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

how likely is it that we will get a siege rework?

Sparkwarrior777Sparkwarrior777 Registered Users Posts: 203
as above, how likely does everyone thing sieges will get fixes? i mean they are feasible now, but i miss the Rome sieges where we had at the very least the village to fight in, it lead to a sense of defending your own, now your fighting in a field with no civilization in sight. i also miss the entire city maps, being able to figure out and advantageous position and have a decoy force to draw them to the other side, i miss actual navel invasions of a city, remember Carthage? i remember a you tube video by indypride for a Carthage battle that took place n the walls and the sea, the wall charges are now bland, they make sense for certain areas like dwarven karaks, but if your seiging your not just at one wall.

thoughts?

Comments

  • WaaaghCheifWaaaghCheif Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,875
    One part of me thinks;

    We are getting two races that are mostly monstrous infantry or cavalry. Daemons and Ogres, the current system won't let monstrous infantry on ladders nor on walls. So I could see some changes where the Attila system is more prominent, where there is more terrain advantages rather than just walls.

    But then again, the cynical part of me thinks;

    Daemons wont get a City map, and Ogres could get the Wood elves/Norsca treatment with no settlement maps. And given all their monsters they would just tear down the gates of the vanilla maps, so they wouldn't need to change.


    As always;
    Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
  • mightygloinmightygloin Karaz-a-KarakRegistered Users Posts: 3,818
    Probably zero chance in WH2, hopefully it gets huge overhaul in WH3.
  • tomdoof206tomdoof206 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 140
    Zero chance walled settlements are going to get redone that just way to much work to expect at this point. But man I would love some town battles I really don't see the reason CA decided to omit those. I don't mind the one wall sieges and I wonder why it is that when its lord of the rings those sieges are fine for people but in warhammer its not ok. My view is just the severe lack of battle types is what makes sieges bad not the sieges themselves. Do anything over and over again and it will get dull and late game TWW sure drives that point home. I really don't think 360* sieges would fix the siege fatigue problem.
  • PancakesPancakes Registered Users Posts: 378
    Near zero. But G3 could have differing maps for the new races.
    There are a few mods that add villages to the maps.
  • MrMecHMrMecH Registered Users Posts: 2,351
    Ogre would have a lot of problems in Siege Battle. I hope CA will rework its. We should have new Siege Tower for Monster Infantry and some units should have ability to climb the walls (Spider, Wraith)
    SHUT UP GIVE US GHORGON!!!!!

  • Firkraag888Firkraag888 Registered Users Posts: 1,428
    It 100% wont get fixed in tww2. That would be just stupid from a marketing perspective because then they wouldnt be able to use it as a selling point for tww3.

    Seiges in there current state are completely and utterly broken, especially if you play a campaign for more then 50 turns. The never ending repetative seige grind has killed of my interest in tww2.

    I dont believe that CA are that stupid to not fix them in the third game.
  • sandercohensandercohen Registered Users Posts: 266
    I think that sieges will get a major improvement at one point in time, but probably not before game III.

    I do not believe that CA will replicate sieges like they were in historical titles; I think the AI will not become smart enough to effectively defend a boxed city. I think one / two wall sieges will remain, but we will see improvements in terms mechanics. For instance, being able to mount artillery on walls, make the buildable siege equipment more useful, change the ladder mechanic, improve wall towers, improve wall pathfinding, find a greater use of cavalry, perhaps improved siege maps, more magical abilities that can be used on walls, stuff like that.

    I do not expect a fundamental rework, just an improvement.
  • BetoBotBetoBot Registered Users Posts: 247
    If we are waiting 1 year more for wh3 I expect some Big improvements... Not just a new campaign with a few more factions..
    That big improvement can only be:

    - diplomacy... In whammer world end times?
    - naval battles... It's not the most important part of WH...
    - sieges : a well demanded improvement/rework.

    We have flying dragons with firebreath, we have monsters fatalities, we have everything we have dreamed in the game.. Now let's us destroy the walls with an abomination..
  • DebaucheeDebauchee Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,407
    BetoBot said:

    If we are waiting 1 year more for wh3 I expect some Big improvements... Not just a new campaign with a few more factions..
    That big improvement can only be:

    - diplomacy... In whammer world end times?
    - naval battles... It's not the most important part of WH...
    - sieges : a well demanded improvement/rework.

    We have flying dragons with firebreath, we have monsters fatalities, we have everything we have dreamed in the game.. Now let's us destroy the walls with an abomination..

    1) "Total War: Warhammer" is not set in End Times - "Vermintide" series is.
    2) Naval combat used to be a prominent evolving part of "Total War" series, until the suits decided, that the franchise needs annual releases, as if it was "Battlefield" or "Call of Duty". In the current development cycle there is barely any time for post-launch support, let alone naval warfare.
  • darkgaia01darkgaia01 Registered Users Posts: 350
    the 2 things that have really annoyed me about sieges is they really need to make it so that large monsters types can destroy walls as i want to see these large demons destroying the walls and causing chaos through the streets instead of been caught stuck fighting through the gate area.

    the second thing is the magical ladders these need to go as these are going look so **** if bloodletters are pulling these out and climbing them as i would like them to spend a little more extra work on getting units to climb the walls.
  • Aram_theheadAram_thehead Registered Users Posts: 1,005
    0% chance they're reworking sieges. They've not even fixed the gate bug.
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 3,421
    Honestly I've tried the GCGM maps for minor settlements, and.. didn't like it. Okay, the first times it's nice to see the village and all, but it makes for cramped movement, and while from time to time, defending a gate/road/bridge can be fun, there is only so much variation on it.
    The big issue is this isn't one of those rts games where putting infantry in buildings, or crossing terrain that can be passable by larger units are possible. And if it was, it would extremely favour those army with ranged units that could be hidden that way or those with the proper artillery to disloge them. But we are talking a wholly different game here.

    TW at its best is about open maps with some terrain elements that make a difference. Many maps in warhammer are too flat, imho. There should be a good middle ground between the cramped sieges/villages and very open terrain.

    About ogres and daemon : little chance they have their own walls, yes. That said daemons have a lot of regular sized infantry, it's mostly the ogres that may require something.

    The best bet is that the walls may be reworked to allow large units climbing/manning them in TWW3. As said, however, there is a lot of existing assets, it will be difficult to change things back. It's the warhammer curse to have to consider any addition with the many different races, whereas an historical title can get stuff easily appliable to all relevant factions.
  • DebaucheeDebauchee Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,407
    As a siege warfare aficionado, I would like to point out, that the team behind "Total War Warhammer" could have avoided sieges for the most part, if they didn't want to bother with the AI, pathfinding, assets and mechanics:

    - Let players and AI field more armies without the crushing upkeep penalties;
    - Lay out regions so that there are more natural chokepoints, like impassable terrain, mountains, rivers crossings and bridges;
    - Remove those terrible "troll stances", that let armies teleport, and nerf "forced marsh", when in enemy territory;
    - Introduce supply system, like in "Thrones of Britannia", that penalises armies for wandering deep into enemy territory;
    - Reduce siege holdout time from 14 turns to something more reasonable;
    - Let armies enter "encamp stance" inside friendly territory, thus reducing their upkeep and increasing "zone of control";
    - Remove walls from minor settlements;
    - Get rid of random hostile army spawns inside player's territory;
    Now this is open-fielded oriented gameplay, that relies on armies and their positioning, rather than stacked out garrisons.

    In reality we ended up with the worst of two worlds - an abundance of underwhelming repetitive siege battles, which leaves both siege warfare enthusiasts and skeptics disappointed. On one hand, everyone is forced is forced to fortify every settlement, due to lack of armies, ability to effortlessly waltz into enemy territory and random hostile army spawns. On the other hand, no one bothered to make the ensuing endless siege warfare as fluid and exciting as open field battles.
    Not to mention some quality of life problems, like tiny "zones of control" for cities, that don't even work in open seas or reinforce friendly embarked armies.
  • TotalBorehammerTotalBorehammer Registered Users Posts: 953

    It 100% wont get fixed in tww2. That would be just stupid from a marketing perspective because then they wouldnt be able to use it as a selling point for tww3.

    Seiges in there current state are completely and utterly broken, especially if you play a campaign for more then 50 turns. The never ending repetative seige grind has killed of my interest in tww2.

    I dont believe that CA are that stupid to not fix them in the third game.

    I would love to believe this too, but experience with CA over this trilogy does not give me much hope for significant improvements in the area that really need fixing.

    CA's quality assurance and I think desire to give users a better experience in core game mechanics has gone noticeably downhill in favour of creating new and shiny things that they can sell.
    CA have a Facebook page... use the comments section of their posts and express your thoughts on ME poor quality/delays etc https://www.facebook.com/CreativeAssembly/ :)
  • Aram_theheadAram_thehead Registered Users Posts: 1,005
    @Debauchee I agree that forced March should be heavily nerfed in hostile territory. AI armies that run away for 20 turns in forced March drive me crazy every single time.
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 3,421
    @Debauchee They haven't bothered with most of the issues plaguing real world campaigns, because they went for a more "arcady" feel. This was I think because they aimed for a different audience and because the source material actually doesn't bother with these consideration. Half the armies in warhammer are just there "because", heck the warriors of chaos are the embodiment of this kind of tropes, sleepless, non eating war automatons.

    Like it or not, walls are here to stay because without them cities could be taken in one turn. If they didn't because garrisons have been boosted to extreme levels, it would require for both player and AI, twice as many armies to take them instead.

    There are many regions with chocke points, actually. The famous "troll stance" makes a lot of difference in some areas, I realized it when playing a coop dwarf/empire campaign and had a lot of issues helping my mate in the badlands because my army couldn't hop at all. Same as the feeling you get when invading Athel Loren. I actually think it's one of the most immersive element.
    As for forced march it favourises the defender most of the time, you can march up to the vicinity of a city and protect it, whereas the attacker must have at least one army in normal movement. The biggest issue is the cheese with a sieging army keeping the entire garrison at bay while they attack nearby stacks.

    I agree the late game can be about too many sieges, mostly because there is no advantage for the weaker army to look for an open battle anyway. You could encourage some factions to lay out a tons of ambushes for a change.

    The game could have a more grounded feel, with more supply issues, and harsher replenishment. But the string of updates goes toward the other way, so far, units recruit times have been lowered, newer factions have more replenishment etc. That said, I'm not sure the game would benefit from harder/longer annexation. Perhaps if occupying tied your army for several turns instead of just a little sack... but would the late game benefit from this ?

  • Lin_HuichiLin_Huichi Registered Users Posts: 461
    I am quite content with GCCM mod maps. I wouldn't mind any improvements CA do but I doubt theyll go back to the excellent Attila or Rome 2 maps.
  • Firkraag888Firkraag888 Registered Users Posts: 1,428

    It 100% wont get fixed in tww2. That would be just stupid from a marketing perspective because then they wouldnt be able to use it as a selling point for tww3.

    Seiges in there current state are completely and utterly broken, especially if you play a campaign for more then 50 turns. The never ending repetative seige grind has killed of my interest in tww2.

    I dont believe that CA are that stupid to not fix them in the third game.

    I would love to believe this too, but experience with CA over this trilogy does not give me much hope for significant improvements in the area that really need fixing.

    CA's quality assurance and I think desire to give users a better experience in core game mechanics has gone noticeably downhill in favour of creating new and shiny things that they can sell.
    They will be able to “rebrand” seige battles as a new and shiny
    Thing that will sell. Trust me there will be a complete overhaul of seige battles in the third game.

    A complete and utter change in seige mechanics. I am sure of that.

  • amon_chakaiamon_chakai Registered Users Posts: 227
    I sincerely hope that siege battles get reworked for WH3, as per the OP's suggestions. Seriously miss the open-style Rome/Medieval urban battles.
    I mean, it has to be up there on the priority list of things-to-do for the devs, doesn't it?
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,161
    Yep, worst of both worlds, alright.

    You are forced to play too many sieges and those sieges are lame no matter which side you play as. A copious amount of balls were dropped on that topic by CA.

  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Registered Users Posts: 10,334
    3%
    It needs to be pointed out that what people call "cheese" is just playing the game the way it actually exists not in some fictional way they think it is supposed to work.
  • darkgaia01darkgaia01 Registered Users Posts: 350
    probley should post this on reddit now that the 3k hype on their has died down
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 3,421
    Yeah noticed the WH posts are almost back to half the content now.
  • North_SolNorth_Sol Registered Users Posts: 172
    edited July 2019

    As always;
    Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

    I beg to differ! Hope is the first step towards...



  • amon_chakaiamon_chakai Registered Users Posts: 227
    A recent game reminded of this post. You have these huge sprawling cities in the background, but the actual siege battle only takes place on a the walls and a few street blocks behind. Even in capital cities?
    On top of that, when the defenders rout they run into the rest of "off-the-map" city, instead of making a last stand in the plaza. Makes no sense since they're all going to die anyway if the attacker wins.

  • RomeoRejectRomeoReject Registered Users Posts: 1,865
    North_Sol said:

    As always;
    Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

    I beg to differ! Hope is the first step towards...



    As a huge fan of Holt's deadpan humor, I frigging love this gif.
Sign In or Register to comment.