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

The Major Reason Why Sieges Suck

Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 22,730
Of course people could cite the lack of map variety, but in my opinion that is not the actual main reason why sieges are so unenjoyable. I think the reason why sieges are so sub-par in this game is because CA totally levelled the playing field between attacker and defender. Walls should act as a major power multiplier for the defender as when the Turks assaulted Vienna for the second time in 1683, they outnumbered the defenders nearly 10:1 and yet the garrison could hold out for months until the relief force arrived. In this game walls are such a non-factor, if the forces are roughly even, nearly every walled settlement can be taken. Here are the main flaws:

1.Gates are made of tissue paper and can be bashed in by low tier chaff in a more than reasonable time. Actually, they can probably remove the gates even quicker than a battering ram since most infantry is faster than the ram and so arrives at the gates more swiftly. Troops whacking at the gates can also perfectly covered and cannot be affected by defenders behind the wall

SUGGESTION: remove the ability for any non-siege attacker unit to target the gates and double the health of gates. Also, force any unit attacking them to stand far enough outside the gatehouse so it can still be taken under fire from behind the walls

2.Towers have very low, non-AOE base damage, they need to be activated to work at all and they have very narrow fields of fire. All of that makes them near-non factors in sieges. Their DPS is absolutely abysmal and the need to activate them with troops is just cherry on top of the dirt-sundae. Sorry, but if I have to activate towers, I expect them to actually also do damage to attackers but I only really get that if I use the fortification building chain and upgrade it several times. That's nonsensical. Towers should be one of the strongest factors in any siege no matter if upgraded or not.

SUGGESTION: give towers 360° fields of fire and increase base damage considerably

3.Walls don't protect the troops from most skirmisher fire. Practically the only skirmisher fire that troops on walls are protected against are handguns and pistols, everything else curves so conveniently over the walls that the crenelations might as well not exist

SUGGESTION : a flat 75% increase in missile resistance for troops standing on walls

4.Ladders enable all troops to just get over the walls and they don't penalize the troops using them all that much. What's the point of walls (or siege towers) if getting over them is so damn trivial?

SUGGESTION : bring back the old vigor penalties from WH1. Using ladders should be a last resort, not an utter convenience. I know this was probably done because of the gates and forts maps that don't allow the building of siege equipment...but I'd say just restore the old vigor penalty and allow the construction of siege equipment agains such settlements instead. Never made sense to me why it was disable in the first place anyway.

5.Siege towers are too fast and have too much HP. Currently it requires T5 towers plus artillery to stop a siege tower from docking successfully on the walls, after which they cannot be removed and allow easy access for the attacker. This is lame and trivializes walls even if the ladders are nerfed as suggested above.

SUGGESTION: lower siege tower speed and HP, but also speed up their construction. So you can attack with more towers but have to be aware that not all of them will make it to the wall intact

6.Sieges are near mandatory thanks to the extended siege timer. So earlier I'd have asked for the siege timers to be reduced, but I think if the defender is buffed as lined out above, you can also leave the timer as long as it is BUT bring back siege escalation from Attila, 3K and ToB. So a settlement being besieged means the towers and walls will take damage and get destroyed over time just from the fact that they're under siege. So now the choice is to attack in overwhelming numbers to overcome the defenses or to drag the siege out to attack with a defender with more dminished defensive capabilites

Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • sieahsieah Registered Users Posts: 627
    +1 to al
    id also allow to put artillery on the walls.
  • steph74steph74 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,355
    1. Alternate solution: have some kind of boiling all/stone attacks from the gate to anyunit trying to whack it. Give some protection to ram agaisnt this sicne they are design to destroy wall.

    2. Not 360°, because it means the attacker could capture them and use them to fire to defender. But at least 180°. The should also have lore damage (but maybe less range to compensate).

    3. Or maybe have more reallistic trajectory. I wonder if an effect ban be applied to troops with condition they are on wall. I'll have to check for my mod.
    Combining a bonus to range + bonus to missile defense for units on wall could be a good way to improve this.


    5. Agreed, ladder are silly. It would be fun if the defender on top of the wall had a small chance to push the ladder, damaging the attackers! Vigor penalty + speed reduction could also help.

    5. Agreed with less HP and less construction time

    Most of your points are valid, but I still think the lack of map variety is not good.

    I'd like to see some non wall battle inside the city (like in Rome 2), where you can use street and building to create chock points and full the ennemy.

    Artillery on wall can also help.



  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 6,614
    I didnt even realise they remove the vig penalty on ladders. It was something so logical ud never thought they tweak it. Units r not exhausted after they climb now? Thats just crazy

    Towers not having 360 is another extremely stupid choice. All u need to do is simply deploy whole army on 1 side so all u face is 1 single tower there u basically 1 shot it with quad cannon. Voila, entire frikking siege nullified

    Too much serious flaws, like utter game breaking flaw in the siege on this game

    The entire siege defence mechanism is 99% non existence against human attackers.
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • hhhmmmhhhmmm Registered Users Posts: 48
    I would actually prefer changing the campaign mechanics so that we don't have to fight so many siege battles.

    Increase garrison sizes but drastically reduce the time before defenders start to take attrition. So that walls slows the attacker, eg have to wait a turn or two before the deciding battle takes place, but those battles will mostly be field battles where the defender sallies out
  • sandercohensandercohen Registered Users Posts: 184
    edited February 13
    1. Agreed
    2. This needs to be looked at for every faction not all factions deserve equally powerful defensive towers. High-tier Skaven defenisve towers have got superb damage output, combine that with menace from below + warpbombs and they are one of the best defensive factions in the game, which makes no sense. The low tier defensive towers could almost universally use better damage output though, we can agree on that.

    As for 360 degree fire, I am not so sure about that. 180? Sure, but I do believe their range should get nerfed if they should receive a damage and arc of fire buff. It would be horribly oppressive otherwise.

    3. Disagree. 75% is pure insanity. Some factions rely more on missile troops than others, and missile troops for the attackers are already of questionable use during sieges. If anything I'd give the attackers the option to construct missile towers, something akin to a regular siege tower, but one that allows a missile troops to climb to the top platform so that you are essentially on the same level as the wall, this to increase the utility of the ranged unit

    4. I think ladders should be constructed, but otherwise incur no penalties whatsoever. You should be able to construct many of them in a single turn.

    5. Agreed

    6. Not sure about this one, a siege does not always imply that you are actually using artillery piece to smash the walls and buildings of a settlement, a siege could simply mean a blockade in which case you are preventing people from getting out and inside of the settlement, crippling their supply lines and thus draining all their stockpiles.

    Having said that, more and better maps are still desirable. I'd like to see artillery emplacements on top of your suggestions, and all cavalry regardless of faction should be vanguard deployable when playing as defender
  • ResileafResileaf Registered Users Posts: 79
    Since I've mostly played WH1, I always forget that siege defenses have been severely nerfed in the second game, so I always have a few seconds of "But sieges are fine, aren't they?" before I remember the changes. I support making sieges harder for the attackers again.
  • endurendur Registered Users Posts: 3,380
    1. Either a) only siege attackers can attack gates, or b) doubling the health. I don't think we need both. However, keep in mind that limiting it to only siege attackers means that an army of cavalry/monsters with out siege attackers can't attack the fortress at all.

    2) Towers is complicated. I like the idea of increasing arc of fire to 120 or 180 degrees, and maybe a slight increase in damage. But the AI needs to garrison the towers. Currently the AI doesn't prioritize garrisoning the towers.

    3) There is some protection for missile fire over the gates, but the general walls provides minimal protection. I agree that some buff would be useful.

    4) I didn't realize that the vigor penalty for ladders (exhausting the troops) was missing. That penalty should definitely be there.

    5) I agree that siege towers are a bit too strong. However, if a siege tower is destroyed, the unit inside is also destroyed.

    6) I like the idea of damage to the fortress over time. Maybe 5% damage to walls every turn or something.

  • YannirYannir Registered Users Posts: 140
    steph74 said:


    2. Not 360°, because it means the attacker could capture them and use them to fire to defender. But at least 180°. The should also have lore damage (but maybe less range to compensate).

    That's exactly why they should be 360. Would be a huge incentive for you to actually defend your walls. Normal LoS blocking would still obviously work vs them.

    An additional point I'd like to make on this topic. While most towers are rather weak, this doesn't apply to skaven or LM t5 towers which can wipe entire AI armies while the walls never even get breached.
  • Rochaid29Rochaid29 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,385
    sieah said:

    +1 to al
    id also allow to put artillery on the walls.

    This too, artillery is near useless unless microed and then it’s still bad
  • steph74steph74 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,355
    Yannir said:

    steph74 said:


    That's exactly why they should be 360. Would be a huge incentive for you to actually defend your walls. Normal LoS blocking would still obviously work vs them.

    And that's also why some defensive towers have arrowslits only on the outside, so they can use to defend agaisnt the attacker, but not by them if they capture it.
    There are even some towers with no wall on the inside, so defenders from the second wall layer can shoot right inside it should they be taken by attacker.

    Having attacking archers able to shoot from the top of the wall to defending units inside the city after the wall has been taken should be a sufficient incentive to defend it.

  • mightygloinmightygloin Registered Users Posts: 1,821
    Agree with every point. Such simple changes, i've got no idea how they still haven't tweaked anything about sieges all those years.

    How can Witch Elves with daggers or Peasants with Swords can even break down the gates?

    Where are karaks? Why do the Greenskins gates/walls and dwarf gates/walls have the same durability?

    Current sieges are so primitive. Actually if there won't be proper sieges in WH3, i shall think twice before grabbing it. This is one of the few areas where WH3 could be a true successor to WH2 other than being some big race pack.

    This mod is helpful until then: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1158794478&searchtext=better+sieges

  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Registered Users Posts: 3,442
    I agree with a lot of this, though not all.

    I certainly agree on gates. Normal melee units should not be able to damage them at all, that should be limited to rams, monstrous entities, and maybe certain specialist infantry units like Warp-Grinders or Miners, who get a special "Sapper" trait to distinguish this.

    Towers I'm of more mixed opinion on. Certainly upgraded main settlement towers can do a significant chunk of damage, but even fully upgraded minor settlement towers don't seem to do squat. On the other hand I like that main settlement towers are better and get fancier effects. I agree some minor buffs are needed, but I also want the tiers of the towers to actually matter.

    Also generally agree on the crenellations, though I thin 75% is a bit much. I'd like it if CA started at 25% or 50% and then adjusted as needed, or maybe have wall upgrades provide successively better resistance.

    I agree on ladders, especially the vigor penalty, and maybe require them to be constructed, though it should only take one turn maximum to build ladders for the whole army. It's an option for if you're in a rush and don't have time to build tons of siege equipment.

    I'm of mixed opinion about the towers. On the one hand, it is basically impossible for fully upgraded minor settlement towers to down a siege tower, it just moves out of their field of fire before they can deal enough damage. Personally I think this could be addressed if we can finally get artillery emplacements, and allow normal artillery units to then target the towers, but that's a heavier lift.

    Regarding defensive upgrades, these seem like they would be an easier lift. CA is already going in the right direction with this, adding special bombardments and summons that are unlocked with upgrades, but I think they could go further. Gate defenses would be easy, just adding in vents for steam, fire, warp lightning, etc to blast gate attackers; this is already present on some GCCM maps. Wall defenses like boiling oil might also be an option. CA is also heading in the right direction with the layout of the new fort maps, which allow for more staggered defenses and elevated firing platforms for artillery; it's not a perfect solution, but it's a step in the right direction.
  • Lord_DistamorfinLord_Distamorfin Registered Users Posts: 496
    Here is my list of solutions for sieges.

    Walls: The most important part of a siege and the worst part of them currently.

    Walls should be changed into actual walls, rather than the stone-looking picket fences that they are now. When you punch a hole in a wall, the game just removes one section of a slotted wall, rather than punching a hole in a single structure. If you use an agent to destroy the entire wall, you won't see massive gaping holes. Rather, the game currently renders a completely destroyed wall as removing all of the slotted-in sections of the wall without removing the "support posts", leaving a line of ugly and unimmersive free-standing pillars of stone. The walls should allow for holes of varying size, without those ugly "support posts".

    Monstrous infantry should be able to mount the walls. There's nothing that should prevent Fimir or Trolls from being able to fight on the battlements. They're not visually too large and it severely hampers the effectiveness of monster-heavy armies in sieges.

    Giant units should be able to attack walls directly and/or attack units mounted on walls. At their current height, there should be nothing stopping a Giant from swinging his club along the top of the wall to attack defenders or a Hierotitan from lasering defenders to death. They should also be able to attack walls directly. While most should not be able to destroy solid stone as quickly as, say, a cannon, they should still be able to directly attack walls.

    Certain units should have special interaction with walls, ethereal units and spiders in particular. Ethereal units should be able to either climb the walls easily and unassisted or (preferably) be able to pass through walls like ghosts. Likewise, spider units should be able to climb out the walls and attack defenders. They would occupy a special class of cavalry that can contribute to sieges without having to destroy a gate or wall section first.

    Weapon teams and artillery should be able to mount walls. Walls are the perfect place to mount these types of units in defensive sieges. The new fort maps somewhat play with the idea of artillery on walls by creating a raised secondary area, but it's not very effective with cannons. I found that the wall directly in front of the cannons obstructed my firing line and made it difficult for the cannons to fire on certain targets. Weapon teams and artillery should be able to "slot in" on the walls like regular infantry can and place their weapons in-between the raised portions of the wall. This was also featured prominently in the trailer for Warhammer 1, so it's very disappointing that this is still not in the game.

    The towers should have a limited range. Right now, sieges are basically a race to the wall as quickly as possible to avoid your army being picked apart by the wall towers. Attackers should be able to sit outside of the range of towers and soften the defensive with artillery. The default towers should only be archers, with damage and range upgrades if the city has the wall upgrades built.

    Defending archers/gunners should have improved range. Having a height advantage should be giving missile units a considerable range advantage over the attackers.

    Magic should be usable on the walls. Other than balance reasons, there's no reason for spells to not work on walls. Wind spells fire off in a random direction if you even try to use one too close to a wall. Instead, magical warding should be part of the wall upgrades. The warding should prevent use of spells on or behind the walls for attackers, unless they fly a spellcaster over the wall (they would only be able to cast behind the wall, not on it).

    Gates should have defensive equipment to deter unprotected units (i.e. anything that is not a covered battered ram) from attacking the gates. Boiling oil is the classic example, but could also include different and more thematic measures.

    Offensive sieges: A defending army should have an overwhelming advantage over the attacking army.

    Siege equipment should be a necessity for attackers. The absolute minimum for attackers should be that they need to physically carry siege ladders up to the wall, rather than sprinting up to the wall and pulling one from their prison pocket. Ladder-climbing units should also be at an overwhelming disadvantage against defending units and defenders should be able to force ladders off of the wall. Siege towers should be almost necessary for a successful assault of the walls unless the attackers have overwhelming numbers.

    Battering rams should be, by far, the most effective way to destroy gates (besides possible cannons), followed by large monsters, then monstrous infantry. Cavalry and infantry should not be able to hack down fortified gates with lances and swords at all. (I would possibly make an exception for zombies, but mostly because the sight of a horde clawing through a gate appeals to me aesthetically).

    Certain races should be able to construct specialized siege equipment. Rome 2 let attacking armies deploy very large, but immobile, siege weapons. Empire and Dwarfs should be able to field larger-than-normal siege cannons and other guns, High and Dark Elves should be able to field large siege ballistae, Bretonnia should be able to field large siege trebuchets, etc...

    Defensive sieges: Defenders should have more freedom to choose their defenses and deploy them

    Defenders should be able to deploy cavalry outside of walls and take the fight to the enemy.

    Defenders should be able to deploy defensive traps outside of the walls, like pitfalls and stakes.

    Miscellaneous:

    Most of the maps should be redone or expanded to do away with the single-wall or two-wall sieges. Sieges should feel larger and grander. As they are now, they feel very small and the presence of large, imposing cities in the background only serves to make them feel smaller.

    Attacking units should rout out of the city. This needs no explanation.

    Defenders should fight to the last man in all or most instances. Losing the siege means they all die anyway, so they should fight in a "last stand" type manner in the capture point after falling back.

    Alternatively make sieges (or at least major city/capital sieges) multi-level engagements. The first stage of the siege should take place on the outermost wall, then the defenders can retreat and regroup to the inner-city.
  • korradokortokorradokorto Registered Users Posts: 88
    half of a campaign groundbattles are siege, make em harder and people will just abuse the auto resolve.

    the issue really is just how many sieges youve to deal with and how inherently repetitive theyre.
  • Noisy_CricketNoisy_Cricket Registered Users Posts: 218
    I played a siege battle the other week and could have sworn I saw my troops going from fresh to debilitated upon climbing the walls with ladders. I'll need to go back and check if I have the time, also I do have some mods activated so will have to check if they had changed it.
  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Registered Users Posts: 3,442

    half of a campaign groundbattles are siege, make em harder and people will just abuse the auto resolve.

    the issue really is just how many sieges youve to deal with and how inherently repetitive theyre.

    Yeah, the AI generally avoids field battles unless it has overwhelming numbers, although I get the impression so do most players. You're not really incentivized to fight the enemy in the open when it would be an even fight, not unless you have no other choice.

    Maybe the game should add special locations to the map that can be fought over but have no walls, locations of strategic interest, that sort of thing.
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 269
    yst said:

    I didnt even realise they remove the vig penalty on ladders. It was something so logical ud never thought they tweak it. Units r not exhausted after they climb now? Thats just crazy

    They didn't, I just checked. By the time an entire unit has climbed up the ladders, they are "Very Tired". I suppose they could make it tougher and have them be "Exhausted" at the end, but that will happen anyway if there is any sort of defense on the wall.

    The real 800lb gorilla in the room is that the AI needs to be able to win sieges with a reasonably sized force. I have played strategy games where settlement/cities require overwhelming force for the AI to conquer and it sucks way worse than making them too easy. The maps are very static because they struggle to conquer territory.
  • philosofoolphilosofool Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 253
    The problem is tedium. The strategy, and I'm using that term loosely, as an attacker is to ram yourself into the walls and gates. The strategy as a defender is put yourself in the attacker's way.

    I don't care if it's realistic, I just want something I like more than autoresolve.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,730
    Jman5 said:

    yst said:

    I didnt even realise they remove the vig penalty on ladders. It was something so logical ud never thought they tweak it. Units r not exhausted after they climb now? Thats just crazy

    They didn't, I just checked. By the time an entire unit has climbed up the ladders, they are "Very Tired". I suppose they could make it tougher and have them be "Exhausted" at the end, but that will happen anyway if there is any sort of defense on the wall.

    The real 800lb gorilla in the room is that the AI needs to be able to win sieges with a reasonably sized force. I have played strategy games where settlement/cities require overwhelming force for the AI to conquer and it sucks way worse than making them too easy. The maps are very static because they struggle to conquer territory.
    Warhammer campaigns should be slowed down, they are way too fast now, so I don't see that as a problem at all.

    Also, the vigor penalty counts for nothing compared to WH1. In WH1 the basic towers could even shoot down approaching siege towers. Why was the game dumbed down even further? NO ONE ASKED FOR THIS!

  • hanesdavhanesdav Registered Users Posts: 855
    I agree with everything except for towers. Towers should never be able to cause major damage. You are supposed to use your mind and not to camp near towers and wait until they kill everything. Many of them right now are capable of completely destroying entire army before attacker can reach walls. Some of them can easily kill Lords and Heroes. Towers also have massive range. It it is often impossible to hide cavalry and other useless units. Which general would deploy cavalry within range of enemy missile units? Towers can also easily destroy artillery.

    You are basically asking for tower defence game set in Warhammer universe. This is total war game. It is unacceptable for few guys inside towers with unlimited ammo to win you battles. Instead of buffing towers they should decrease their range and improve garrisons.

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,730
    hanesdav said:

    I agree with everything except for towers. Towers should never be able to cause major damage. You are supposed to use your mind and not to camp near towers and wait until they kill everything. Many of them right now are capable of completely destroying entire army before attacker can reach walls. Some of them can easily kill Lords and Heroes. Towers also have massive range. It it is often impossible to hide cavalry and other useless units. Which general would deploy cavalry within range of enemy missile units? Towers can also easily destroy artillery.

    You are basically asking for tower defence game set in Warhammer universe. This is total war game. It is unacceptable for few guys inside towers with unlimited ammo to win you battles. Instead of buffing towers they should decrease their range and improve garrisons.

    Sorry, but towers must be freakishly strong, that's the point of having them. Right now they're peashooters unless you buy the fortification building to upgrade them, but that's dumb. Basic towers might as well not be there for all the damage they don't do. See, I just had a siege defense on fortress Helmgart against a GS fullstack with the T1 garrison and I honestly wondered, what's even the point? The towers killed next to nothing and yet they require a unit to be nearby to be activated. That's even dumber.

    Range must be as long as any artillery piece or we get that stupid 10-minute bombardment phase back that othet TWs have and which is just plain dumb.

    Sieges must be absolutely bone-breakingly hard for the attacker if done against a fully intact wall.

    That's why I want siege escalation back.

  • ystyst Registered Users Posts: 6,614
    hanesdav said:


    You are basically asking for tower defence game set in Warhammer universe. This is total war game. It is unacceptable for few guys inside towers with unlimited ammo to win you battles. Instead of buffing towers they should decrease their range and improve garrisons.

    So easy to bypass, even stupid players can negate tower, all u need to do is simply deploy a single model hero upfront and thats it.

    Not to mention those resists r stacked to sigh ure immune to towers lol. U can literally go something silly like 50% phy 50% missile 30% ward. Stand there eat cannon and get armor paint scratched.



    I mean this is normally how my sieges goes, one of the hundreds, even legendaries mode r as stupid
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • Mac_Mac_MacMac_Mac_Mac Registered Users Posts: 120
    edited February 14
    1. Gates are ok. The fact that units are protected once they reach the gate bugs me too. Battering rams are only useful for initiating siege attacks.

    2. Towers were tweaked because people complained they were too good against siege towers so they lowered damage and made towers fire in volleys. In my opinion they are good the way sieges are. I believe the greater problem beign factions having different difficulties when it comes to defending a siege. The garrison of every faction should be reviewed. A high tier settlement with tier 1 defenders present is absurd. And for god sake it's a pain sieging Skaven garrisons. That damnable warpbomb, It took me a while to get used to it because its too powerful. It needs to be rethinked.

    3. Walls are supposed to be an obstacle to melee and I think that in a fantasy game with high proficiency bowmen users like elves the walls are ok versus skirmishers.

    4. Weird. Do you use any mods? I play Vanilla and when I use ladders my troopes continue to get the tired effect when they climb.

    5. Towers, siege towers and the like were altered from WH1 because people would complain that siege towers were beign destroyed too fast and they took ages to reach walls. Speed up construction or create more siege towers would be good. Again, Skaven.

    6. I don't have an opinion about this.
    Post edited by Mac_Mac_Mac on
  • Otters007Otters007 Registered Users Posts: 773
    I agree sieges are too easy, and too exploitable.

    What I find strange though is that with some factions, their T5 towers are extremely strong, even damn right overpowered. For example, the siege towers in Hexoatl and Skavenblight are CRAZY overpowered. I remember sieging them during recent campaigns and my infantry got decimated before they even reached the walls.

    However, other factions T5 towers seem to be very weak, even the Vampire Coast ones which you expect to be quite strong are nothing compared to the damage done by Lizardmen and Skaven T5 towers. Makes me wonder if this was intended.

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,730
    edited February 13



    1. Gates are ok. The fact that units are protected once they reach the gate bugs me too. Battering rams are only useful for initiating siege attacks.

    2. Towers were tweaked because people complained they were too good against siege towers so they lowered damage and made towers fire in volleys. In my opinion they are good the way sieges are. I believe the greater problem beign factions having different difficulties when it comes to defending a siege. The garrison of every faction should be reviewed. A high tier settlement with tier 1 defenders present is absurd. And for god sake it's a pain sieging Skaven garrisons. That damnable warpbomb, It took me a while to get used to it because its too powerful. It needs to be rethinked.

    3. Walls are supposed to be an obstacle to melee and I think that in a fantasy game with high proficiency bowmen users like elves the walls are ok versus skirmishers.

    4. Weird. Do you use any mods? I play Vanilla and when I use ladders my troopes continue to get the tired effect when they climb.

    5. Towers, siege towers and the like were altered from WH1 because people would complain that siege towers were beign destroyed too fast and they took ages to reach walls. Speed up construction or create more siege towers would be good. Again, Skaven.

    6. I don't have an opinion about this.

    1. Gates are not OK. A bunch of dumb peasants or some flailing zombies should not be able to bash them in quicker and more efficiently than a battering ram

    2.Nope, towers suck unless you invest in them and that should not be necessary. Towers should obliterate approaching armies and be strong points of the defense. Otherwise, I repeat, WHAT'S THE POINT? Towers need 360° firing arcs and be much stronger right off the bat. That you need to dedicate a unit to "man" them requires them to actually be a worthwhile investment

    3.Nope, the point of walls is to protect the troops behind them and that includes protecting them from ranged fire, that's in RL and in WHFB as well. Pretty much every other TW understood this, except this one. This and WH1 are the only games were walls do eff-all to avert skirmisher fire. That's stupid and must be changed. Either CA fixes the projectile trajectories to be more like in other TWs or it gives troops on wall massive missiler resist bonuses. As it is now it's detrimental to the game

    4. I can have chaff troops scale the walls with ladders and remain there in combat reasonably long. Something that did not work in WH1. So either the penalty is too low or the whole thing is bugged

  • Mr_Finley7Mr_Finley7 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,115
    Yes to all. The people who don’t want an immersive siege and just want a 6 minute click fest probably just auto resolve them anyways, I can’t imagine any of these changes being too controversial.

    And add emplacement zones for artillery/weapons teams to deploy on the walls.
  • Jman5Jman5 Registered Users Posts: 269
    edited February 13
    Here are my thoughts:

    Of course the biggest things we need are completely redesigned, larger siege maps with 360 degree attack angles, variable terrain height, and an AI that can handle it. However, I think it's safe to say that's not happening until warhammer 3, so we just have to figure out some minor changes to improve things.

    1. Towers: 180 degree firing arc, limited range, maybe a little stronger to compensate, limited ammo.

    2. Pathing: Moving on the wall or off the wall is terrible and feels terrible. Moving through the gate is terrible. Spells don't path right by the walls. This needs some work.

    3. Line of Sight: The castle walls need to block line of sight until you climb the walls, bust them down, or get through the gate. Right now it's just too easy to use archers, artillery, and mages to flatten the defenders using their own walls against them. This needs to be less effective.

    4. Fix the stupid gate prematurely opening and then shutting attackers in.

    5. Big Monsters: They should be able to smash through walls.

    6. Much shorter period of time before garrison starts taking attrition

    7. I agree with you to slow down siege towers

    8. I agree there should be a 1 turn minimum before you can siege a walled city. (this would help slow things down a bit, which OP seems to really want) Would also give a larger defending armies a turn to sally out crush some player who was looking to cheese em.

    9. High level cities should have some sort of anti-flyer spells. (would make sense in a fantasy setting with flying horsies and dragons)

    10. Destroying walls right next to each other should widen the gap not leave this annoying little bit of the wall between them. (ok ok not a big deal but it really annoys me!)
  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Registered Users Posts: 3,442
    One added thought to improve strategy: Infantry with Stalk should be able to climb walls and capture points undetected. This would allow you to send most of your forces at one gate, forcing the enemy to defend that one, while your stealthy units climb the walls at the far end and open the gate for your cavalry.
  • PaulicusPaulicus Registered Users Posts: 115
    #6 is a good suggestion, considering that you're not allowed to use any heroes on a city once it's under siege. Doesn't make too much sense to me.
  • MonochromaticSpiderMonochromaticSpider Registered Users Posts: 860
    edited February 13
    Another topic by a certain someone, another unsubstantiated bunch of assertions and assumptions, another topic with loads of posturing and not even the tiniest bit of analysis. Expected as this may be, I am not impressed.

    360 degree towers with infinite ammo and massive AOE damage, someone suggested? Yeah, because them super-swivel mounted cannons were historically complete death on attackers, particularly when mounted in static positions that stick out so bad that a blind person can see them from ten times their effective range, particularly when mounted in incredibly weak structures. Do I even have to explain why this is silly?

    Historical aside, in case someone wants to talk nonsense about how hard sieges were in historical times and how this should be reflected in-game...
    The usual response in these topics is that historical sieges were incredibly difficult and therefore a whole bunch of utterly mad mega-cheese is justified to simulate that difficulty. Guess what? Historical sieges lacked flying monsters, walking monsters the size of an RV, gunpowder artillery, and of course literal magic.

    Beating solid walls without giant monsters, flying things, gunpowder, and magic was indeed very difficult. But then came the age of cannons and suddenly these fixed point battles became something else entirely. Being on a wall was not that big a benefit when you were getting shot at by cannons. Keeping the enemy out with a wall they couldn't scale easily was a lot easier before cannons and howitzers and mortars started making holes in either the wall or the things behind the wall. Then came flying machines and now the idea of holding "a wall" is nearly ridiculous, because what does a wall matter to flying things?

    Arguably the historical death of fixed line defenses happened in 1939, as fast ground-pounding monsters (well, tanks, but is there really a big difference?) simply bypassed the French Maginot-line. I'm sure, like Ephraim and others in this topic, that the Frenchies at the time were deeply offended that the Germans weren't being good sports, but that's the difference between playing war and fighting a war.

    So historically, walls took a massive hit from gunpowder warfare and were made completely redundant by monsters flying and walking. We didn't even need literal magic to make it happen. The Warhammer world has gunpowder artillery, magic artillery, laser artillery, flying things, and walking monsters, and on top of that they have literal magic. They have more anti-wall tools than what in real world history made it unfeasible to hold a wall.


    The actual reason sieges are boring is because they get repetitive and predictable rather quickly. The same maps over and over, the same garrisons over and over, the same efforts required to not get shredded by fixed point defenses, the same efforts required to protect against particular faction mechanics, and of course the same AI siege routines. This is why everything gets boring eventually, siege battles as well as open field battles, but less variety means it happens sonner than if there was more variety.

    This is not me pulling something out of my ass, this is trivial how-life-works level stuff. This is why you don't just watch the same porn movie but instead go to a tube site and watch a different one. This is why you don't eat the same meal 3-5 times a day, 365 days a year. This is why they make new movies and new TV shows. This is why old TV shows lose ratings and get canned. This is why we have more than one faction in a game. This is why Three Kingdoms gets stale quickly, since all the factions are too similar.

    Would beefing up siege defenses massively make sieges more interesting? Not really. It would make them different in the short term, change the dynamics a bit here and now, and that's all it would do. The AI would be the same, the concepts would be the same, the maps would be the same, the garrisons would be the same, but defending is way easier, and of course some some factions are completely flushed down the toilet because they have nothing that really works well under the new "siege rules". Currently, only the Greenies are completely hosed and that's largely because they're still stuck in WH1 mode. Everybody else are workable.

    Change the rules to Big E mode and what happens? Vampire Counts have no ranged and garbage infantry so taking the walls is out and destroying the towers is out. So hero spam or 10+ turn sieges? Super fun, right? Warriors of Chaos would suck too, because their strength is infantry (so spend 5+ turns on every single settlement with walls to build siege towers?) and melee monsters, and both are countered hard by 360 noscope infinite range infinite ammo AOE towers. Norsca would run into that same problem. Brets are pretty much forced into flyer spam, because trebs are awful outside of sieges and ground cav would be even more garbage in sieges.

    But those are just gameplay details. Yeah, why on Earth would anyone have expected the topic creator to actually analyse something like that when making grand suggestions, right?
Sign In or Register to comment.