used just as much to strengthen walls and complement fantastically advanced elf and dwarfen engineering and architecture as much as it is used at tearing them down.

    I’d say it’s reasonable for fortresses to be just as useful in the WH world, perhaps more so, as the average empire citizen has no real defense against ravening monsters and such
    How do walls protect you from dragons, manticores, and such? As far as I know, they really don't. Similarly, walls are not that much of a protection against mortars and howitzers. Against direct cannon fire it comes down to the thickness of the wall versus the size of the cannon, but personally I'd prefer to be in a nice trench rather than up high on a wall.

    Walls are extremely useful in the world of WHFB in terms of keeping a barrier between the settlement proper and the endless hordes of zombies or beastmen or bandits or what have you, but if Kholek decides to pay a visit or a bunch of dragons drop by then having a basic wall makes literally no difference whatsoever regarding the outcome. Then there's a bunch of borderline cases, like spiders used by the Greenies or ghosts used by undead factions.

    The point I'm trying to make here is that I'd rather have a wall than no wall, but simply having a wall is not suddenly going to make ordinary dudes with spears able to repel almost anything. Our medieval fortress techniques were developed to protect against humans with medieval weapons and that they do, but all the fantasy stuff is an entirely different league and trying to trivialize those fantasy things to the point where they're really no more dangerous than ordinary dudes with swords would hardly do justice to the darkness of the setting.

  • Asamu#6386Asamu#6386 Registered Users Posts: 1,572
    edited December 2021
    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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.
    Eh, ladders aren't very relevant for the player. They mainly help the AI, since players have better options than using ladders most of the time, like just bombarding the units on the walls with archers, artillery, and spells, while wasting all of the AI's ammunition by running a hero in circles, and then breaking through the gate.

    It's already the case that both assaulting and defending are extremely easy as the player, and that would be the case even without pocket ladders (Mainly, defending would be even easier), so I don't see the updates changing much in that regard.
    Post edited by Asamu#6386 on
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,828
    Ladders are just a crutch for the AI. I do disagree with things like wall breaker. That's pretty lame. I prefer the fight to be on the walls.

    The force multiplier should be around 1.5x. If you can defeat a double stack with just a fully upgraded garrison then it's kinda lame. Without the ability to lose sieges just aren't fun.
    There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Drybrush Disciple, Sophisticated Savage.
  • MGH1#5018MGH1#5018 Member Registered Users Posts: 274

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    It takes a while before one can afford all that many armies, and the settlement management isn't really that big a task until much later in the campaign (much, much later if we're spending 15 turns on each siege).

    So just for a change, I reckon that the big ape actually has a reasonable point. Just clicking end turn isn't particularly fun.

    This is a strategy game, not an action game. If you need constant gratification and action, then you should try another genre.
    This is a strategy game, not a clicker game. If your idea of fun is to just click the same button over and over in order to see a number change then you probably should try another genre. :smile:

    We can trade BS for as long as you care for, but you're still pushing a very difficult claim in trying to convince anyone that just clicking end turn a whole bunch of times with very little else going on is actually "fun". And it's not really much of a game of strategy to click the same button over and over either.

    Except mine wasn't BS... Committing to a sieges is a strategic decisision and has a cost inherent to it, both in risk and time. That some people needs constant gratification and non-stop action, should have absolutely no bearing on this.
    Except yours was absolutely BS. Just clicking end turn for 10 turns or more is not good gameplay in a strategy game and it is not fun. Pretending that actually it is great and people who dislike it are just people who want action games is about as BS as it gets.

    If you just want to click on a button then I can easily make you a very nice "strategy game" in Excel. :smile:
    Chatacerization of different players aside, I'm not sure you are grasping his point.
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 522

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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.
    People built castles at a time when flying monsters, enormous guns, and jerks that conjure fireballs and firenados out of thin air were not really part of the threat matrix. You will perhaps note that castle-building isn't really how we build defensive bulwarks these days, and we still haven't figured out how to do magic.

    If all you have to storm the castle are some really old catapults and regular dudes with swords then yeah, storming a castle is very unfeasible. But Elves are not dudes with swords. Greenies are not dudes with swords. And Elves on dragons or Greenies accompanied by 20 foot tall spiders are very, very much not just "regular dudes with swords".

    Once you involve these fantasy elements then some of the historical constants must necessarily be revised.
    You are either ot reading what I said right or misunderstood my point. The central point is that a wall is a force multiplier. If you got no siege it will be a very costly affair and can defend armies twice as big. To put it simply the role siege played is basically magi, tank airplanes, cannons, monsters and the like. If you face only an infantry, cavalry, or missile (bowmen) army. Then you should take heavy losset taking a city with defenders walls. If you attacking force has a bunch of monster almost as big as the walls themselves, then it stand to reason they can siege them down. If things are prepare well then the city can be taken easily. The garrisons in this game is a joke anyway, except for capitals. It would be more fun If they made the garrisons stronger as a whole for all the factions. Sieges are currently the easiest **** in the game and all you need is a token army and a wizzard with a bunch of magic.

    I mentioned the mongolian example purely to create more creativity in how sieges could be improved upon. Both on campaign map and in battle.
  • EmrysorEmrysor Registered Users Posts: 522
    Asamu said:

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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.
    Eh, ladders aren't very relevant for the player. They mainly help the AI, since players have better options than using ladders most of the time, like just bombarding the units on the walls with archers, artillery, and spells, while wasting all of the AI's ammunition by running a hero in circles, and then breaking through the gate.

    It's already the case that both assaulting and defending are extremely easy as the player, and that would be the case even without pocket ladders (Mainly, defending would be even easier), so I don't see the updates changing much in that regard.
    That is true, but that depends on how the player builds armies and choice of strategy and tactics.
  • IxalmarisIxalmaris Registered Users Posts: 851
    edited December 2021

    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.
    No idea what you are talking about. Walls worked great through most of the gunpowder era. Vienna, Malta, Candia and up to Monte Cassino.
    Post edited by Ixalmaris on
  • Mogwai_Man#4978Mogwai_Man#4978 Registered Users Posts: 6,096
    Yeah they will be, but they have always been easy to defend.
  • MonochromaticSpider#5650MonochromaticSpider#5650 Registered Users Posts: 2,188
    Ixalmaris 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.

    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.
    No idea what you are talking about. Walls worked great through most of the gunpowder era. Vienna, Malta, Candia and up to Monte Cassino.
    When did I say that walls flat out did not work because gunpowder? I said that walls are not a great force multiplier against weapons designed to shoot over them, such as mortars and howitzers. Walls offer protection against direct fire, and they hinder assault by infantry and cavalry, but the whole point of indirect fire is to get around that issue.

    It goes without saying that indirect fire must have a sensible target to shoot at and historically it would not have been easy to find such a target. Without good targets, chances are that indirect fire is just pounding holes in the ground and that's not really going to achieve a whole lot. And even with the best target in the world, you still have to hit it. In historical battles, that part would not have been all that easy either.

    My point isn't that walls should be useless in a defensive situation, but that standing on top of a wall shouldn't make a spearman shrug off artillery fire. Walls do a number of things, chiefly stopping a rapid advance on foot or on horseback, but walls don't generally stop objects from falling down on top of you. Not as far as I know, anyway, and I don't believe any of your mentioned battlefields would suggest otherwise.
  • Nitros14#7973Nitros14#7973 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,924

    Ixalmaris 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.

    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.
    No idea what you are talking about. Walls worked great through most of the gunpowder era. Vienna, Malta, Candia and up to Monte Cassino.
    When did I say that walls flat out did not work because gunpowder? I said that walls are not a great force multiplier against weapons designed to shoot over them, such as mortars and howitzers. Walls offer protection against direct fire, and they hinder assault by infantry and cavalry, but the whole point of indirect fire is to get around that issue.

    It goes without saying that indirect fire must have a sensible target to shoot at and historically it would not have been easy to find such a target. Without good targets, chances are that indirect fire is just pounding holes in the ground and that's not really going to achieve a whole lot. And even with the best target in the world, you still have to hit it. In historical battles, that part would not have been all that easy either.

    My point isn't that walls should be useless in a defensive situation, but that standing on top of a wall shouldn't make a spearman shrug off artillery fire. Walls do a number of things, chiefly stopping a rapid advance on foot or on horseback, but walls don't generally stop objects from falling down on top of you. Not as far as I know, anyway, and I don't believe any of your mentioned battlefields would suggest otherwise.
    Archers also have satellite linkup in this game and can somehow hit targets they can't even see behind walls with pinpoint accuracy.

    Something I really hate ever since they added it in Shogun 2. Bring back Medieval 2/Attila indirect fire scatter.
  • MonochromaticSpider#5650MonochromaticSpider#5650 Registered Users Posts: 2,188
    Emrysor said:

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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.
    People built castles at a time when flying monsters, enormous guns, and jerks that conjure fireballs and firenados out of thin air were not really part of the threat matrix. You will perhaps note that castle-building isn't really how we build defensive bulwarks these days, and we still haven't figured out how to do magic.

    If all you have to storm the castle are some really old catapults and regular dudes with swords then yeah, storming a castle is very unfeasible. But Elves are not dudes with swords. Greenies are not dudes with swords. And Elves on dragons or Greenies accompanied by 20 foot tall spiders are very, very much not just "regular dudes with swords".

    Once you involve these fantasy elements then some of the historical constants must necessarily be revised.
    You are either ot reading what I said right or misunderstood my point. The central point is that a wall is a force multiplier. If you got no siege it will be a very costly affair and can defend armies twice as big. To put it simply the role siege played is basically magi, tank airplanes, cannons, monsters and the like. If you face only an infantry, cavalry, or missile (bowmen) army. Then you should take heavy losset taking a city with defenders walls. If you attacking force has a bunch of monster almost as big as the walls themselves, then it stand to reason they can siege them down. If things are prepare well then the city can be taken easily. The garrisons in this game is a joke anyway, except for capitals. It would be more fun If they made the garrisons stronger as a whole for all the factions. Sieges are currently the easiest **** in the game and all you need is a token army and a wizzard with a bunch of magic.

    I mentioned the mongolian example purely to create more creativity in how sieges could be improved upon. Both on campaign map and in battle.
    I don't really disagree with the main part of what you're saying. Defensive fortifications should work unless countered by certain things and trying to just bull through with raw manpower should indeed be costly. Should garrison forces be stronger? I'm not sure. With the current AI, does it really make any positive difference?

    But should it be as easy as it is to shoot garrisons? Of course not. The AI shouldn't just push everything onto walls without doing anything about the shooty things outside the walls that are picking off anything on the wall. And entire units of infantry shouldn't just stand out in the open and wait for indirect fire to rain on them.

    However, if a city is held only by spearmen and nobody can use ranged weapons and if those spearmen oblige the attacking archer force by all marching onto the wall and just standing there, waiting for the archers to run out of arrows, then I don't think the wall will help them.

    And that just about ends up becoming the narrative in some of these discussions about sieges and walls. That because walls are a force multiplier, they should universally just force multiply for the defenders, occasionally even to the point where missile infantry on the ground waste their time shooting at defenders.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 7,073

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    It takes a while before one can afford all that many armies, and the settlement management isn't really that big a task until much later in the campaign (much, much later if we're spending 15 turns on each siege).

    So just for a change, I reckon that the big ape actually has a reasonable point. Just clicking end turn isn't particularly fun.

    This is a strategy game, not an action game. If you need constant gratification and action, then you should try another genre.
    This is a strategy game, not a clicker game. If your idea of fun is to just click the same button over and over in order to see a number change then you probably should try another genre. :smile:

    We can trade BS for as long as you care for, but you're still pushing a very difficult claim in trying to convince anyone that just clicking end turn a whole bunch of times with very little else going on is actually "fun". And it's not really much of a game of strategy to click the same button over and over either.

    Except mine wasn't BS... Committing to a sieges is a strategic decisision and has a cost inherent to it, both in risk and time. That some people needs constant gratification and non-stop action, should have absolutely no bearing on this.
    Except yours was absolutely BS. Just clicking end turn for 10 turns or more is not good gameplay in a strategy game and it is not fun. Pretending that actually it is great and people who dislike it are just people who want action games is about as BS as it gets.

    If you just want to click on a button then I can easily make you a very nice "strategy game" in Excel. :smile:
    Except, you aren't just clicking "End Turn" for 10 turns. You have plenty of other things to distract yourself in the meantime... Sieges take time. Period. If you want it to be instantaneous, then get a unit with Siege Attacker.

    Also, isn't it funny, that the people that whine that sieges take too long, are the EXACT same people that would whine to no end, if their own cities immediately folded and fell to the enemy?... Food for thought...
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,828
    edited December 2021

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    It takes a while before one can afford all that many armies, and the settlement management isn't really that big a task until much later in the campaign (much, much later if we're spending 15 turns on each siege).

    So just for a change, I reckon that the big ape actually has a reasonable point. Just clicking end turn isn't particularly fun.

    This is a strategy game, not an action game. If you need constant gratification and action, then you should try another genre.
    This is a strategy game, not a clicker game. If your idea of fun is to just click the same button over and over in order to see a number change then you probably should try another genre. :smile:

    We can trade BS for as long as you care for, but you're still pushing a very difficult claim in trying to convince anyone that just clicking end turn a whole bunch of times with very little else going on is actually "fun". And it's not really much of a game of strategy to click the same button over and over either.

    Except mine wasn't BS... Committing to a sieges is a strategic decisision and has a cost inherent to it, both in risk and time. That some people needs constant gratification and non-stop action, should have absolutely no bearing on this.
    Except yours was absolutely BS. Just clicking end turn for 10 turns or more is not good gameplay in a strategy game and it is not fun. Pretending that actually it is great and people who dislike it are just people who want action games is about as BS as it gets.

    If you just want to click on a button then I can easily make you a very nice "strategy game" in Excel. :smile:
    Except, you aren't just clicking "End Turn" for 10 turns. You have plenty of other things to distract yourself in the meantime... Sieges take time. Period. If you want it to be instantaneous, then get a unit with Siege Attacker.

    Also, isn't it funny, that the people that whine that sieges take too long, are the EXACT same people that would whine to no end, if their own cities immediately folded and fell to the enemy?... Food for thought...
    It's almost like this is a game and people play it to have fun.

    End Turn simulator isn't the funnest experience.
    There are only two people better than me, and I'm both of them" - Vanilla Gorilla I am The Beast, Descendant of Guanyin, The one who beasts 25 hours a day, 8 days a week, The Vanilla Gorilla, The great bright delight, Conqueror of Mountains, Purveyor of wisdom, Official forum historian, Master Tamer of energy, the one they fear to name, Beastradamus, The Teacher, Master Unbiased Pollster, The Avatar of Tuesday, Chief hype Train Conductor, Uwu Usurper, Pog Wog Warrior, Poggers Patroller, Alpha of the species, Apex protector, Praetor of Positivity, Drybrush Disciple, Sophisticated Savage.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 7,073

    Emrysor said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 said:

    Nitros14 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?
    Hmmmm?
    You make it sound like, taht if an army of yours is tied up for multiple turns, then you have nothing else to do than press 'End Turn'. Which implies that you have no other armies, agents and use a mod to auto-manage your settlements.
    It takes a while before one can afford all that many armies, and the settlement management isn't really that big a task until much later in the campaign (much, much later if we're spending 15 turns on each siege).

    So just for a change, I reckon that the big ape actually has a reasonable point. Just clicking end turn isn't particularly fun.

    This is a strategy game, not an action game. If you need constant gratification and action, then you should try another genre.
    This is a strategy game, not a clicker game. If your idea of fun is to just click the same button over and over in order to see a number change then you probably should try another genre. :smile:

    We can trade BS for as long as you care for, but you're still pushing a very difficult claim in trying to convince anyone that just clicking end turn a whole bunch of times with very little else going on is actually "fun". And it's not really much of a game of strategy to click the same button over and over either.

    Except mine wasn't BS... Committing to a sieges is a strategic decisision and has a cost inherent to it, both in risk and time. That some people needs constant gratification and non-stop action, should have absolutely no bearing on this.
    Except yours was absolutely BS. Just clicking end turn for 10 turns or more is not good gameplay in a strategy game and it is not fun. Pretending that actually it is great and people who dislike it are just people who want action games is about as BS as it gets.

    If you just want to click on a button then I can easily make you a very nice "strategy game" in Excel. :smile:
    Except, you aren't just clicking "End Turn" for 10 turns. You have plenty of other things to distract yourself in the meantime... Sieges take time. Period. If you want it to be instantaneous, then get a unit with Siege Attacker.

    Also, isn't it funny, that the people that whine that sieges take too long, are the EXACT same people that would whine to no end, if their own cities immediately folded and fell to the enemy?... Food for thought...
    It's almost like this is a game and people play it to have fun.

    End Turn simulator isn't the funnest experience.
    Your strawman has already been called out. That you don't like Total War as a game format, has absolutely no bearing on the design of it. You should probably look for another game to play. Don't try to move the mountain.
Sign In or Register to comment.