Excessive casualties for beseiging units

[Icedawg]

I think I must be seriously doing something wrong here or the game is way too excessive in dishing out casualties for the first turn of a siege.

I started a July 1861 game as CSA and immediately besieged the Union fort in Northern Florida using the army of Pensacola. I thought I'd start the siege with the two infantry brigades present in the Army of Pensacola, bring in a few brigades from nearby Alabama and transport the siege artillery located in SC to join in.

When I got the siege message at the end of turn 1, I was dismayed at the number of casualties I sustained. I lost something like 3000 men straight away. One of the two initial brigades was apparently completely destroyed as I could not locate it anywhere. I wanted to test this to see if it was a bug or just a weird individual outcome, so I tried it again. The same thing happened.

Is this a bug, or does the game actually intend to simulate these high casualties?

[nmleague]

Are you using the fast seige setting?  After reading ready the PBEM AAR I thought the sieges of forts was crazy, in real life Fort Henry felll in one day and Fort Donellson in about 5 days, it seems that forts fell fairly fast in the war, the siege of cities on the other hand were much longer.  In my games Im using the fast siege setting and it seems more realistic.   If a fort is attacked the losses would be high but in a siege when the sieging forces are behind works using artillary to reduce the defenses then losses should be low.  

[jonreb31]

I don't have that much experience but did you set your units to Assault? That can usually be disasterous.

[Hard Sarge]

intended

Seige are/were bloody and deadly, at least that is what is wanted to be shown

you need numbers, you need Engs, you need Seige Arty/Gunboats

(which in your case, to be honest, 2 Bdes trying to beseige 1 or more is not going to turn out too well, even if more troops are on the way)

over all, you should look at sieges as a Major Oper and only do them when you know you are ready

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: nmleague
but in a siege when the sieging forces are behind works using artillary to reduce the defenses then losses should be low.

yes, and agree, but he did not have siege guns or the engs to build works to hide behind

[Gil R.]

If you had inferior troops, that could also explain the high casualties.

If you want to minimize casualties during a siege go with the "entrench" or "encirclement" options.

[Icedawg]

I thought the manual said you can only select the siege option after the first turn of the siege. The manual seems to indicate that on the first turn there is just a generic option to start a siege. On subsequent turns, you alter the siege strategy - which I then did. I opted for "encircle" and the casualties on successive turns were reasonable. My problem was just the first turn - 50+% casualties?! What did my guys do, some kind of Pickett's Charge after setting up the siegeworks or what?

[Icedawg]

No, I was not using the fast siege option.

If a fort is attacked the losses would be high but in a siege when the sieging forces are behind works using artillary to reduce the defenses then losses should be low.

I wasn't attacking, I was setting up a siege. I assume this to mean that the besiegers are setting themselves up in defensive positions well out of range of the fort's guns. Maybe I'm assuming too much, but I thought the purpose of a siege was to avoid combat and starve out the garrison - just cut the flow of food/supply into the fort and eventually the folks inside will waste away and surrender when some of them start keeling over.

[Icedawg]

No I didn't set them to assault.

On the first turn of a siege, I don't think you have an option of setting a strategy. It's just a generic initiation of the siege.

[Gil R.]

Yes. Your guys show up and begin a "Normal" siege and then realize that the fort/city will not fall right away, so their commander decides they'd better try an encirclement, outright attack, etc.

As for the large initial casualties, I don't know this for a fact, but perhaps the "faster sieges" option accelerates casualties too, so that you suffer about the same level of casualties but in fewer turns.

[TimoN]

My experience so far has been that each brigade stationed inside the fort will deal 2000+ damage to single random besieging brigade at the start of the siege. This usually means that the brigade is in high risk of being disbanded after the turn.
I have lost numerous brigades this way by using standard siege settings. I really hurts if it is one of your best legendary brigades.

Casualties are in right level, but they should be spread out to more numerous or all besieging brigades. I'll put this suggestion into the wish list thread as well.

[carnifex]

Yeah, it makes no sense for a brigade to take 90% casualties while the others are barely scratched.  

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: TimoN

My experience so far has been that each brigade stationed inside the fort will deal 2000+ damage to single random besieging brigade at the start of the siege. This usually means that the brigade is in high risk of being disbanded after the turn.
I have lost numerous brigades this way by using standard siege settings. I really hurts if it is one of your best legendary brigades.

Casualties are in right level, but they should be spread out to more numerous or all besieging brigades. I'll put this suggestion into the wish list thread as well.

I'm not sure about the casualties being "about right". The whole purpose of a siege is to starve out your enemy, thereby avoiding combat just about entirely. Why should there be any casualties at all? If I'm setting up well outside of some city or fort and concentrating on simply cutting off supplies, the only way there should be combat is if the enemy launches an attack from the city/fort (the garrison comes out to fight) or if the enemy sends an outside force to break the siege.

I think the solution would be for future patches to allow the besieger to specify the type of siege right away (on turn 1 of the siege). Wouldn't that make sense?

[Hard Sarge]

ORIGINAL: TimoN

My experience so far has been that each brigade stationed inside the fort will deal 2000+ damage to single random besieging brigade at the start of the siege. This usually means that the brigade is in high risk of being disbanded after the turn.
I have lost numerous brigades this way by using standard siege settings. I really hurts if it is one of your best legendary brigades.

Casualties are in right level, but they should be spread out to more numerous or all besieging brigades. I'll put this suggestion into the wish list thread as well.

this was the way the designer seen it and wanted it to work, part of the idea is, Seiges are not something you jump into lightly

plus wait until later in the game, with reseach and weapons, you can take 10-12000 losses in a round, but shame on you if you do not have the right stuff to do the seige with, you need Seige guns with good weapons, you need Engs, and maybe a few Med Attachements too

but I will say, I normally if I can get around it, Seige with my combat Crops, I try to make a Seige Corps that follow behind the front to take out the fort/cities

plus if it is a River area, Gunboats are very helpful, they provide the Arty and most times take the damage

[carnifex]

plus wait until later in the game, with reseach and weapons, you can take 10-12000 losses in a round,

seems totally ahistorical to me

im going to take 10k casualties for initiating a siege?  none of the Civil War sieges produced anything like that level of casualties unless the result of a deliberate attack - which apparently the game forces you to do as soon as you arrive.

i suspect this is not the result of a conscious design decision but rather due to the mechanic of how sieges are represented - since movement is not actually carried out during the orders phase the siegeworks icon is not present and therefore you can't specifiy the siege type at that time so it was simpler to just wait afterwards

[Hard Sarge]

Well, I can't talk on that side of things, as I not doing that side of things

what I am saying, we got siege upgrades, that allow more damage or less damage, we got fort upgrades and other upgrades (reseach areas)

you can buy upgrades for the fort (rifle pits, wire, hosp)

you can buy better weapons for the Fort and for the troops

which during the seige, you can also destroy Forts, if the firepower on your side is good enough

it depends on what is going on

a Fort with IWs weapons and one poorly trained Garrison troop with IWs is going to be a easy target

but a Fort with a Heavy Gun, and 2 Rifle pits, and 3 Inf Bdes with decent training armmed with Spencers and Gattlings and Arty is going to be a mother to take

and it should be

LOL, I got shivers thinking about that Fort, I do not want to see that bugger

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

plus wait until later in the game, with reseach and weapons, you can take 10-12000 losses in a round,

seems totally ahistorical to me

im going to take 10k casualties for initiating a siege?  none of the Civil War sieges produced anything like that level of casualties unless the result of a deliberate attack - which apparently the game forces you to do as soon as you arrive.

i suspect this is not the result of a conscious design decision but rather due to the mechanic of how sieges are represented - since movement is not actually carried out during the orders phase the siegeworks icon is not present and therefore you can't specifiy the siege type at that time so it was simpler to just wait afterwards

This is my point exactly. The game is calling an attack on a fort or a city a siege, but that is inaccurate. A siege is (generally) a passive strategy taken when an enemy position is too strong to taken by assault. You cut off the supply source and wait for surrender as starvation looms. As is, the game doesn't really allow you to do this until after the first turn of the siege. By then it's too late - you've lost half of your army to these ridiculous 1st turn casualties (even with the quicker siege option turned off).

[Icedawg]

"but a Fort with a Heavy Gun, and 2 Rifle pits, and 3 Inf Bdes with decent training armmed with Spencers and Gattlings and Arty is going to be a mother to take"

But what if you don't want to "take" it by assault? What if you want to starve them out? They might have monster weaponry and huge stocks of powder and shells which can sit there forever if no assault occurs. They do have to eat however, and food will dwindle whether an assault takes place or not. That's the point I'm trying to make.

Historically, this was the norm for siege warfare. Very exciting? No. Very effective at reducing besieger casualties? Yes. Most sieges were long and dull, but safe (from the point of the besieging army). And if I want to have long, dull, but safe sieges, the game doesn't let me. So, if there's no patch, I'm not even going to bother sieging forts and cities as the CSA player. It's just not worth it in terms of the huge casualties it looks like I'm going to get socked with.

[Hard Sarge]

Yea, but Ice

the seige you were talking about is no where close to what you are comparing the seiges of the area to ?

that fort got a 42 inch gun, and 3000 men, you had 4000 men with lousy rifles ?

in real life, you would of gotten hammered too ??

no where on your line would you of been able to stand up to the troops with in the fort, if they came out, and they would of came out and walked all over you

I not saying I agree with the system, just telling how it works, and what to plan on happening if you do it

count the first turn as the march to contact, that is normally more costly then once the seige is able to be set up and begins

[Icedawg]

So I guess for now, the game requires contact to start a siege. I guess I could just wait in the province for those garrisons to starve simply due to lack of a supply line (they're way down in Florida and at the start of the game supply by sea is going to be a bit difficult for the USA, I think).

Hopefully my suggestion in the wish list thread will materialize. There I asked if future patches could allow instant encircling strategy with no initial contact (just set up out of reach of the guns and wait for the garrison to starve). If I have roughly equal numbers of troops, the garrison shouldn't attack even to free up their supply line (the guns in the fort should be relatively immobile and hence useless in this counterattacking situation). And if they do attack, I would gladly welcome a defending situation with roughly equal numbers of troops.