Questions about sieges

[Alex Gilbert]

I had posted a quick comment earlier that something seemed strange with sieges, so I did a little experimenting. It seemed to me that the less aggressive siege type (encircle) was causing more damage. I ran each of the siege types (Aggressive, Normal, Encircle, Entrench) 5 times and looked at their relative impact. To avoid the higher casualties seen on the first turn, I ran each of these types on the second turn of the siege.

The average results were:

................Besieger Casualty.....Defender Casualty......Fort Damage (before --> after attack)
Aggressive.........12121.....................2963....................63% --> 26% (range 12-40)
Normal................4270.....................1942.....................63% --> 21% (range 9-27)
Encircle.................431.......................186.....................63% --> 8 % (range 1-23)
Entrench..............4088.......................916.....................63% --> 24 % (range 18-30)

Now I am a big fan of the way sieges have been modified in the patch. I think the overall balance and feel of the game is better with a more fluid campaign. I also think that the casualties are appropriate to the various siege types. However, it seems to me that the encircle option should be causing much less fort damage than the other types. (as should entrench) As it is, I see little reason to choose any other type of siege than encircle, as it causes my forces less damage and reduces the fort faster than any other type.

[ericbabe]

Thanks!  Will modify entrench/encircle accordingly.