You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Rome: Total War Discussion
Moderated by Terikel Grayhair, General Sajaru, Awesome Eagle

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.21 replies
Total War Heaven » Forums » Rome: Total War Discussion » Seige or Battlefield
Bottom
Topic Subject:Seige or Battlefield
DustyAceAlright
Legionary
posted 05 February 2005 15:24 EDT (US)         
Do most of you fight your battles against enemy armies that are station outside a city. Or do you usually have most of your battles in the campaign seiging cities. Is it best to deplete enemy armies by waging war outside city walls? That way when it comes time to take a nearby city, they aren't as strong and their walls are easier to take with less losses to your army.
AuthorReplies:
Ferret
Legionary
(id: The_Ferret)
posted 05 February 2005 15:37 EDT (US)     1 / 21       
Hide a large army in a nearby forest (that way the enemy can't see you) then, besiege a nearby enemy city, that way. The enemy should be coaxed out of the city to respond. Now, take the city in the next tur (or two) and then When the enemy is rushing back strike him hard with all armies in region. That way you have a city, and have killed a large army when it would have been a problem in a seige.

POSTER NUMBER ONE IN HOLY ROMAN PARTY XV
"Live forever, or die trying!"
TWH Baths Forumer of the Month - November 06
mark johnson
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 18:13 EDT (US)     2 / 21       
Depends.

I don't like sieges very much, and assults even less. I know it can be tense fighting defenders and the timer, but its not me. I'm kind of a 'lets have at it on the battlefield' sort of guy.

What I found re: siege or battlefield is this; if a city is large stone/epic stone with a strong garrison AND supporting field army- attacking is costly- unless it is really worth the casualties. Better in my view is to let the garrison + support force attack you, usually in a sally. I have stood on the defensive and cut the assualt to pieces with my missile units followed by a counter-charge. The good thing about this tactic is that you can crush the sally,and support troops in turn. It normally means the city falls after I follow routing troops through the gates.

A word of caution: I used this tactic against Salona with a supporting 20 card legion. The AI hashed the attack on the defenders outside the walls and ran for it. Result. Salona falls minus one full legion on my part. Ugh.

When I have the money I buy off the supporting forces and get them to lay siege to the city. I like irony.

Zaph
Legionary
(id: ZaphodBeeblebrox)
posted 06 February 2005 18:59 EDT (US)     3 / 21       
I hate sieges. Defending, with stone walls, is fine but attacking a city with stone walls is hell. Or assualting any city for that matter is hard for me. But defending a settlement is easy, I find. I much prefer the battlefield. I think battle "out in the open" doesn't give one side as great an advantage as seiging does. And a fight "out in the open" allows you to utilize your units abilities to the fullest extent, except for archers. I mean, you can't use a phalanx to its fullest extent when it's on the walls. And cavalry. Fine for making a sortie but you can't use them on the walls when the fate of the city hangs in the balance. Those are my reasons.

Zaphod

Roman General
Guest
posted 06 February 2005 19:02 EDT (US)     4 / 21       
I like to do that too, or send a diplomat to bribe the army that's seiging you, then attack the same enemy that just seiged your or put the new units (assuming they didn't disband) into the garrison.

I like to fight more of my battles out in the open battlefield. Rarley do I not auto-resolve a seige. The only time I really do play out a seige is when my occupation of that city would cause a certain faction to be destroyed.


ΧΊ°”˜`”°ΊΧ
(―`·._.·[ ]·._.·΄―)
Oº°¨¨°ºO Roman General Oº°¨¨°ºO
––––•(-• •-)•––––
R.I.P. Kayla Renee Winterfeldt; born 28th of October 2004, died 28th of October 2004
In peace, sons bury thier fathers; in war, fathers bury thier sons. -- Herodotus
Themistocles472
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 19:29 EDT (US)     5 / 21       
What I don't like: relying on bribing. Sieging is no problem for towns but once there are stone walls up it is substantially more difficult when the city has a proper garrison. Honestly I'd rather defend in the open field than anything else...assuming that I put my army there with that intent in mind. I'd rather have them come to me on the field, especially when in forests.

Edit: Oh yeah, with 1.2 I turned off the battle timer because I got royally screwed on sieges many times becasue of it. Most recently I lost a siege where I killed every single enemy man. Every one. But I lost. Go figure.

[This message has been edited by Themistocles472 (edited 02-06-2005 @ 07:30 PM).]

Roman General
Guest
posted 06 February 2005 19:55 EDT (US)     6 / 21       
cant you turn off the timer in the un-patched version?

ΧΊ°”˜`”°ΊΧ
(―`·._.·[ ]·._.·΄―)
Oº°¨¨°ºO Roman General Oº°¨¨°ºO
––––•(-• •-)•––––
R.I.P. Kayla Renee Winterfeldt; born 28th of October 2004, died 28th of October 2004
In peace, sons bury thier fathers; in war, fathers bury thier sons. -- Herodotus
Themistocles472
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 20:01 EDT (US)     7 / 21       
No, unpatched you are stuck with the timer.

Edit: What I'd like to be able to do is just add 5-10 minutes to the timer.

[This message has been edited by Themistocles472 (edited 02-06-2005 @ 08:01 PM).]

virtuoso138
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 20:19 EDT (US)     8 / 21       
The AI seems, for some reason, to have a complex to spread out all of its units within a city (especially pgalanx units), so I find it so much easier just to attack a city and wipe them off one by one. The only annoying thing with that is that it tends to be hard to use cavalry...

my question is, if you destroy buildings, can you crawl your troops right over them? Like making a shortcut instead of following the steets? that would be cool...


“A lot of people are waiting for Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi to come back -- but they are gone. We are it. It is up to us. It is up to you.”---Marian Wright Edelman
Makaan
Legionary
posted 06 February 2005 20:32 EDT (US)     9 / 21       
no the rubble of the destroyed edifice still blocks your way

[This message has been edited by Makaan (edited 02-06-2005 @ 08:33 PM).]

Roman General
Guest
posted 06 February 2005 20:38 EDT (US)     10 / 21       
well that sux, but at the same time its reasonable...

ΧΊ°”˜`”°ΊΧ
(―`·._.·[ ]·._.·΄―)
Oº°¨¨°ºO Roman General Oº°¨¨°ºO
––––•(-• •-)•––––
R.I.P. Kayla Renee Winterfeldt; born 28th of October 2004, died 28th of October 2004
In peace, sons bury thier fathers; in war, fathers bury thier sons. -- Herodotus
Draigh
Legionary
posted 07 February 2005 09:49 EDT (US)     11 / 21       
I actually hate sieges. They're messy, bloody, and very annoying if you like to keep your soldiers alive. I sometimes like to defend from stone walls (just figure - I sally, put my archers on walls, dumb AI moves close, I shoot all of my archer's ammo on their stupid soldiers, by the time my archers are out of ammo, I send anything I have through those gates - dumb AI pulls back, and I can hack any last soldier down with cavalry this way, it has made me lots of heroic victories ). But sieging is something completely different. My soldiers always tend to get stuck in streets, suddenly move out of the town, blocking the gate or any entrances, the bloody timer keeps running too fast, and those towers and gatehouses beat the hell out of my army before I can properly react. It's just blood, sweat and tears.

Outoi sunechthein,
Alla sunphilein ephun
- Antigonθ

Not to hate,
But to Love I was born

[This message has been edited by Draigh (edited 02-07-2005 @ 09:49 AM).]

ahenobarb
Legionary
posted 07 February 2005 09:59 EDT (US)     12 / 21       
There's no timer with seiges unless you want one. Just go to your options and turn the battle timer off. I don't think you can change this once you've started a campaign, but change it before your campaign and you'll be fine.

My biggest complaint about seiges is that units that have ascended a seige tower and have assesmbled on the wall cannot go back down the seige tower. If you want them out on the open field, they have to walk out the gate. Very stupid.

[This message has been edited by ahenobarb (edited 02-07-2005 @ 10:00 AM).]

Nayl
Legionary
posted 07 February 2005 10:17 EDT (US)     13 / 21       
I used to have a serious aversion to seiging, and would simply wait until garrisons sallied rather than actively take cities. But I've since developed a straightforward way of taking almost anything.

If the city is still in the wooden wall/pallisade stage, I pick the side that has a direct approach to the town square and/or fewer towers, and use four rams. Three of the rams go after the gate and the adjacent sections of wall. The fourth one goes after a wall somewhere else, simply to hold some of the enemy forces away from my main point of attack. I make sure to have at least three units of archers and two units of wardogs. The archers job is to mow down any defenders that stay near the other side of the wall that I am ramming, which will usually be at least half the force in the city. As long as the AI obliges by marching troops up and down to be shot up, I do not enter the city, but let my archers continue to attrit him.

Once the archers run out of arrows, or the AI stops sending out targets, I send in the dogs, closely followed by my assault. By this stage, the enemy general is often dead and they've taken about 50% casualties. One broken defensive charge later and its in mop up mode.

Cities with stone walls are a much tougher nut to crack and call for a highly specialized army. When I'm facing an enemy with several stone walled cities, I make an army with 6 onagers, one or two units of the heaviest cavalry I have, and the rest is all my best infantry. I don't bother with rams, sap points or siege towers, all they do is slow me down and get my men killed. I line up along the longest, flattest side of the city and destroy all the towers, the gatehouse, the gate, and blow holes in all the wall sections. Then I send the infantry in all at once. The cavalry goes whereever the enemy is not defending and starts charging the defenders that are engaging my infantry from behind. Not fancy, but it works just fine, even when the enemy forces are comparable in numbers, because half of them will be on top of the walls when your troops are coming through the gaps, and thus doing almost nothing to stop the assualt until its waaaaay too late.

Old Celt
Legionary
posted 07 February 2005 10:43 EDT (US)     14 / 21       
I like field battles best. If I can get a force to engage me in the field, I will destroy them, even if I'm outnumbered. I will lay siege to cities and wait for them to sally to destroy the defenders. Unless there is a good reason, it seems pointless to me to take the casualties in an assault. If assault is necessary, I use sufficient onagers to blast down wall defenses, then send in heavy infantry for the grim meat grinding process.
ahenobarb
Legionary
posted 07 February 2005 11:10 EDT (US)     15 / 21       
[Useless dreaming] What would make sieges more fun is if you could construct ramps, berms and ditches (for defense) around the city. See the the Athenian siege of Syracuse in Thucidydes, Alexander's siege of Tyre in Appian, and Flavius Silva's siege of Massada in Josephus.

Also, it would be cool if you could build a glacis espescially if you are Pontus. The Hittites always built them (I search for a picture online of the one around Hattushas, but came up empty. Here's pictures of the ones around Aleppo: http://rubens.anu.edu.au/syria/aleppo/citadel/exterior/south/glacis/. The idea was that it prevented chariots and seige towers from getting close to the walls.

[This message has been edited by ahenobarb (edited 02-07-2005 @ 11:15 AM).]

Zaph
Legionary
(id: ZaphodBeeblebrox)
posted 07 February 2005 19:36 EDT (US)     16 / 21       
That would be pretty cool ahanobarb. It would a whole new demension to sieges.

Zaphod

Ace Cataphract
HG Alumnus
(id: Ace_Cataphract)
posted 07 February 2005 20:01 EDT (US)     17 / 21       
Yea, but by this time, that form of seige warfare is pretty obsolete. I mean, you remember the result of the Athenian siege of Syracuse. The Syracusans managed to hold them back, breaking their morale after months of acting more like engineers than soldiers, then the Syracusan fleet beat back the Athenian fleet and eventually they were hunted down and captured.

I put a dollar in one of those change machines. Nothing changed. ~George Carlin
ahenobarb
Legionary
posted 07 February 2005 20:30 EDT (US)     18 / 21       
Yes, but they were up against Archimedes. The guy invents a grapple to just pull the Athenian ships out of the water, that's pretty tough to deal with. And basically uses the sun as a laser to burn the Athenians like ants.

In the meantime, the Athenians recalled Alcibiades their number one general on some trumped up charge. It was Foobar from the get go.

And no matter how many times you read Thucydides, you always think the Athenians are just about to pull that siege off.

ahenobarb
Legionary
posted 07 February 2005 23:23 EDT (US)     19 / 21       
ZaphodBeeblebrox? You wouldn't be the same ZaphodBeeblebrox of CTP2 fame would you?
Hikari
Legionary
(id: echowinds)
posted 08 February 2005 00:35 EDT (US)     20 / 21       

Quote:

Yes, but they were up against Archimedes. The guy invents a grapple to just pull the Athenian ships out of the water, that's pretty tough to deal with. And basically uses the sun as a laser to burn the Athenians like ants.

The grapple, yes. The sun beam mirror thing is a legend. And even if that was true, it was against the Romans, not Athenians.


ahenobarb
Legionary
posted 08 February 2005 12:15 EDT (US)     21 / 21       
Hmm, jumbled the two seiges together in my head. Noli tangere circulos meos! Yes, it was Marcellus vs. Archimedes, not Alcibiades. Dumb.

Regarding the mirrors, just checked dug up Plutarch, Livy, and Polybios. Yep, grapple, no mirrors. Guess who came up with the mirrors? Cassius Dio!! NOOOooooo!!! The ignominy. Worse the passage, "For by tilting a kind of mirror toward the sun he concentrated the sun's beam upon it; and owing to the thickness and smoothness of the mirror he ignited the air from this beam and kindled a great flame, the whole of which he directed upon the ships that lay at anchor in the path of the fire, until he consumed them all," is only handed down through the 12th century Byzantine authors John Zonaras and John Tzetzes.

In short you're right. It's bunk.

Dio! He invented that story about Crassus and the molten gold, which is fun to read, repeat, and not true.

"And the Parthians, as some say, poured molten gold into his mouth in mockery; for though a man of vast wealth, he had set so great store by money as to pity those who could not support an enrolled legion from their own means, regarding them as poor men" (XL.27).

As some say...

[This message has been edited by ahenobarb (edited 02-08-2005 @ 12:24 PM).]

You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Total War Heaven | HeavenGames