Page 1 of 2
Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:58 pm
by CeltiCid
Hi, after some time of playing, i found that the sieges are just too easy for attacker. I always found that the attacker suffers only small looses, and the defender looses all his forces in the first turn of the siege.
After playing FoF for 2 years, i can say FoF sieges are very optimized(specially with last patch). In CoW:EE you can siege without any danger: you will suffer small looses and you will conquer the castle in the first month...
If you win all land battles you can conquer any country in a few months...that is unrealistic.
It is no sense put soldiers on defenses, they will be crushed anyway very easily.
What do you think? should not the sieges be more hard for attackers?
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:01 pm
by Franck
I did take 3 months to siege one single city... But that was against Hesse with only 40K troops
But I have no insight into the era so I don't know what would ''feel'' right... But from what I know it surely doesn't seem like siege were slowing napoleon donw...
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:05 pm
by Joram
Think about the fact that you have 100k+ troops besieging an area, often just a principal city and I can see it falling pretty darn quick. If you besiege with a small 30-40k man corps, it can take several turns.
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:13 pm
by CeltiCid
ORIGINAL: Joram
Think about the fact that you have 100k+ troops besieging an area, often just a principal city and I can see it falling pretty darn quick. If you besiege with a small 30-40k man corps, it can take several turns.
anyway. Attackers looses are ridicoulous.
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:15 pm
by Joram
In the manner that they are so light you mean?
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:29 pm
by Hard Sarge
also, how many walls and how many guns are there, plus if you have more troops on defence, they last longer
the main idea, is to hold out for one month, so you can respond with your field troops
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:30 pm
by CeltiCid
yes
A force of 80k siege 8k force.
attacker looses:1500
defender: 8000
i know defenders was outnumbered but...
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:37 pm
by Joram
I can't respond specifically to your issue CeltiCid because frankly I'm so used to it I really don't find it an issue. Sorry. [&:]
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:16 pm
by Russian Guard
I know I'm rationalizing here, but then we all have to do that to play a game, right?
Point is - I do not think the defender losses of 8,000 mean that many killed. It means that that many surrendered/KIA/deserted/whatever.
I would agree that if you put other than Militia troops in a city, it should be harder to siege, but that's not in the game. Sieges are an abstract part of how long it takes to get control of a province, make it "occupied". A month seems long enough unless the city has a known fortress, and there are a few in the game - Gibraltar being one (can't remember the names of the others, I know there's one in Finland and Turkey). Or if you don't have sufficient numbers of troops and it takes longer.
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:41 pm
by Rexor
ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
I would agree that if you put other than Militia troops in a city, it should be harder to siege, but that's not in the game. Sieges are an abstract part of how long it takes to get control of a province, make it "occupied". A month seems long enough unless the city has a known fortress, and there are a few in the game - Gibraltar being one (can't remember the names of the others, I know there's one in Finland and Turkey). Or if you don't have sufficient numbers of troops and it takes longer.
Wait a minute. You can't put anything but militia inside cities to defend them? In FoF, fortresses and cities were like containers. Is that not the case in CoG:EE?
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:43 pm
by ericbabe
We made most sieges much easier because there was a lot of complaint about the role of sieges in the original game -- people said the game didn't feel Napoleonic to have to stop and wait for sieges to resolve all the time. So in most provinces, sieges are an after-thought. (That's not true if you have a small army; sieges can be a real pain if you try playing Bavaria in 1805.) We kept a few provinces that are more difficult to siege (Gibraltar, Danzig, Peterwardein, et al.) that correspond to historically very fortified areas.
You can mod the siege protection value in every province, so if you want to make sieges more difficult everywhere, this can be done easily with a mod.
I've always been tempted to make provinces hard to besiege during "total war" better to simulate the Peninsular Campaign, but we have not done this yet and most people who have tested total war in the Spanish theater think it is hard enough as it is.
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:56 pm
by Joram
ORIGINAL: Rexor
ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
I would agree that if you put other than Militia troops in a city, it should be harder to siege, but that's not in the game. Sieges are an abstract part of how long it takes to get control of a province, make it "occupied". A month seems long enough unless the city has a known fortress, and there are a few in the game - Gibraltar being one (can't remember the names of the others, I know there's one in Finland and Turkey). Or if you don't have sufficient numbers of troops and it takes longer.
Wait a minute. You can't put anything but militia inside cities to defend them? In FoF, fortresses and cities were like containers. Is that not the case in CoG:EE?
No, that's not what he is saying, he's just saying higher quality troops don't significantly withstand sieges better.
RE: Sieges
Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:58 pm
by CeltiCid
ok i think we should test this better. Mayber better defender tropps/more ammount of them or more walls/cannons can make the attacker spend more time or get more casualities.
When u open a game, the standar defender forces in all countries worth more joining a force than defending an easy siege castle.
RE: Sieges
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:14 am
by Hard Sarge
why not try defending the province then ? , if your going to place a number of troops there, put them in as a standing Army/Corps and let them defend
RE: Sieges
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:20 am
by Rexor
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
why not try defending the province then ? , if your going to place a number of troops there, put them in as a standing Army/Corps and let them defend
Good point Hard Sarge. But my concerns are historical, not about game balance/strategy. I defer to posters with more Napoleonic knowledge than I have: Weren't fortifications a bit more important/decisive than this?
RE: Sieges
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:45 am
by Hard Sarge
basicly no, that is why the change, as Eric said, the complaint before was the seiges were taking too long, when they didn't happen that way during this time, outside of a very few MAJOR forts, there was not much month after month sieges going on
so basicly, to defend your lands, you need Corps/Armies, City defenders are mainly to slow down and give you a chance to react
and you can build to improve your walls and guns, the AI will
RE: Sieges
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:23 pm
by Caractacus
Yes Rexor fortifications could be important and decisive in the Napoleonic Wars.
The theatre where this was most true was in the Peninsular. The French sieges of Saragossa and the British sieges of Badajoz and Cuidad Rodrigo shaped the future course of the war. Wellington also besieged Burgos. There was additionally a 6 month attempt by the French to break the British fortified lines of Torres Vedras. I think Cadiz was also beseiged at some point.
Outside of the Peninsular, Kolberg in Prussia was a major siege in 1807. Goebbels made a propaganda film near the end of WW2 about Kolberg to inspire the crumbling Reich. There was also a decisive (for that theatre) siege of Acre when the Turks with British support went on to eject Napoleon from the Holy Land.
Of the ones I've remembered above the majority were actually failures. So I'd argue that sieges should not be a pushover by any means. So, while sieges were not common, they weren't unknown, were costly, and usually had major consequences.
BTW this game looks great - and I'm probably a shoe-in for an order soon
RE: Sieges
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:43 pm
by Rexor
ORIGINAL: Caractacus
Yes Rexor fortifications could be important and decisive in the Napoleonic Wars.
The theatre where this was most true was in the Peninsular. The French sieges of Saragossa and the British sieges of Badajoz and Cuidad Rodrigo shaped the future course of the war. Wellington also besieged Burgos. There was additionally a 6 month attempt by the French to break the British fortified lines of Torres Vedras. I think Cadiz was also beseiged at some point.
Outside of the Peninsular, Kolberg in Prussia was a major siege in 1807. Goebbels made a propaganda film near the end of WW2 about Kolberg to inspire the crumbling Reich. There was also a decisive (for that theatre) siege of Acre when the Turks with British support went on to eject Napoleon from the Holy Land.
Of the ones I've remembered above the majority were actually failures. So I'd argue that sieges should not be a pushover by any means. So, while sieges were not common, they weren't unknown, were costly, and usually had major consequences.
BTW this game looks great - and I'm probably a shoe-in for an order soon
Thanks, Caractacus. Interesting. I'm keeping an eye on the game, as well. Will probably order a physical copy once it's available. I'm just a big fan of sieges (don't know why), so it's a subject I watch carefully in a game like this.
RE: Sieges
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:44 pm
by Russian Guard
ORIGINAL: Caractacus
Yes Rexor fortifications could be important and decisive in the Napoleonic Wars.
The theatre where this was most true was in the Peninsular. The French sieges of Saragossa and the British sieges of Badajoz and Cuidad Rodrigo shaped the future course of the war. Wellington also besieged Burgos. There was additionally a 6 month attempt by the French to break the British fortified lines of Torres Vedras. I think Cadiz was also beseiged at some point.
Outside of the Peninsular, Kolberg in Prussia was a major siege in 1807. Goebbels made a propaganda film near the end of WW2 about Kolberg to inspire the crumbling Reich. There was also a decisive (for that theatre) siege of Acre when the Turks with British support went on to eject Napoleon from the Holy Land.
Of the ones I've remembered above the majority were actually failures. So I'd argue that sieges should not be a pushover by any means. So, while sieges were not common, they weren't unknown, were costly, and usually had major consequences.
BTW this game looks great - and I'm probably a shoe-in for an order soon
This is all correct. I'd point out that in most of these cases - particularly the Peninsular sieges in Spain - the French were not in large strength, and that is somewhat reflected in the game. Sieges are only 1-month no-brainers if you have a large force sieging. If you try to siege with a small force (like a single Corps) it gets more dicey, and they can last several months or more.
But Eric says it best in his response - I remember the complaints about sieges with CoG1 taking too long, and there are a few significant historical fortresses in the game. Try sieging Gibraltar
RE: Sieges
Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:59 pm
by Caractacus
More Napoleonic Era sieges (Gawd Bless Wikipedia)[:)]
Hamburg
Gaeta
Danzig
Almeida
Mainz
Jaffa
El Arish
Toulon
Chaves
Zamosc
San Sebastián
Dunkirk
Copenhagen
Genoa
Mantua
Alexandria
OK, now a bit bored at 202 of the 800 Wikipedia hits on 'napoleonic sieges' ...
Three months seems a common duration for the major ones. Six months isn't unknown though.