Rome II

[Gusington]

IIRC sieges were much less common in Medieval 2 and Shogun 2.

[Philippe]

What I really hate about Rome II and Atilla is that only the regional capital has full fortifications.  That simply has nothing to do with reality.  Most towns in antiquity had walls, even if they weren't always very strong.

Shogun II didn't have this problem.

But even if everything was fortified that was supposed to be fortified, siege mechanics in the Total War series are awful.  Siege engines damaged walls for days or weeks before an assault, not during the assault itself.  The larger siege engines that were capable of damaging walls were carted around the countryside in pieces and never showed up on battlefields.  Damage to walls wasn't even done by catapults most of the time, but by rams and mining.  And for the Romans, the city-killing tactic was to build a large mound of dirt higher than the city walls and flanked by two gently inclined ramps for pushing up mobile assault towers -- the city often surrendered when the mound (agger) was finished and in place.  In any case the Romans were just using and adapting Hellenistic siege technology whose top of the line piece of siege equipment was the helepoleis, a very large multi-story armored tower crammed full of ballistai on every floor that was more like an ancient sturmgeschutz for achieving fire superiority and wasn't a vehicle for delivering assault troops. Catapults were mostly anti-personnel weapons that were designed to allow you to stand beyond bow range and suppress the defenders on a section of wall you were about to assault or skewer anyone foolish enough to attempt a sortie. And if you've read Frontinus, one of the things that you'll remember is that a good commander defending in a siege always puts shallow bowls of water on top of each section of wall and assigns a 24-hour guard to watch them for ripples on the surface, and tries -- usually unsuccessfully -- to keep his troops from fraternizing with the enemy , because most towns fall when somebody bribes someone to open a gate.

But what has me tearing my hair most of the time is the impossibly costly battle that gets waged once you break inside a town.   

[undercovergeek]

I think that's why for the most part they binned them in warhammer - they're there but very rare

[Nefaro]

What I really hate about Rome II and Atilla is that only the regional capital has full fortifications.  That simply has nothing to do with reality.  Most towns in antiquity had walls, even if they weren't always very strong.

Shogun II didn't have this problem.

But even if everything was fortified that was supposed to be fortified, siege mechanics in the Total War series are awful.  Siege engines damaged walls for days or weeks before an assault, not during the assault itself.  The larger siege engines that were capable of damaging walls were carted around the countryside in pieces and never showed up on battlefields.  Damage to walls wasn't even done by catapults most of the time, but by rams and mining.  And for the Romans, the city-killing tactic was to build a large mound of dirt higher than the city walls and flanked by two gently inclined ramps for pushing up mobile assault towers -- the city often surrendered when the mound (agger) was finished and in place.  In any case the Romans were just using and adapting Hellenistic siege technology whose top of the line piece of siege equipment was the helepoleis, a very large multi-story armored tower crammed full of ballistai on every floor that was more like an ancient sturmgeschutz for achieving fire superiority and wasn't a vehicle for delivering assault troops. Catapults were mostly anti-personnel weapons that were designed to allow you to stand beyond bow range and suppress the defenders on a section of wall you were about to assault or skewer anyone foolish enough to attempt a sortie. And if you've read Frontinus, one of the things that you'll remember is that a good commander defending in a siege always puts shallow bowls of water on top of each section of wall and assigns a 24-hour guard to watch them for ripples on the surface, and tries -- usually unsuccessfully -- to keep his troops from fraternizing with the enemy , because most towns fall when somebody bribes someone to open a gate.

But what has me tearing my hair most of the time is the impossibly costly battle that gets waged once you break inside a town.   

Agreed.  Sieges were primarily a waiting game.  The defenders waiting on a relieving army.  Else they would generally surrender at some point, once supplies ran out.

The way it's done in the Total War series is the worst thing about it.  I think that their beefing-up of inherent garrisons was good.  However, you can still cram a full-size 20 unit army in there with them, and continue to hold out for many turns without issue.  That's just ridiculous.   

Then they inevitably sally forth on the next to last auto-win siege turn, or you're forced to attack in order to save time, and they essentially have one and a half armies sitting comfortably well-fed inside the city waiting to pummel you.  I would think that jamming so many extra warm bodies into walled city would make for much more problems in holding out during a siege.

As I mentioned, the easiest solution would be to impose a limit on the army-size allowed to garrison in them.  Or make them suffer increasingly punishing amounts of attrition every turn, the larger the besieged army is.    C:-)

I think that's why for the most part they binned them in warhammer - they're there but very rare

They do seem to happen a bit less in TWarhammer.  The biggest thing of note, for me, was how much they reduced the size & sprawl of the city & fortifications in it, compared to the previous few TWs.  Was very thankful of that.. it was turning into a mess by Attila.

[WallysWorld]

Total War: Rome 2 Empire Divided released today: TW: Rome II Empire Divided

Steam is also download 1.4 GB worth of something for the game. Some say it's patch 18 for the game.

[Gusington]

I would have pre-ordered the new campaign if it wasn't 15.00. I love TW but 15.00 for a new campaign is very high unless it makes my bed and breakfast in the morning.

That said...anyone playing it? If someone here gives it solid praise and explains why it's worth the 15.00 I'll get it.

[Sir Slash]

I hear it will make your bed but not breakfast for you. Though it will give you a 'nice Hawaiian punch'. $15 Is too high for my tastes too. If the new features are all they're made-out to be, I'll probably grab it on a sale.

[Gusington]

Remember, some of the political and diplomatic features are being pushed out for free via Steam patch.

[Sir Slash]

Meanwhile, a new mod for Attila TW. The High Middle Age Mod starting in 1004 AD. Could be a winner.

  http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1215214593 

[MengJiao]

Meanwhile, a new mod for Attila TW. The High Middle Age Mod starting in 1004 AD. Could be a winner.

  http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1215214593

Why 1004 AD?  I would say that is about the time of maximal fragmentation triggering all the Peace of God movements and so on.
Seems like around 1050 would be a nice coherent start (well before the Investiture Contest oh boy).  1004 AD is of course kind of fascinating in its own right. 

[Nefaro]

Meanwhile, a new mod for Attila TW. The High Middle Age Mod starting in 1004 AD. Could be a winner.

  http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1215214593

Says it doesn't have any new units right now.  The same vanilla Attila ones from hundreds of years earlier.  Must be an early WIP.

Remember, some of the political and diplomatic features are being pushed out for free via Steam patch.

I checked out the update. 

While I don't mind Rome 2 and Attila's newer building mechanics, their attempts at adding CK-like family and character politics into these games is underwhelming.  Downright annoying and dull.  I think they need to stop and try a different approach in the future, because what they're doing will never be enjoyable.   :-\ 

Time for a CA intervention.

[Gusington]

I downloaded that 1004 AD mod...will be playing it at some point 'soon.'

[Sir Slash]

Now I guess we know what's Gus playing.

[Martok]

I would have pre-ordered the new campaign if it wasn't 15.00. I love TW but 15.00 for a new campaign is very high unless it makes my bed and breakfast in the morning.

That said...anyone playing it? If someone here gives it solid praise and explains why it's worth the 15.00 I'll get it.

I'm in the same boat as you.  I'm interested in the new campaign (and will probably get it eventually), but right now I can't quite bring myself to spend the 15 schmuckers to get it (actually, it's $17.00 now it's actually released). 

Now I guess we know what's Gus playing.

Unless I miss my guess, he's already hip-deep in his Polish campaign in Medieval 2 (Stainless Steel mod).  O:-) 

[Gusington]

^This is true however I was starting to get my ass kicked by Novgorod and Hungary until they made piece with me late last night. I do miss the newer graphics and gizmos of the newer TW games too. Also, I am intrigued by Pike and Shot.