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?

13»

Comments

  • IxalmarisIxalmaris Registered Users Posts: 851

    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.
    Shooting over walls was not all that easy when the defender can shoot back as the attacker must be quite close to clear the wall and hit targets behind it.
    Also, especially when gunpowder came into play, fortifications were much more than just a single wall. Just look at all the layers if star forts.

    Thats how they still worked as great force multipliers, allowing a force of thousands to witstand the constant attacks of an army of 100000 for months (2nd Vienna) or allowed garrisons to hold fortresses for multiple decades against enemies 3 to 10 times their size (Cetua or Candia)
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,734

    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.
    Not a strawman.
    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.
  • Vanilla_Gorilla#8529Vanilla_Gorilla#8529 Registered Users Posts: 39,734
    Ixalmaris said:

    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.
    Shooting over walls was not all that easy when the defender can shoot back as the attacker must be quite close to clear the wall and hit targets behind it.
    Also, especially when gunpowder came into play, fortifications were much more than just a single wall. Just look at all the layers if star forts.

    Thats how they still worked as great force multipliers, allowing a force of thousands to witstand the constant attacks of an army of 100000 for months (2nd Vienna) or allowed garrisons to hold fortresses for multiple decades against enemies 3 to 10 times their size (Cetua or Candia)
    I fail to see the pertinence.

    Above a 1.5x multiplier the game becomes incredibly boring. Siege defences become exercises in killing the AI. Siege attacks become at best a slog so boring you just wait them out regardless (looking at you med 2) or such a pain you do that anyway. It makes defending, and attacking suck.

    Right now the best possible thing to help sieges would be better AI.
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.