Hi, I was going to post my own thread, but found this, and this other relevant thread below:
forums.taleworlds.com
I'm sure others have played out more sieges than I have, but in my limited experience, the "preparation" stage for a siege consists of:
- Build a ram/tower if needed
- Build 4 trebuchets and ONLY trebuchets, because all others have too few hitpoints
- When each treb is completed, pause & move to reserve so it doesn't get destroyed
- Once the 4th is done (and you've moved it to reserve to protect it), bring all 4 out simultaneously, and watch as they randomly select enemy siege engines, whittle them down, and then eventually knock down the walls. (Sometimes it makes sense to just attack once the enemy ballistas/onagers are down, since you have a tower/ram to break in with).
I want to say as a player: this is NOT FUN GAMEPLAY. This is a tedious "minigame" that is not entertaining in the slightest. It's not exciting, the outcome is almost guaranteed (enemy siege engines destroyed, possibly walls down if you wait long enough), and it just means several minutes of mindless clicking, then watching the results play out.
My only other point of reference here is the Total War series, but it has a very similar game play element, and I think it's done much better. I absolutely understand having to have some sort of cost associated with producing additional siege engines which give the attacker more advantage. Currently, that cost is both additional game-time, which is good: it allows the enemy to bring other armies to break your siege, or means you miss out on other opportunities. But the other is simply wasting player-time with micromanaging the production of the siege engines, and then watching them randomly deal with the enemy siege engines, which is an unforgivable waste of time.
I think the entire campaign-map portion of the siege engine attacks should be removed. Certainly, have a (relatively quick) progress bar affected by how many & what types of siege engines you want to build: a small town & garrison? Perhaps a couple ballistas will be sufficient. Well-defended castle - four trebuchets of course. So this affects how long in-game passes. There could even be additional costs associated with siege engines in gold or materials.
But once completed, I think the entire siege-engine battle should take place in the battle map. Let the player direct their fire to take out other siege engines, and let (specified) walls be destructable. This is where I think Total War does it better: taking out enemy walls or gates with superior firepower is preferable to trying to assault the walls with inferior equipment. The player can choose to wait to let the siege engines do their thing, or simultaneously bring their troops up to join the attack.
I am very much enjoying the game overall, but I think this is one specific area that could be significantly improved.
Make siege engines automatically be built in reserve.
Realistically, an army wouldn't build siege engines in the range of fire of the besieged settlement. Currently they appear in the range of fire of the settlement and then the player (and only the player) can make them disappear off of the battlefield (reserve) and redeploy at his will...
forums.taleworlds.com
I'm sure others have played out more sieges than I have, but in my limited experience, the "preparation" stage for a siege consists of:
- Build a ram/tower if needed
- Build 4 trebuchets and ONLY trebuchets, because all others have too few hitpoints
- When each treb is completed, pause & move to reserve so it doesn't get destroyed
- Once the 4th is done (and you've moved it to reserve to protect it), bring all 4 out simultaneously, and watch as they randomly select enemy siege engines, whittle them down, and then eventually knock down the walls. (Sometimes it makes sense to just attack once the enemy ballistas/onagers are down, since you have a tower/ram to break in with).
I want to say as a player: this is NOT FUN GAMEPLAY. This is a tedious "minigame" that is not entertaining in the slightest. It's not exciting, the outcome is almost guaranteed (enemy siege engines destroyed, possibly walls down if you wait long enough), and it just means several minutes of mindless clicking, then watching the results play out.
My only other point of reference here is the Total War series, but it has a very similar game play element, and I think it's done much better. I absolutely understand having to have some sort of cost associated with producing additional siege engines which give the attacker more advantage. Currently, that cost is both additional game-time, which is good: it allows the enemy to bring other armies to break your siege, or means you miss out on other opportunities. But the other is simply wasting player-time with micromanaging the production of the siege engines, and then watching them randomly deal with the enemy siege engines, which is an unforgivable waste of time.
I think the entire campaign-map portion of the siege engine attacks should be removed. Certainly, have a (relatively quick) progress bar affected by how many & what types of siege engines you want to build: a small town & garrison? Perhaps a couple ballistas will be sufficient. Well-defended castle - four trebuchets of course. So this affects how long in-game passes. There could even be additional costs associated with siege engines in gold or materials.
But once completed, I think the entire siege-engine battle should take place in the battle map. Let the player direct their fire to take out other siege engines, and let (specified) walls be destructable. This is where I think Total War does it better: taking out enemy walls or gates with superior firepower is preferable to trying to assault the walls with inferior equipment. The player can choose to wait to let the siege engines do their thing, or simultaneously bring their troops up to join the attack.
I am very much enjoying the game overall, but I think this is one specific area that could be significantly improved.
