ORIGINAL: Arsan
You might have heard about Boston 1775 siege for example [;)]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Boston
No need to go to WW2 to look for examples of need to blockade a port to effectively siege...
Another WIA era example: Louisbourg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Louisbourg_(1758)
I'm not saying it's not possible for supplies and replacements to pass, i am saying since there's no safety control on the minimum size of a force required to siege a settlement this development choice leaves no solution but to exclude supply and reinforcements from all besieged structures regardless of the presence of a port.
It looks to me the best solution is to add such check adding a minimum requirement of units (or men) to siege a structure according to its level. When in presence of a port, more units would be required to also achieve the blockade by land (unless you blockade from the sea of course so it's 1 check for ordinary settlements and 2 checks for settlements with ports).
Another important achievement of such control would be that the party inside the unbesieged structure, (control 1 or 1+1 not beaten by manpower), would be allowed to get out of the structure and into the region, handle the posture buttons changing the MC in the zone and actually react to a "siege attempt" without need of assistance from rescue parties. This thing would definitely help the AI fight better especially since it's still incapable of real sea operations and solve once and for all the problem that 100 men can siege effectively against 100.000 at present time.
There are hundreds of settlements scattered on the map and the problem is not just port-related. This choice was illogical but it's never too late to change it. Actually i'd say it's quite time to do something about the sieges.
Anyway...as i said, let's see this new prototype and hope at least the problem can be reduced but i think without this double check it can never be eliminated unless someone else has a better idea in merit, in which case i'd love to hear it.
