Sieges Redux

I know other have proposed sieges as an enhancement. I just got to think how they could work from a playing perspective.

After a certain threshold, instead of a big War Party, a faction could randomly generate a "Siege Train", targeting one of the opponents cities.

All forces would avoid "siege trains" (as they should be twice the standard war party size) except for opponents War Parties and crazy players. Siege Trains would not care about moving parties, trudging along towards its target town.

Once a siege train reaches its target, the town becomes "Besieged". The only effect of that is that neutrals or allies of the besieger cannot enter the town, and enemies enter into "Sortie" combat. Any military unit spawned in the besieged city automatically engages the besiegers into "Sortie" combat.

Sieges are just a matter of attrition, so every week the Siege holds, there is a chance the town surrenders, dependent on towns. If the siege train falls below a certain force strength (that could be city dependent as well) it lifts the siege and returns home, defeated.

A city changing hands just has its label and count replaced, while all the other people remain. The tavern would hire its new overlords types.

If one of the capitals falls, the war ends but the city does not change hands.

The biggest problem would be in the sortie combat, if it is desired to fight close to the town, but a random map could be enough, with the besieger automatically having no choice to retreat without lifting the siege.

Player forces would be able to siege enemy towns, but few would like to spend weeks sitting around a city, attracting enemy War Parties. Of course some people would like just that...

A player trapped in a besieged city could just sit it up, or knowing the kind of people who play this, start an attrition campaign to lift the siege, even if it means a long series of defeats before they are low enough.

I think this captures the historical siege techniques of the time, dependent on betrayal and hunger rather than assault to capture big garrisoned places. And it would not change the flow and style of playing. The coding is a different story.

José

This is the best fleshed-out siege idea I've seen in a while. It actually seems workable. Well done!

It would fit the game, IMO. This has to be the best siege suggestion I've seen as well.

Good job dude. Thats a fine idea and it seems to work within the existing engine.

IMO, player armies would have to be very large to pull off a siege. Maybe minimum size 50 or 75 or something. Only the leadership oriented player should be able to pull it off.

There should be a consequence for losing the capitol (even if it doesnt change hands). Maybe its considered to have been sacked and the spawn rate of all friendly troops is reduced for x days.

This is sorta OT and sorta not. I'm not sure what all the other "siege" ideas were, since I'm new to the forums, but these are my thoughts.

From the first time I played this game it had a NES "Defender of the Crown" feel. I'm hoping I'm not the only person that remembers that game. On that note, I used to love the catapults with different "ammo" busting through castle walls. Also the fighting through the castle to rescue the kidnapped girl at the top.

I know those would be drastic changes, but oh would they be amazing. Your idea of towns under siege is intersting too. I think that would fit in right after the town is "captured" by the catapult assault. This is just my 2 cents. I'm addicted to the gameplay already, but more in depth content with great gameplay would be a fun addition.

Actually I've found many old NES and Sega games far superior to many of the "eye-candy" games of the day. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of great games these days, but many lack in depth and/or gameplay. M&B has a great chance of filling that depth, most of which is already there. It already has great gameplay! Overall one of the better RPG's I've played in years. Bashing monsters and casting spells game after game does get old. I find this realism refreshing.

Just my 2 cents,
Greg

I think this is the best interim suggestion I've heard yet. Ultimately, though, I suspect most players (including future ones) will have some definite ideas about what a "seige" should look like. We're talking Hollywood stuff here. Anything else might seem anti-climatic.

Aside from eventually reducing the number of recruitable troop types and available missions (which is what would happen when the war ends) what effects would the tide of war have on the game? And is reducing options available a goal to pursue? Or are we better off with a Pirates! style model of wars which are largely out of a player's hands and serve more as a backdrop for missions and activities?

Just playing devil's advocate.

Well, in Pirates, towns do change hands and the player can encourage it by escorting troop ships so it shares that dynamic.

Then again the player doesnt actively decide which towns are going to fall as the troop ships are sent by the computer. You can sack a town yourself but I dont think it actually changes hands due to that. You just get gold I think. Player sieges in M@B could be similar. If they succeed you get a load of gold and some random goods or weapons/armor but seeing as your troops dont stay as a garrison force the town doesnt switch. Its a siege and sack rather than a siege and occupy.

I see what you mean about it reducing the overall mission options and diversity of the map to have one faction expand. This might argue for a hardcoded limit on the expansion of factions. Maybe no faction could be reduced below 3 cities. It would also be helpful if there were more than two factions and if siege trains were kept somewhat rare.

I really like this idea, but instead of ahving everyone run from siege trains, maybe every enemy would dogpile them in an desperate intercept attempt. That way, even if they weren't incredibly rare, they wouldn't succeed as often.

Maybe instead of having them be a random party crossing the map, it could be part of a Nobleman Quest, you'd have to relieve a sieged town or osmethign like that. You could also get a quest to act as the vanguard for a siege train, so that you can have an actual effect on the war. Maybe a faction that's losing cities will send larger siege trains to take those cities back, and more often. Out of desperation or something.

One thing I'm wondering about... "If one of the capitals falls, the war ends but the city does not change hands."

What happens after the war is over?

The War ends for a month or so, before the loser side launches an all out attack to recover cities. Probably a scripted event, with a couple of siege trains and half a dozen War parties sent simultaneously.

I had the siege trains being avoided because most forces below a War Party will not dent a 250 strong force when WP are 120 and normal groups are 30-50 strong, and you would end with a "screen cleaning" effect. As well, all those battles would just slow the flow of action, with a cue of enemies waiting for the previous battle to end..

I agree that most sieges should fail, unless a player is there to stop the daily War Party coming to lift the siege.

José

Perhaps slightly off topic, but I would like to highlight an idea brought out by this thread. Dynamic content. An active war involving cities changing hands would be great and would add a new element to the game. My idea is to answer the question "What happens when the war ends?" My idea is a take on something I read on these forums a while ago. What if, randomely or due to some trigger such as the end of the war, some foreign nationality appeared on the map and began taking cities which you have previously captured. This would produce a war on two fronts type feel.

Seiges would be great, and I think that will lead to what we all want and what would make the game even more exciting - dynamic content.

Yeah, Khergits could invade! Khergit Invader parties, if they failed to take a city they would return to being just raiders, but if they took the city they could become a faction in their own right! Kindof like the Golden Horde in Medieval Total War.

I really want to join the Khergits...

Just FYI in pirats you can change town ownership if you sack it twice. Then you get to chose what nations governor to install

Yes sieges would be awesome

you dont even have to sack it twice in pirates, you just have to win by a consdirabal amount, awing those who reside in the town, making them change ownership.

I love the idea of sieges. I personally think it would be best if there were quite a few siege trains, but they rarely reached there intended destination. Just wondering, how hard would it be to make the map bigger for more factions............

Ooh..this idea is great...best of all, this'd add a chance to have city combat...running through streets, defending vs attacks (or doing the attacking), fending off waves after enemies etc...

So many things one can dream about...this is one of the things I'd wanna see as well...idea is very well thought out...

I hope armagan reads this, because it's an awesome idea, and looks to be workable without drastic engine changes. What would be reaally cool is if you could use this technique to start carving out your own little empire. Of course, then we'd have to figure out what exactly the benefits would be from controlling a town and all, but yeah. good idea!

If one side won, after a while, the new faction could split off. Like the king dies and his sons each try to grab the throne.

The game definitely craves sieging. This would generate extra content and new goals for the player. Perhapes bigger promotions and why not land acres like in Pirates or perhapes own manor/castle as a haven.

One alternative approach to siege battles could be that they would be practised on a strategic level map whilst commanding your troops (again like in Pirates. I'm not entirely sure if this would take the game too similiar with Meier's game and possible copy right violation).

It would still be cooler if you could siege the city and actually crash the gates with the means of the normal tactical battle. This would probly require battering rams and catapults (which could be purchased like other units although at steep prices). After crashing the gate you would need to storm the streets leading your men and elimintaing the occupying military (cities would be initially manned by drastic amounts militia, footmen and archers, making the break through battle lenghty and taxing to the invader). Defensive battles would require archery and gate combat alongside the town militia. Or why not even storming out from the gates and slaughtering the siege units.

We dont actually need catapults and rams to appear in the map. i already suggested this in another thread. the siege battles would be played in different phases. 1: you start either from the city wall, or in front of the gate as defender, and in the edge og the map as attacker. attacker needs to run up to the gate and press F to end the first phase in a cut scene where his men bash the gate with a ram. second phase: fight throught the town. same as above in ohase one, but in the town this time. three: fight in the castle. simply storm the fort. kill the doorguards. get in the door. kill guys in the great hall, up the stairs and to the roof. press F near a banner and volia, its a victorious siege!