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

Empire: Total War (Archived-See Empire: Total War Heaven)

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.10 replies
Total War Heaven » Forums » Empire: Total War (Archived-See Empire: Total War Heaven) » How will ETW deal with siege warfare?
Topic Subject:How will ETW deal with siege warfare?
Legion Of Hell
posted 10 December 2008 15:56 EDT (US)         
Credit goes to Ischenous for this.

So how will ETW deal with siege warfare? Seeing you can occupy farms and houses in land battles can you do the same for sieges.

If so it'll will be cool as you can allow bitter street fighting and can give the outnumbered defenders an chance of not completely getting destroyed after a brief fight.

It should be intresting seeing the AI has been improved (I hope ) so siege battles against the computer should be a battle.

I await your views.

General Rawlinson- This is most unsatisfactory. Where are the Sherwood Foresters? Where are the East Lancashires on the right?

Brigadier-General Oxley- They are lying out in No Man's Land, sir. And most of them will never stand again.

Two high ranking British generals discussing the fortunes of two regiments after the disastrous attack at Aubers Ridge on the 9th May 1915.
posted 10 December 2008 16:09 EDT (US)     1 / 10       
Sieges should ultimately end up being about how much and what kind of artillery each side has. If you don't want to incur large casualties with an all-out infantry assault, you could just demolish the enemies' defenses with long range artillery. Of course, if the enemy has their own artillery, or is defending one of the magnificent forts of the era, there could be counter-fire. Siege battles in this game could be interesting.

Deutschland erwartet, dass jeder Mann seine Pflicht tun wird.
Россия ожидает, что каждый исполнит свой долг.
posted 10 December 2008 16:35 EDT (US)     2 / 10       
I can imagine a long artillery standoff. But when it's done, I'll be handling sieges the same way as ever. That is, more or less, fix bayonets and order Highlanders to charge the gates (of forts). For cities, I'll just swamp them.

(o o)

Monkey beats bunny. Please put Monkey in your signature to prevent the rise of bunny.
m0n|<3yz r 2 pwn n00b
(id: Daelon)
posted 10 December 2008 16:49 EDT (US)     3 / 10       
Again, another thread from LoH

Sieges should be an interesting aspect, considering we are all RTW/MTW2 siege zombies.

Artillary will play an important roll, possibly it is just having the infantry walk into the city while the infantry go yard by yard until the city is taken over. who knows... not me!
posted 10 December 2008 21:17 EDT (US)     4 / 10       
well most likely if your hiding in a building, and they have artillery, your in a bad spot
so hopefully artillery wont play as big of a role as im going to think it is
but if there is, i guess there will be small sieges, includling sieges in a non siege environment(like one farmhouse on the entire field will be under siege while the rest of the battle happens)
and all of that is confusing, i dont even understand what i said much.

so hopefully sega and the bunch figure out a good way of making them fun
posted 10 December 2008 23:56 EDT (US)     5 / 10       
Well, they've said that you can't just blow a place to bits, as that will be reflected on the campaign map, both in damage to infrastructure, and a happiness penalty for the population (did flatten their town after all).

Really, what the AI needs work on is sally battles, if any of you has read an AAR by SubRosa, or the master of sallies, Severous, you will know that the AI mostly stands in one place during said battles.

Veni, Vidi, well... you know.

Extended Cultures, A modification of RTW.

Si hoc legere posses, Latinam linguam scis.
ɪf ju kŠn ɹid ­ɪs, ju noʊ liŋgwɪstɪks.
posted 11 December 2008 00:15 EDT (US)     6 / 10       
More than the AI surrounding them, sallies need to be updated with an option to breakout. If my army is besieged, I don't think I can outright defeat the besiegers, but I don't want the army to be destroyed, I should have the option of trying to get the Army out of the city and abandon it to the enemy. Breakouts are a tried and true military maneuver.

Deutschland erwartet, dass jeder Mann seine Pflicht tun wird.
Россия ожидает, что каждый исполнит свой долг.
posted 11 December 2008 00:38 EDT (US)     7 / 10       
I absolute agree with woolagaroo about being able to break out, I was thinking the same thing. I feel like the reasoning for choosing to defend a siege will be pretty different. If opposing armies can take over much of the infrastructure of importance outside the actual city, then there can't be that much of a reason to just stay put and give them a good fight down to the last man. I think you might hold the advantage of the city until a relief force arrives (although it might not totally be worth it if your city is getting blown to bits as long as you have forces in it).
I think there also needs to be a possibility of simply surrendering (Cornwallis ::cough, cough:. One thing that would be incredibly annoying, but somewhat realistic I feel, is that if a general is besieged and his loyalty, morale or whatever is low enough, he can raise a white flag without being ordered to.

[This message has been edited by dakn77 (edited 12-11-2008 @ 02:01 AM).]

posted 11 December 2008 01:34 EDT (US)     8 / 10       
Aren't the forts in ETW meant to be like special star forts or something?
(id: Daelon)
posted 11 December 2008 09:55 EDT (US)     9 / 10       

Star forts with huge earth works probably
posted 11 December 2008 10:19 EDT (US)     10 / 10       
the ability to abandon cities is already confirmed in an older movie or article.

Yep, it's true, having no sig is boring. But so is this one. Which makes my point... relatively pointless.
Can a point be a point when it is pointless?
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Total War Heaven | HeavenGames