Watching the first Lets Plays: Did they get rid of town battles and make them field battles?

[Imperator Artorius]

I'd rather be able to play a field battle.

Depends on the quality of the maps/siege mechanics and my mood at the time, but still, the option would be nice and is most definitely historical. I do think CA giving both attackers and defenders more options would make siege battles more interesting but CA as far as Warhammer is concerned seem to be intent on giving us fewer options.

[Renown]

The sieges in this game look far more interesting and challenging than any TW siege to date. A lot of people agree. Deal with it

Another untrue statement, but hey... since the ignorant people are in the majority, just go with what they want. That's never hurt anyone or anything in the long run.

You people are why SEGA thought (and was right to think) that they could get away with offering less on each game, releasing broken games, and splitting up their basic game into DLC packets. I was okay with it too initially, hoping that SEGA would mean more funds and therefore better things in the long run. Guess what? After experiencing SEGA's lead on this game series for over 8 years now I can tell you... it's getting worse.

[♘Top Hat Zebra]

The original Rome had good sieges?

Sometimes, I suppose. But every single settlement was a square. Then, assuming the AI didn't freak out and just stand in range of my towers until their entire army is destroyed, they would attack, and then die in droves against a single phalanx unit.

Sieges in Total War games have always sucked. I have had good, memorable siege battles in every Total War game, but overall, in general, they are all mediocre.

No one is arguing that sieges are great and CA doesn't need to work on them anymore, but likewise, nobody should argue that sieges in the past were great and they would just go back to how they were.

[CK23]

Another untrue statement, but hey... since the ignorant people are in the majority, just go with what they want. That's never hurt anyone or anything in the long run.

You people are why SEGA thought (and was right to think) that they could get away with offering less on each game, releasing broken games, and splitting up their basic game into DLC packets. I was okay with it too initially, hoping that SEGA would mean more funds and therefore better things in the long run. Guess what? After experiencing SEGA's lead on this game series for over 8 years now I can tell you... it's getting worse.

Ignorant because the opinion differs from your negative outlook? Doubtful.

Please, explain to me, what the lure was of the siege battles in all other games outside of WTW? Please let me know, because all I see is broken pathfinding and useless sieges that contributed way more frustration then enjoyment.

[Renown]

... that is what I'm calling ignorant. Because the pathfinding wasn't broken until SEGA took over. Simplistic before hand, sure, but broken? No.

[Renown]

The original Rome had good sieges?

Sometimes, I suppose. But every single settlement was a square. Then, assuming the AI didn't freak out and just stand in range of my towers until their entire army is destroyed, they would attack, and then die in droves against a single phalanx unit.

Sieges in Total War games have always sucked. I have had good, memorable siege battles in every Total War game, but overall, in general, they are all mediocre.

No one is arguing that sieges are great and CA doesn't need to work on them anymore, but likewise, nobody should argue that sieges in the past were great and they would just go back to how they were.

Nobody should argue what? multi-tiered castles? development on AI? M2TW was a half-finished product when SEGA bought it. They had developed new castles/cities but the AI was the last section they were starting major production on, which got axed in favor of updated sparkles (anyone who played M2TW at release knows what I'm talking about) and releasing the game sooner....

Yeah, I think I do want them to go back to how they used to do things. You know, when they developed their game and worked for creative solutions rather then the "Cut" approach they now have.

[CK23]

... that is what I'm calling ignorant. Because the pathfinding wasn't broken until SEGA took over.

Really? I've seen some "ignorant" things in the AI Sieges before SEGA took over. Can you provide examples please? Ya know, to shine light on all the ignorance we have.

Also, please provide evidence that SEGA has directly contributed/damaged what you claim in this game.

[Sir Pignans]

Depends on the quality of the maps/siege mechanics and my mood at the time, but still, the option would be nice and is most definitely historical. I do think CA giving both attackers and defenders more options would make siege battles more interesting but CA as far as Warhammer is concerned seem to be intent on giving us fewer options.

I don't see how having field battles for some settlements and proper sieges for other is unhistorical. On another note, this isn't a historical game. This is a warhammer game. All I want is that not 70-80% of my battles are sieges cause there's no distance between towns. I like variety.

[emcdunna]

Can we all agree, though, that these "field" battles over towns would be better if there was a town in the background? Not in the battlefield, just in the background

[Derpy Hooves]

No. I'd rather have the fight around a town, although the town does not need a capture point. That or have every settlement have walls when the game begins

[Imperator Artorius]

No. I'd rather have the fight around a town, although the town does not need a capture point. That or have every settlement have walls when the game begins

This. Irl every settlement big enough to be represented on a TW campaign map had walls or defences of some kind that an attacker would have had to overcome, and whilst ignorant of Warhammer lore myself, I have seen people argue the same is true, at least of settlements in the Empire (Hopefully someone can clarify this).

Tbh, I think I had more field battles in Rome I and Medieval 2 than the more recent TWs, because the existence of walls meant that an attacking army unless it had artillery or elephants (or used spies) had to wait at least one turn before assaulting in order to build siege equipment, and in fact the AI often waited to starve the player out. This usually gave the player enough time to bring up another army to relieve the siege, thus triggering a field battle. So not only would giving every settlement walls be more realistic, both to real life and to Warhammer lore (apparently), it would make capturing a city harder and more interesting, and also increases the likelihood of field battles.

This therefore makes siege assaults rarer, arguably more meaningful, and makes field battles more likely, without arbitrarily forcing the defenders of certain cities to abandon their positions and fight in the open, thus defeating one of the advantages of defending a city in the first place.

[emcdunna]

It was certainly more difficult to take territory and defend your territy in med2 than in Attila. The AI was perfectly happy with starving you out.

I prefer having more epic sieges.

From a lore perspective, even small towns should all have walls in Warhammer, because there are so many beasts, raiding barbarians, marauding bands and chaos/undead threats to worry about.

Every small town needs to have walls and a garrison if it expects to last more than a few years. however, these walls would mostly be wooden, not stone.

One thing I would have loved to see was far taller walls in cities like altdorf. I mean unrealistically insanely tall. Like 200 feet high. That'd be awesome

[auboy]

You can build walls in any settlement, but there's no more endless cruddy town battles where you camped a single street/alley and won easy peasy

Honestly I like this. Town battles are lame, and now even if you play on super easy mode where the AI never invades (or has any armies to fight you with in the open field) then you can still have a lot of open field battles.

Sieges will be more unique and special. Not "oh god not another town attack. Do I really even need this settlement?"

Exactly!!!

[auboy]

Lol town battle are useful against 4 stack of ai or even more especially if the player is outnumber. CA really limited my strategy lol.

The only thing i don't like w/ sieges is fighting an inanimate object called arrow towers. I just don't like the idea to counter them i need to stand to a specific point to destroy and capture them. Also w/ Attila wasting all my precious arrows and siege ammo to destroy that object. Also those Arrow towers are freaking OP. Luckily there is a mod to make them useless lol

The siege town battle maps are really amazing in my opinion. I love defending on them like one unit holding all the hordes and my precious cavalry charging them on the rear. Tricking the Ai defender to open some holes in there defense forcing my cavalry to attack them to the rear. In my opinion attila TW siege map are really fun except for those dreaded arrow tower.

Your joking right? A cheat against the AI to lure them to get stuck in a corridor and let them bang their head against the wall while you charge the rear and rinse and repeat over and over is fun?? There is no strategy or fun in any of that. Puke

[gyabo]

Your joking right? A cheat against the AI to lure them to get stuck in a corridor and let them bang their head against the wall while you charge the rear and rinse and repeat over and over is fun?? There is no strategy or fun in any of that. Puke

LOl what your talking about that strategy is a joke???

It's a really stupid decision for a defender or an incompetent commander to sally out in field knowing will lose in the battle.

Also what is your talking about this strategy is a cheat???? Ai is capable enough to overrun the player and this strategy will work due past Ai in this game will mostly do a suicidal general death charge in the player.

Past Total war games, Ai don't value their general maybe shogun 2 due I've seen a cavalry general would charge last and do its suicidal charge but mostly in Shogun 2 cavalry Ai will charge last in siege battle.

In this game, CA make the general unit capable of taking two or more units but depending on general unit.

[Anna_Gein]

I do not understand why CA hate so much siege battle. This is the third game they try to butcher this aspect of gameplay as much as possible. It seems like they want to get rid of it entirely but do not know how.

Siege were less problematic in RTW and M2TW. Back then a lot of things could happen around them :
- I could send a spy to a settlement with a small Garrison and do a sneak attack the next turn
- Use a reasonable garrison to block the enemy field army and send my own the next turn to provoke a field battle
- Throw a lot of money in fortification and men in one settlement and pray my enemy will not be able to take it despite overwhelming superior numbers

See where I am going on ? Since cost less garrison and limited number of stack siege became uni-dimensional. A core played the same every time in a butchered environment. At this point we are now losing most of our time with free garrison troops never strong enough to resist our advance but strong enough to hurt our troops and slow our advance. CA tried to emphazie field battle but end up doing the opposite. Very poor gameply design imo