I'am confused, is every battle now a siege?

JohnAdamss

Someone noted it in the comments on reddit, and i think it deserves a post here.
With addition of minor settlement battles, on top of map density where almoust every settlement is one turn away, this leaves us with next to no field battles.
And what makes it extra problematic, AI often likes to just sit on it's ass and amass forces around it's cities.
Speaking of AI, it did not get much smarter, so here is also that.
I like new maps, don't get me wrong, but i still prefer for majority of confrontations to happen in the wild if you will. Game handles them better, and generally i consider them way more exiting and allowing for greater opportunities.
Did i misjudged the situation, and if not, what do?
Or it's fine for most people and i'am just making an unnecessary fuss over my small personal preference?

Mazisky#3267

After seeing hundreds of gameplay footages it seems sieges are like 70% of the maps.

And for sieges I mean both Major and minor settlements

It makes sense if you consider half of the land battles of Wh2 were minor settlements, and those now are sieges in wh3.

LordCommander#3741

Yes. People were complaining that the games needed to be more like Medieval 2 so CA obliged.

juanitot#1125

It was a petition of the players since Medieval 2. In medieval warfare 90% of battles were sieges, so not strange in a medieval fantasy world. If in gameplay stars to became too heavy depends on if the siege rework is actually funny or not. I have hope for the gameplays i had see that it is.

JohnAdamss

LordCommander said:

Yes. People were complaining that the games needed to be more like Medieval 2 so CA obliged.

I barely played Med2 because of slightly... *cough* dated campaign map.

I'am guessing CA did the monkey paw thing?

Surge_2#1464

JohnAdamss said:

LordCommander said:

Yes. People were complaining that the games needed to be more like Medieval 2 so CA obliged.

I barely played Med2 because of slightly... *cough* dated campaign map.

I'am guessing CA did the monkey paw thing?

Pretty much. If you like sieges, its kinda something. If you already disliked sieges, you will be more incentivized to just auto them because I cant be bothered fighting AI pathing issues...

JohnAdamss

Surge_2 said:

JohnAdamss said:

LordCommander said:

Yes. People were complaining that the games needed to be more like Medieval 2 so CA obliged.

I barely played Med2 because of slightly... *cough* dated campaign map.

I'am guessing CA did the monkey paw thing?

Pretty much. If you like sieges, its kinda something. If you already disliked sieges, you will be more incentivized to just auto them because I cant be bothered fighting AI pathing issues...

Welp, here i go modding again i guess...
Maybe i should wait a bit with bying the game, alot of things seem to still need a developers', or at least modders' hand.
Like UI to example, also a wierd area.

Mogwai_Man#4978

Yeah it does seem like it's Siegehammer now.

AnnoyedOneEyedGuy

gotta say i watched liked 4 minor settlement battles and i dont look forward to playing those alot, im sensing ALOT of auto resolves in my campaigns

CountTalabecland#2471

Minor settlements actually seem interesting.

Walled sieges are at least deeper now even though walls are still speedbumps.

Field battles are fine but the AI desperately tries to avoid them to go after unwalled settlements

JohnAdamss

CountTalabecland said:

Minor settlements actually seem interesting.

Walled sieges are at least deeper now even though walls are still speedbumps.

Field battles are fine but the AI desperately tries to avoid them to go after unwalled settlements

I'am kinda tired of AI campaign acting like an as****le player. Would be nice if there was a "Fun AI" option, that would make it less of a cowardly rat.

roekkum#3053

This was a problem I had with Rome 2: the AI being passive and "rational" and just stacking their armies on-top of their garrison and never leaving their city, because they don't want to risk losing battles. Either stacking in a settlement, or fleeing with forced march. I've really enjoyed Warhammer (I and II) for the massive field battles. My first downloaded mod will probably be "increased movement in friendly territory".

Pede#6322

Yes 107,5 % of all battles are sieges now.
Even land battles and ambushes, all sieges.

Next question pls.

DrazhoaththeAshen#9598

AnnoyedOneEyedGuy said:

gotta say i watched liked 4 minor settlement battles and i dont look forward to playing those alot, im sensing ALOT of auto resolves in my campaigns

Should that be the case, I hope for your sake that auto resolve isn't as punishing as it appears in streams. Most of what I saw from HeirofCarthage playing Tzeentch autoresolve seemed fine and dandy. But a lot of other streams...oof. I'm not sure if it is the difficulty or what, but yowzah some of the autoresolves made horrible horrible sense.

As to the question at hand, I'll agree that overall the minor settlement battles seem too frequent. It would be cool if they would change it so that such battles would trigger upon achieving a certain settlement level or something... But it may be that a mod will have to ride in to save the day.

They do look cool though, and I love the look of the Ogre Kingdoms maps in particular.

Tennisgolfboll#5877

CA botched wh3 greatly.

Players told them sieges suck. CA hopes they fixed sieges (they absolutely didnt as they are now worse than ever).


Even if they had fixed sieges warhammers heart and soul was always in field battles. On the tt not 1 out 100 battles was a siege.

There was to many sieges in wh2 were the player is attacking. To see wh3 with even more? Nasty.

Darksteel83#1113

CA made Warhammer 1 different compared to older total wars because the minor settelment battle where found tedius and very cheesable.

So you only got field battle or seige battles in Warhammer 1 and 2.

Now the minor settlement battles are back. Lost of people also requested them back. They don't seem as cheesable as in other total wars. Not sure how much fun they are.

They look fun at least a couple of times.

Don't understand why the make the AI get whey more defense on higher difficulties tough.

OdTengri#8235

Personally I just have to say that the Minor Settlement battles look like too much settlement and not enough open field.

We'll see when we play it I guess.

Mazisky#3267

I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

Nazjax#2857

People before : Why no minor settlement siege ?!!

People now : Eh, too much siege battles...

I think it's time to change a bit since for years we had a lot of land battles (and some of them were unfun still because of annoying land.

#1609

Mazisky said:

I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

That's what I was wondering too. More sally and field battles?

drclaw_tw

JohnAdamss said:

Someone noted it in the comments on reddit, and i think it deserves a post here.
With addition of minor settlement battles, on top of map density where almoust every settlement is one turn away, this leaves us with next to no field battles.
And what makes it extra problematic, AI often likes to just sit on it's ass and amass forces around it's cities.
Speaking of AI, it did not get much smarter, so here is also that.
I like new maps, don't get me wrong, but i still prefer for majority of confrontations to happen in the wild if you will. Game handles them better, and generally i consider them way more exiting and allowing for greater opportunities.
Did i misjudged the situation, and if not, what do?
Or it's fine for most people and i'am just making an unnecessary fuss over my small personal preference?

No, not field battles. Major and minor settlements are.

Mazisky#3267

Steph_F_David said:

Mazisky said:

I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

That's what I was wondering too. More sally and field battles?

I think the Ai will sally out and attack you if they keep taking attrition from siege, if this is the case then we could have even more land battles compared to Wh2

Fingolfin_the-Golden#2157

Mazisky said:

Steph_F_David said:

Mazisky said:

I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

That's what I was wondering too. More sally and field battles?

I think the Ai will sally out and attack you if they keep taking attrition from siege, if this is the case then we could have even more land battles compared to Wh2

But no one sieges a city over 1 turn/end turn do they?

Players just launch the attack immediately, so it will not change the amount of sieges.

Heretical_Cactus#7598

Would attacking a camping army cause a siege battle to occur ?

Tennisgolfboll#5877

Mazisky said:

I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

The ai is to stupid to attack. It just starves. So now you get the choice of paying the same minor settlement siege a few turns later against a starved ai (boooring) or play it immediately against a non starved ai (boring siege).

(Maybe the ai is super smart though because it understands so many hate the boring wait so most players will attack immediately when they know the ai happily starves over and over. The ai understands it wastes the humans time and the humans will thus learn to attack immediately. The true victim being the humans and good gameplay.)

Mazisky#3267

Tennisgolfboll said:

Mazisky said:

I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

The ai is to stupid to attack. It just starves. So now you get the choice of paying the same minor settlement siege a few turns later against a starved ai (boooring) or play it immediately against a non starved ai (boring siege).

(Maybe the ai is super smart though because it understands so many hate the boring wait so most players will attack immediately when they know the ai happily starves over and over. The ai understands it wastes the humans time and the humans will thus learn to attack immediately. The true victim being the humans and good gameplay.)

In most footage i've seen it seems the AI sally out and attack, which may also be driven by the autoresolve being extremely in favour of the AI

Bloodydagger#9716

I bet this changes when the big map drops.

JohnAdamss

Nazjax said:

People before : Why no minor settlement siege ?!!

People now : Eh, too much siege battles...

I think it's time to change a bit since for years we had a lot of land battles (and some of them were unfun still because of annoying land.

Everybody complained about amount of sieges, that's probably the main reason nobody finishes their campaigns.
There is such thing as golden balance.

Speaking about too "much land battles". can we consider naval battles another entry in a loong list of needlesly deleted features? five(or three) games in a row whithout them.
CA is too afraid of asymetric gameplay, warhammer's naval battles could have been legendary, with submarines, flying temples, ghost ships and sailing cities.

JohnAdamss

Fingolfin_the-Golden said:

Mazisky said:

Steph_F_David said:

Mazisky said:

I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

That's what I was wondering too. More sally and field battles?

I think the Ai will sally out and attack you if they keep taking attrition from siege, if this is the case then we could have even more land battles compared to Wh2

But no one sieges a city over 1 turn/end turn do they?

Players just launch the attack immediately, so it will not change the amount of sieges.

Game just wasn't made for slow gamelay, AI poops out entire stacks in few turns and heals it's damaged units almoust immediately.
I hope some good overhaul will apper soon.

Wyvax#7456

Different strokes for different folks. I really like minor settlement battles ever since my Rome 1 days because of the natural choke points but lack of walls that force a certain avenue of attack. Proper sieges of walled settlements, however, are hard to get right, and I'm definitely not looking forward to those. Castles in Med 2 were the pinnacle of those, but walls actually had meaning there and there was no building and resource mechanics.

Jman5#8318

Fingolfin_the-Golden said:

Mazisky said:

Steph_F_David said:

Mazisky said:

I think many are understimating that the new siege attrition mechanics will probably force the AI to sally out and attack you when you siege them, which woudl result in more field battles (correct me if I am wrong)

That's what I was wondering too. More sally and field battles?

I think the Ai will sally out and attack you if they keep taking attrition from siege, if this is the case then we could have even more land battles compared to Wh2

But no one sieges a city over 1 turn/end turn do they?

Players just launch the attack immediately, so it will not change the amount of sieges.

Which wouldn't happen as much if it wasn't so easy for players to storm settlements without any siege equipment.