I noticed that many castles and towns have what seem to be multiple layers of defensive structures, but most of it never gets used. Currently, sieges boil down to a battle for the wall, and defenders will continue to try and reinforce these positions even after they've been overwhelmed.
Instead, there should be secondary and tertiary lines of defense within a town/castle that the AI will fall back to after taking a certain % of casualties, culminating in retreating back to the keep after these other positions have also fallen. This way, sieges are more about battling through a city or castle, rather than just taking the outer wall and calling it a day. Can provide examples if necessary.
Additionally, outside of the battle, there could be extra functionality for siege weaponry. Currently, siege weapons will only fire if a target is present, such as an enemy siege weapon or walls. What if instead there was an option to continue bombarding a settlement after all of the defenses were destroyed? This could have several consequences.
1) cause greater damage to the enemy army, reducing their numbers over time and making a final assault easier. This could also have the secondary effect of allowing smaller armies to siege a town or castle and whittle down the defenders over time if left unopposed. Essentially give the AI a reason to lay siege without needing a huge army ratio before attempting one.
2) have a chance to damage infrastructure, reducing the level of projects so that they would need to be rebuilt. I think having a system where projects can be reduced/rebuilt/maintained is necessary because right now they're permanent once built, so after a certain amount of time in game all projects in all settlements are maxed out and there's nothing more to do with them.
3) have a chance to reduce the population and impose a loyalty penalty if conquered. The idea being that this strategy will cause collateral damage as residential areas are struck by the random bombardment, homes are destroyed, and civilians killed. If you successfully conquer the town after doing this, the population will be resentful of the conquerors who murdered their friends/family.
Instead, there should be secondary and tertiary lines of defense within a town/castle that the AI will fall back to after taking a certain % of casualties, culminating in retreating back to the keep after these other positions have also fallen. This way, sieges are more about battling through a city or castle, rather than just taking the outer wall and calling it a day. Can provide examples if necessary.
Additionally, outside of the battle, there could be extra functionality for siege weaponry. Currently, siege weapons will only fire if a target is present, such as an enemy siege weapon or walls. What if instead there was an option to continue bombarding a settlement after all of the defenses were destroyed? This could have several consequences.
1) cause greater damage to the enemy army, reducing their numbers over time and making a final assault easier. This could also have the secondary effect of allowing smaller armies to siege a town or castle and whittle down the defenders over time if left unopposed. Essentially give the AI a reason to lay siege without needing a huge army ratio before attempting one.
2) have a chance to damage infrastructure, reducing the level of projects so that they would need to be rebuilt. I think having a system where projects can be reduced/rebuilt/maintained is necessary because right now they're permanent once built, so after a certain amount of time in game all projects in all settlements are maxed out and there's nothing more to do with them.
3) have a chance to reduce the population and impose a loyalty penalty if conquered. The idea being that this strategy will cause collateral damage as residential areas are struck by the random bombardment, homes are destroyed, and civilians killed. If you successfully conquer the town after doing this, the population will be resentful of the conquerors who murdered their friends/family.
