Sieges too long?

Crown of Glory: Europe in the Age of Napoleon, the player controls one of the crowned potentates of Europe in the Napoleonic Era, wielding authority over his nation's military strategy, economic development, diplomatic relations, and social organization. It is a very thorough simulation of the entire Napoleonic Era - spanning from 1799 to 1820, from the dockyards in Lisbon to the frozen wastes of Holy Mother Russia.

Moderators: Gil R., ericbabe

Post Reply
User avatar
carnifex
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 8:47 pm
Location: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W

Sieges too long?

Post by carnifex »

The Napoleonic Wars were not wars of sieges. They were wars between armies, and once one side was beaten on the field, the other either received the surrender or freely flowed across the countryside, pursuing the remnants and ravaging the environs.

With the advances in artillery, most cities simply surrendered upon the approach of the enemy if a friendly force wasn't near enough to protect them. Indeed, if one looks at the record, it becomes apparent that most sieges were resolved within one month:
Sieges lasting less than 1 month:

San Sebastian 7/25 - 8/31
Flushing 18 days
Badajoz March 3/16 - 4/6
Ciudad Rodrigo 1/8 - 1/19
El-Arish two weeks
Verdun 8/29 - 9/2
Charleroi 06/19 - 06/25
Magdeburg 10/22 - 11/10
Gerona 1 day
2nd Gerona 07/27 - 08/20
Rosas 11/06 - 12/05
Mequinenza 05/16 - 05/24
Almeida 08/15 - 08/27
Tortosa 12/16 - 01/02
Olivenza 01/11 - 01/23
Valencia 12/25 - 01/08
Sieges up to 3 months:

Danzig 55 days
Burgos 9/19 - 10/21
Acre 6 weeks (unsuccessful)
Valenciennes 05/24 - 08/01
Genoa 04/19 - 06/04
Saragossa 06/15 - 08/15
Tarragona 05/03 - 07/28
Sieges lasting more than 3 months:

Toulon 08/27 - 12/19
Stralsund 1/15 - 8/20
Mantua 06/04 - 02/02
Kolberg 03/20 - 07/02
Hamburg 5/30 1813 - 5/27 May 1814

As you can see, there was only one siege which lasted more than 1 year, and that was Davout's defense of Hamburg (It's length is debatable since the Allies didn't really get into it until halfway through, being scared of tangling with the unbeaten Marshal).

CoG, however, is a game of sieges. It is rare that a province falls within a month. Indeed, most cities, even with the most worthless of fortifications and the barest and ill-trained garrison frequently hold out for several months. If one builds the walls up a bit and throws several units to defend, a province can hold out for half a year or longer, easy.

This is reminiscent of the wars of Frederic, but doesn't really hold in the later era.

The number of sieges is ill-represented as well. The above list covers the entire era, from 1792 on. It's not exhaustive, I'm sure you can find a couple more and grow the list from these 28 to maybe 35 or 40, but even then if you play CoG for just a few years you will see 100's of sieges. If you take away all the Peninsular sieges, which comprise the majority of recorded ones, then recorded sieges become even scarcer.

This arguable flaw of siege mechanics in CoG is most apparent when dealing with minor countries. Historically, these little provincialities simply did not resist. When a major army came marching through these were quick to throw themselves down in order not to incite the invader to rape their entire country rotten. That was the reality of the time - if you resisted you were doomed, albeit at a later date, and now having incurred the wrath of the power you dared challenge from behind your walls. I don't believe there is a single instance of a minor power being besieged - all recorded sieges were part of major conflicts. Principalities like Thuringia simply fell over and yielded, and yet here I am five turns into reducing their walls.

Now you can make the argument that a siege in CoG represents more than just the assault on the walls, that this is the investment you had to make to pacify the province, to make the population pliant and obedient, and to assure supply lines. But this is covered by the guerilla mechanic, and certainly doesn't need a force of several divisions and artillery corps to accomplish over many months time. As I said, the wars were between armies. Control of provinces was accomplished either through political means, or long after the armies passed through.

Another argument is that most wars in CoG are frequently lost or won through the occupation of the capital province, whose -250 morale hit makes such occupation very expensive to the defender, even in the short run, and that this hit is taken without having to siege said capital, so it's not like sieging other provinces is neccessary. This however proves my point though I believe, since if sieges are not necessary, why are they modelled they way they are?

I tried to mod the game by reducing every wall and gun value to nothing just to see how that would work, but in the end that was counterproductive, since the wall value also represents the amount of troops you can garrison in the city, and also I could not stop the AI from building up the walls again.

Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Sometimes I feel like I am playing Crown of Sieges, and this spoils the Napoleonic flavor I'm trying to experience. I wish I could reduce siege length by at least half across the board, but there doesn't seem to be a way by modding the files available to be modded.
User avatar
jimwinsor
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:53 pm
Contact:

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by jimwinsor »

I dunno; I've gotten pretty good at sieging myself. I can usually take a city in 3-4 months, which is not bad.

Assuming 10K defenders, I start out Starving them. Starve reliably and predictably kills about 30% of the garrison (with the nice added bonus of no losses to you). So, 2 turns of this will get them down to 5K.

Then I switch to Fire. If I can get a breach, I'll probably cause about 2-5K defender casualties (as opposed to only 1K if I keep Starving them). Now, the thing is, I don't really need to kill everyone. Units disband if under 2K, so if I can kill 3K in the assault I win, basically. A three turn siege. Now its true that the city may still technically be enemy controlled...but with no more enemy garrison, a single militia left in the province to take over as the new occupying force is all I need; the rest of the sieging army is free to leave and do other important things (assuming its safe to leave the province weakly defended by that lone militia standing in the open, of course). So I count that result as a three-turner...even though I don't officially take possession until the start of turn 4.

If I fail to get a breach, and hence only kill a few hundred...try try again, and Fire again.

If I only kill 1-2K and just miss disbanding the defender, then I get a bit irked and order my guys to Charge the Walls. Since the defender is down to 2-3K I can afford to be a bit reckless, and all I really need a breach; any breach should either cause a disband (or take the city outright). Either way this makes it a 4 turn siege in my book.

Now, if the defender stuffs the city with 2 or more divisions, all the better, IMO...the initial Starve casualties will be huge. Example, lets say two extra garrison divisions: 30K - 10K Starving = 20K; 20K - 7K Starving = 13K; 13K - 4K Starving = 9K. So those 2 extra divisions are annialated, and only bought the defender a measly 3 extra months. Not really worth it IMO.

The only obvious exception to my Starve-over-5K policy is an unblockaded port; here the best you can really do is Fire-Fire-Fire away. If the defender stuffs the city it'll be a long, costly siege (as it should be, I suppose).
Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd
User avatar
carnifex
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 8:47 pm
Location: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by carnifex »

I can usually take a city in 3-4 months, which is not bad.

Yes, this is good within the confines of the game system, but if this represents a "good" siege then it's quite ahistorical, since few sieges in that era went that long.
User avatar
ericbabe
Posts: 11852
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:57 am
Contact:

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by ericbabe »

You make a persuasive argument! I'd studied the sieges of Mantua, Hamburg, Toulon, and the sieges of the Russian-Ottoman war (some of which lasted quite a long time) during research for CoG, and took these as guidelines for the siege rules. But perhaps these should be more the exception than the rule.

During development we tended to do most of our balance/fun playtesting in games that were either short time-length (10 year campaign is probably the longest) or had relatively small glory requirements for victory (between 1,000 and 3,000). In the shorter games, I think there aren't as many full sieges as you describe, certainly not hundreds and hundreds. In a game that's a race to 2,000 glory, most sieges are a waste of valuable time.

Since releasing COG, I've learned that a lot of players really like the long campaign games with no glory goal (we added the 23 year option by popular demand). Unfortunately some of our work at balancing the game doesn't hold very well for long games. Sieges are one of these things, and also the feudal levy, privateers and merchants, some provincial improvements, and the value of some treaty clauses.

To better balance sieges, we could try increasing the power of besieging a province and increasing the cost of gun improvements. It would still be nice to have some long sieges -- siege of Mantua was eight months and involved some interesting battles in attempted relief, so I wouldn't want to upset the system entirely.

Image
User avatar
jimwinsor
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:53 pm
Contact:

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by jimwinsor »

True, but then, if like you mentioned above...you consider the whole exercise an abstracted effort to pacify the entire province (and you know, there are in reality lots of little walled cities and forts in that province that, due to the game scale, are NOT being represented directly...but indirectly by that one city on the map), then it does not feel so out of whack, IMO.
Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd
User avatar
carnifex
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 8:47 pm
Location: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by carnifex »

To better balance sieges, we could try increasing the power of besieging a province and increasing the cost of gun improvements. It would still be nice to have some long sieges -- siege of Mantua was eight months and involved some interesting battles in attempted relief, so I wouldn't want to upset the system entirely.

This is a valid point. If you reduce the siege length on a wholesale basis, then you might run into the problem where some sieges are too easy. For example, Gibraltar was a very tough nut to crack, and if you make sieges more effective, then the Brits will wind up losing that precious gem too easily. And the aforementioned Hamburg also, which didn't really fall but was surrendered by Davout when he confirmed that Napoleon abdicated.

Perhaps instead of a linear progression vis a vis wall effectiveness, each level of walls would be twice as effective as the previous, so that cities with low level walls would fall relatively quickly, but those with a high level would be nigh impossible to crack.
sieges of the Russian-Ottoman war

I missed any reference to these in my searches. My bad.
True, but then, if like you mentioned above...you consider the whole exercise an abstracted effort to pacify the entire province (and you know, there are in reality lots of little walled cities and forts in that province that, due to the game scale, are NOT being represented directly...but indirectly by that one city on the map), then it does not feel so out of whack, IMO.

My point was that this whole pacification process did not take place in terms of sieges. The most that happened was that some elements refused to accept the military reality and retired to the countryside to continue guerrila-like operations. Cities themselves did not resist. So if you want to crank up the guerrila generation then that would be fine, but to use the the siege mechanic to represent this would be out of place with historical reality.
User avatar
Russian Guard
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:05 am

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by Russian Guard »


This is an excellent thread.

Carniflex you are dead-on regarding the historical issue of sieges, vs. the way they play out in COG. I had assumed that this was a necessary - albeit ahistorical - function to make game-play more balanced.

Your idea for non-linear defensive value increase for walls/guns is a good one, although I don't believe it can be as simple as doubling each previous level - otherwise, Cities like Vienna (for example) might become a Mantua-like fortress relatively easily, which would be equally ahistorical since the rules don't take into account the sheer size of a city and the relative time and expense involved in fortifying a city that size with those kinds of defenses.

Currently, Gibraltar starts with 8 guns and 6 walls - Vienna starts with 4 Guns and 7 walls. Building Vienna to 8 Guns shouldn't make Vienna a tougher a nut to crack than Gibraltar, IMO.

I could see city-building taking on a new emphasis, with ahistorical fortresses popping up all over Europe [;)]







User avatar
ericbabe
Posts: 11852
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:57 am
Contact:

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by ericbabe »

I could add exceptions to the siege rules for provinces that are tougher to besiege. I'll have to think some more about the most flexible way to do this.

Image
Grand_Armee
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:18 am

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by Grand_Armee »

I think you guys underestimate the importance of seiges in the Napoleonic wars. They did happen, and there are places where they should have happened...like the Prussian fortresses in 1806 that just gave in for no other reason than their shattered confidence in the army and their fear of the invincible French.

There are places where they couldn't really happen. Vienna was one city that was pretty much undefendable as a fortress...Dresden was another. Even Paris' defences were easily by-passable. Places like Magdeburg and Mantua were unassailable without the tools of seigework. Smolensk had walls, but they didn't keep the French at bay for long.

But then, where would this leave us gamewise? A quick march into Saxony would denude a player quickly of those Saxon forces at his command. Enemy cities would fall so quickly that there would be no chance to keep minors as minors. Then, you'd have to use surrender treaties to get them back as YOUR conquered states. Then you'd have to make them from scratch.

So, gamewise seiges are needed. You can force countries to surrender to you without stepping foot on to their territory. This of course takes some good victories on your part. And...maybe this is just my estimation, it seems that they surrender easier if you beat them in QB.
Reiryc
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by Reiryc »

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I could add exceptions to the siege rules for provinces that are tougher to besiege. I'll have to think some more about the most flexible way to do this.


Heh, change the turn length to represent 2 weeks or 1 week and adjust the time for builds accordingly. [8D]

Granted this would be a huge change so it's not a real suggestion, but I think it would be the most obvious fix.
Image
User avatar
jimwinsor
Posts: 1077
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:53 pm
Contact:

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by jimwinsor »

One way to make certain sieges historically shorter (or longer) would be to increase (or decrease) the chance of a garrison surrendering based on the proximity of a potential relief army. Cities will occasionally (and randomly?) surrender early already in this game, so this is just an existing game feature that would be tweaked.

Like GA mentioned above...alot of tough Prussian forts in 1806 just gave up quickly...wisely, since their national army had been crushed, and any siege would have been a doomed one for them. Had that not been the case, they most likely would have put up a fight (?) So maybe this is something to consider adding....greatly increased instant surrender chance if no viable relief in sight.

BTW side note on Gibralter...in many of my games I've seen it fall. By the Spanish, and even by the French...the AI France likes to sail Napoleon's army to the Rock on turn one of the 1796 scenario, and I've seen the AI Brits nonchalantly let this happen. Unless the Brits really concentrate of reinforcing the militia there, it can be taken...2-4 breaches should do it. Of course I doubt a player Brit would let this happen so often.

Streaming as "Grognerd" at https://www.twitch.tv/grognerd
Gresbeck
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:39 am
Location: Ferrara - Florence

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by Gresbeck »

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor

True, but then, if like you mentioned above...you consider the whole exercise an abstracted effort to pacify the entire province (and you know, there are in reality lots of little walled cities and forts in that province that, due to the game scale, are NOT being represented directly...but indirectly by that one city on the map), then it does not feel so out of whack, IMO.


Good point. I have alway thought that sieges shouldn't be considered as a conquer of the capital city, but they should be considered as absractions for the conquer and control of the entire infrastructure of the province. Supply rules seem to be based on this assumption, as I wrote in an old post. If this is the case, the time requred to control the whole province cannot be compared with historical time needed to conquer single cities.
User avatar
Russian Guard
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:05 am

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by Russian Guard »

ORIGINAL: Grand_Armee

But then, where would this leave us gamewise? A quick march into Saxony would denude a player quickly of those Saxon forces at his command. Enemy cities would fall so quickly that there would be no chance to keep minors as minors. Then, you'd have to use surrender treaties to get them back as YOUR conquered states. Then you'd have to make them from scratch.

I had thought about this issue as well. We wouldn't want to see minors changing sides 5 times during a long campaign, as different nations conquered that minor.

Conversely, however, the length of time sieges currently take means I can ignore threats to my minors almost completely, and this contributes to the "race to each other's Capitals" that most campaigns devolve into.

I think the ideas floated here across this thread can tie together nicely, and would alleviate these concerns.

1) Make sieges easier (increase the losses taken by defenders so that sieges take approx half the time they take now) - this will still make sieges take longer than historical but eliminate the 9 month sieges of Vienna, for example

2) Set (as per Eric's post) special case rules for known historical fortresses like Mantua or Hamburg or Gibraltar (and others) so that they are tougher nuts to crack

3) Tie the (currently random?) chance of surrender of the garrison outright, to that Nation's NML value - this would have the added effect of making sieges easier and easier once you started having success militarily against that Nation

4) Building new walls and guns for cities will still increase the number of troops that can defend in garrison, and do more damage to sieging forces

I don't think these changes are incompatible with the notion that sieges are an abstract of control of the whole province, I think they tie in nicely actually. Particularly tying in the NML of that Nation, to the siege surrender chances. A populace in a Province is less likely to hold out in their towns and villages, if their Nation is falling apart around them.



User avatar
ericbabe
Posts: 11852
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:57 am
Contact:

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by ericbabe »

I like tying that outright-surrender chance into NML -- it is a constant small chance right now.
Image
User avatar
canuck64
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 1:27 am

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by canuck64 »

Simply put, why not make the cost of improving walls and guns prohibitive to all but the wealthiest of input? In other words, start with the cities that historically had huge fortresses, make them so. (easily done)....and reduce the standard to a wall and a gun, make the cost of upgrading these developments (if we agree they double in power) double what they are now in money and resources to improve?

Playing Prussia, with limited resources, should start me with some decent fortresses. Berlin wouldn't be one of them-so if I as the Prussian player adopt a defensive strategy, I'm looking at making a clear-cut decision between improving my army, adding more troops, etc. OR sinking the precious few resources and money Prussia starts with into improving, say, the fortress building of Berlin?
I grant you there are ramifications to garrisoning. But this would have the effect of even militia participating in more battles outside of merely garrison duty(ugh). It would reduce the size of the armies in some case, but I don't think to the point where it would be ahistorical....
To compensate, possibly improve the fighting abilities of militia wholesale? Just a touch?
User avatar
carnifex
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 8:47 pm
Location: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by carnifex »

I've tried to reduce siege length by capping Militia at 5000 men. I reduced their build cost to make up for it. Since Militia comprise the majority if not all garrisons on board, this should allow the attacker to chew through the city quicker. I don't know how that's working out yet - only on the first test game.
User avatar
Russian Guard
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:05 am

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by Russian Guard »


Any report on how this Mod is working? Another thing it brings to the table is that a nation can choose to better defend their cities (make the sieges take longer) by garrisoning their cities with better (non-militia) troops. But of couse, that trade-off means you have quality/more expensive troops stuck in garrison, being lost to siege atacks.






User avatar
1LTRambo
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:45 pm

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by 1LTRambo »

This has been an interesting thread to read and I would like to add some comments.

First of all, games become ahistorical once a player makes their first decision because it is normally made in light of modern perceptions of warfare. However, I do understand the desire to maintain the Napoleonic feel of the era and thus, the game mechanics need to reflect the paramiters in which historical actors made decisions. Therefore, I agree with the comments that surrender chances during a siege should be tied to something like NML and others like supply, opposing army size and strength, etc. This way there are more factors to the decision of whether to maintain a siege than just the city factors themselves.

Second, sieges, though not everyday occurances, did occur and should not be removed from the game. However, historical fortresses should be fortresses and cities should be cities. In other words, fortresses should be heavely defended and difficult to take while cities would have weak defences and be much easier to conquer, and improvements should be costly enough (historical) to prohibit largescale upgrades, especially by Minor Powers.

In this manner, conquering provinces would occur in a more historical context.
Matthew T. Rambo
User avatar
Hard Sarge
Posts: 22145
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: garfield hts ohio usa
Contact:

RE: Sieges too long?

Post by Hard Sarge »

ORIGINAL: carnifex

I've tried to reduce siege length by capping Militia at 5000 men. I reduced their build cost to make up for it. Since Militia comprise the majority if not all garrisons on board, this should allow the attacker to chew through the city quicker. I don't know how that's working out yet - only on the first test game.

not so sure that is a great idea, what is the human player going to do ?
they will just stock there cities with Inf and have twice the staying power of the AI
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Crown of Glory”