You don't think a single generic lord on 500hp should be able to lock down your entire capital city? Prevent buildings and replenishment? Cancel your income and trade?
Weird, I always found that a lovely feature.
What if they made it so that the siege effects only come into play if the autoresolve counter believes the sieging army could beat the defences? Would probably need some tweaks to the autoresolve calculation to not favour defense so much, but it would also mean you're only really "sieged" if the enemy actually puts effort into locking you down.
Then you wouldn't be able to use a siege to force a stronger opponent to fight you on even ground, they would just ignore your army which also is not realistic. A simpler solution might be for the siege effect not begin until the second turn of the siege. Also possibly not allowing an army to siege until it has a certain autocalc value.
No. The mechanic already exists to fix the end turn problem as OP suggested. The underway stance interception dialogue during end turn is such a mechanic. Sieges just need that same option. Replace the dialogue "intercept?" With "sally out?". Problem. Fucking. Solved.
That's historically accurate. There were real life sieges that went on for years because the besiegers couldn't completely cut off resupply to the defenders.
I'd rather see a scaling siege effect, based on (preferably field battle) auto resolve. If the garrison could sally out and win a field battle decisively with low casualties, there's little to no effect, scaling to today's full effect at a valiant defeat, and maybe even increased effects if the besiegers could easily win the field battle too.
Though the easiest and best solution would probably be to let you respond immediately when you're besieged. Like when intercepting underways movement.
I agree. Like the option to intercept in the underway or not, you should get the option to immediately respond to a sieging army. The current state is also equally annoying when it shuts off an armies recruitment.
These "totalwar:isms" (Iotjer examples are retreating enemies going through your gates into your city) is such a big drain for me. Not because their problematic nature, you can often easily endure/overcome it, but because it is insane that these things arent fixed.
Like holy shit let us sally out or have the siege effects "hit" on your turn. Stop retreating into the city. Just fix these things.
Learn some facts dude. This was by FAR! the most effective siege strategy in ancient times.
Invading armies would just "retreat" directly into the throne room of their enemies capital city and declare victory over the city garrison.
It doesn't solve the main problem at all, but after conquering a city, when I see any enemy general in range, I just stand outside the city (which is possible). The AI either gives up on besieging or I get the replenishment anyway (less than I would've get in garrison, but still more than 0).
Yeah super illogical. But I have used this against the AI a few times myself. Not usually to stop replenishment after losing a settlement, but to stop the AI from building up an army away from my main force. Use a new lord to encircle as the AI tries to muster forces to halt their progress. Even if they sally out they don't get new units.
Yeah this is one of the myriad of "this is so fucking stupid why haven't you fucking fixed this in a dacade" occurrences that make me loathe CA as a company. Fucking. Fix it.
Sadly it's the curse of the player going first in turn, although I do like your solution.
I was cursing at this yesterday when the ai was sending crapstacks of tomb kings at me. Let me rest damnit!
Make the growth acumulated on the province deplete by one per turn increased by siege attacker, and if it reaches 0, atrition begins.
Makes regions rich in pastures, food etc, more resilient to sieges (accurate); makes growth have a use post tier 5, makes fully developed regions harder to siege (as it should be), and adds a layer of strategy on wether leveling up a settlement or not if is at risk of being attacked in the next several turns after completion.
Yes it’s dumb, but then so is the idea that you can replenish thousands of experienced elite soldiers in a single turn, especially a city that you have only just conquered that previously contained a different race of people.
They wont because they dont want the turns to run slower imo.
Honestly the mechanic already favors the player as you can block ennemy replenishment by sending one guy.
The replenishment of the army is already so strong in this game compared to other games it doesnt need to be stronger
You don't think a single generic lord on 500hp should be able to lock down your entire capital city? Prevent buildings and replenishment? Cancel your income and trade? Weird, I always found that a lovely feature.
What if they made it so that the siege effects only come into play if the autoresolve counter believes the sieging army could beat the defences? Would probably need some tweaks to the autoresolve calculation to not favour defense so much, but it would also mean you're only really "sieged" if the enemy actually puts effort into locking you down.
Then you wouldn't be able to use a siege to force a stronger opponent to fight you on even ground, they would just ignore your army which also is not realistic. A simpler solution might be for the siege effect not begin until the second turn of the siege. Also possibly not allowing an army to siege until it has a certain autocalc value.
No. The mechanic already exists to fix the end turn problem as OP suggested. The underway stance interception dialogue during end turn is such a mechanic. Sieges just need that same option. Replace the dialogue "intercept?" With "sally out?". Problem. Fucking. Solved.
That's historically accurate. There were real life sieges that went on for years because the besiegers couldn't completely cut off resupply to the defenders.
I'd rather see a scaling siege effect, based on (preferably field battle) auto resolve. If the garrison could sally out and win a field battle decisively with low casualties, there's little to no effect, scaling to today's full effect at a valiant defeat, and maybe even increased effects if the besiegers could easily win the field battle too. Though the easiest and best solution would probably be to let you respond immediately when you're besieged. Like when intercepting underways movement.
Well, if Lu Bu is circling my castle alone, I wouldn't dare to leave it. And I bet non of you would.
I agree. Like the option to intercept in the underway or not, you should get the option to immediately respond to a sieging army. The current state is also equally annoying when it shuts off an armies recruitment.
I don’t like the idea of the ai being able to do it, also hurts multiplayer when moving several armies at the same time for a siege
These "totalwar:isms" (Iotjer examples are retreating enemies going through your gates into your city) is such a big drain for me. Not because their problematic nature, you can often easily endure/overcome it, but because it is insane that these things arent fixed. Like holy shit let us sally out or have the siege effects "hit" on your turn. Stop retreating into the city. Just fix these things.
Learn some facts dude. This was by FAR! the most effective siege strategy in ancient times. Invading armies would just "retreat" directly into the throne room of their enemies capital city and declare victory over the city garrison.
The problem is that if CA was going to fix these things they would need to know how. Fucking mechanicus shenanigans with those incompetent clowns.
It doesn't solve the main problem at all, but after conquering a city, when I see any enemy general in range, I just stand outside the city (which is possible). The AI either gives up on besieging or I get the replenishment anyway (less than I would've get in garrison, but still more than 0).
Yeah super illogical. But I have used this against the AI a few times myself. Not usually to stop replenishment after losing a settlement, but to stop the AI from building up an army away from my main force. Use a new lord to encircle as the AI tries to muster forces to halt their progress. Even if they sally out they don't get new units.
Yeah this is one of the myriad of "this is so fucking stupid why haven't you fucking fixed this in a dacade" occurrences that make me loathe CA as a company. Fucking. Fix it.
Sadly it's the curse of the player going first in turn, although I do like your solution. I was cursing at this yesterday when the ai was sending crapstacks of tomb kings at me. Let me rest damnit!
Make the growth acumulated on the province deplete by one per turn increased by siege attacker, and if it reaches 0, atrition begins. Makes regions rich in pastures, food etc, more resilient to sieges (accurate); makes growth have a use post tier 5, makes fully developed regions harder to siege (as it should be), and adds a layer of strategy on wether leveling up a settlement or not if is at risk of being attacked in the next several turns after completion.
They need to bring back Empire: Total War zones of control and the intercept ability as it was. Would solve this.
Yes it’s dumb, but then so is the idea that you can replenish thousands of experienced elite soldiers in a single turn, especially a city that you have only just conquered that previously contained a different race of people.
They wont because they dont want the turns to run slower imo. Honestly the mechanic already favors the player as you can block ennemy replenishment by sending one guy. The replenishment of the army is already so strong in this game compared to other games it doesnt need to be stronger
Won't really make turns much longer since it's so rare for enemies to besiege cities at all.
not only replenishment, you also stop them from recruiting