Siege

[Pillager]

In ancient and medieval times, warlike people devised various ways of dealing with heavily fortifies cites and castles....

One way to capture a fortress was via an assault. This consisted of bashing in the gates, busting open the walls, building towers or ladders to go over the wall, and so forth. It was a fast and bloody method, many attackers would die. Assaulting a city is already well represented in Warbarons.

Another way to deal with a fortress was through a prolonged siege. The besieging army would surround the enemy city, and then wait until starvation caused the defenders to surrender...or weakened them as a prelude to an assault.

In Warbarons, sieging a city gets you nowhere. If you sit an army next to an enemy castle, enemy troops can still come and go as they please, and can even be vectored there from distant cities. Surrounding a city would take a huge amount of units (each city is surrounded by twelve areas) and wouldn't stop vectoring anyway.

I would like to be able to play the waiting game, and slowly squeeze an enemy city to death. Here is my idea for a siege mechanic.

If I move a stack next to an enemy city... and it survives until the next turn, I get the option to turn that stack into a siege tower (instead of moving the stack). A picture of a siege tower replaces the unit picture for the stack... to show that the city is under siege. Vectoring to a city under siege is blocked...the units remain in 'vectorland limbo' until the siege is lifted.
Units inside a city would have enough food for a number of turns equal to the city's wall bonus (1,2 or 3 turns worth of supplies) after that they begin to starve. once starvation begins production would halt, and each stack inside the city would loose its weakest unit. This loss would happen at the start of the besieging player's turn and would happen every turn until either; all the defending units are dead, or the siege is lifted.
The siege would be lifted when all the siege towers surrounding a city are destroyed or choose to move away.

I think players could wrap their heads around this mechanic fairly easily, and it would allow for lots of fun siege related activities...like sallying out of the city to attack a siege tower...or hastily marching an army to relieve a city under siege.

[KGB]

Pillager,

I've had this discussion before when it was bandied about for Warlord 5.

The problem with the model you describe is that it is entirely based on a 'real world human' point of view. In other words:

1) Some armies aren't human and presumably don't need to eat in the same manner humans do (Dragons, Demons, Devils, Ghosts, potentially future armies like Golems, other Undead etc). So how would siege affect those armies that don't care whether you camp forever outside their walls?
2) The siege you are describing only stops land based units from walking past into the city. But what about units that can fly? Presumably if your 8 stack only consisted of land units it would be silly to assume they would prevent a city of bats/pegasi/gryffons etc from going out and getting food at will by flying over the encamped armies. Now you'd need to include flying armies then we'd need the ability to only have flying armies attack flying armies etc.
3) What about cities next to water? They could be resupplying by boat that your land based army can't stop.
4) This game presumably includes magic. Even the most basic AD&D model spell casting includes simple spells to create food/water by magic thus relieving the need to get resupplies. Potentially one could argue that vectoring armies arrive via some kind of teleport spell (maybe crossing the astral/ethereal plane) and thus bypass any besiegers.

So I don't see any real mechanism by which a siege could be reasonably added into the game with out a lot of arguments by which the defender could say 'hey, I am still able to get food'.

Plus, if your stack standing next to the city is strong enough to survive a sally by the defender why wouldn't you just attack and capture the city? Why wait 2-3 turns to siege it? If your stack is weak the defenders will most likely just attack and destroy you. So then I have to ask what are we really adding to the game.

KGB

[Pillager]

KGB,

True, sieges were a 'real world' tactic. However, they are also fairly common in fantasy literature. I will respond to your other points one by one....

1)Yes, some armies wouldn't be affected by starvation...however the majority of units would be. One could also question why ghosts and elementals demand wages in gold. Besides, cities are full of people, starving cities are full of starving people... and starvation often leads to treachery.

2)People are resourceful, I suspect that folks living in a world of griffons and pegasi would have though up a few ways of dealing with them. I suspect that a combination of missile fire, catapult-fired nets and the besieging army's own flyers would be involved.

3)Chains across the harbor were often used for this purpose.

4)Magic cancels out magic. If there are spells to create food, then there are spells to spoil it. If there are teleportation gates between every city, then those wily mages have found a way to disrupt them.

And in response to your last statement that it adds nothing to the game...I disagree. It is currently very easy to add a few powerful stack bonus creatures to a horde of scum and thereby turn a city into a very unappealing target. Taking on those armies 8 at a time (instead of 32 at once),and without the city wall bonus, is a very different battle indeed.

[KGB]

Pillager,

1) I disagree cities are full of people. Humanoid (Human/Elf/Dwarf/Orc etc) cities are. But Dragon cities are full of Dragons, Elemental cities full of Elementals, Demon cities full of Demons, Undead cities full of undead. How else are they making those units?

2) I agree that various races are resourceful. To that end it should require *something* more than simply turning a stack into a tower. It should require a special unit in the stack or spending serious gold (more than is needed to build a regular tower) to make a special kind of tower etc.

3) Yes they were. But almost exclusively by the defenders to prevent landings, not the attackers to prevent boats slipping in with supplies. Attackers blockaded with ships. Hence I believe you'd require naval units to blockade cities next to water (in addition to land units).

4) True. But how do we know the siege stack has such mages with such spells? Again to me this requires a special unit or a special structure be built for high gold cost.

And I still think it adds *nothing* to the game. At least for me it doesn't. It's pure cheese to park a super hero stack (because that's what would be used or stacks with Elephant+Pikemen in the open when the defender only has spiders) next to a city and cause defending armies to just disband without ever having to attack the city. There is for me no fun in something like that. The game is based around battles between armies, not starvation over multiple turns. I mean if you think treachery is a viable option why not just bypass the whole siege mechanism and allow players to simply bribe a city for X amount of gold per defending unit and have the defenders change sides?

I've still yet to have a problem with a city full of 32 men in over 100 games played. I've seen a couple of such cities but I've always just bypassed them for an easier target and eventually the defenders had to come out to defend other cities or due to lack of gold etc. You absolutely can not win a game by going into turtle mode and eventually regardless of what's in a city you will take it down given time or will win the game by owning X% of cities.

KGB

P.S. What about neutrals? Could they be sieged? If so, I'd never attack a neutral again. Just stand next to it, go into siege mode and wait till the lone defender disappeared If not, what's the logic why they can't be sieged?

[Pillager]

KGB,

Cities full elementals and demons? Seems over the top to me. In my mind, cities are populated by humanoid races. They have priests/wizards that summon elementals, demons and archons..necromancers that raise undead an so on. Was King's Landing populated by dragons in George RR Martins books? No, but they did raise dragons as warbeasts. This explanation seems a better fit for Warbarons.

I do think some of your other concerns are valid, and agree that there are some balance issues.

To surround a city and cut off its supplies would take many units. So, I think it would make sense to only allow a full stack of 8 units to begin a siege. With this limitation, you could allow neutral cities to be sieged. A player could choose to sit a full stack outside a neutral city for 3-5 turns, or that player could assault the city. Both of these methods would have advantages and disadvantages...a cost in time vs a cost in units.

In this situation, a siege tower isn't a special tower, it is just a visual flag showing that a siege is underway.

[KGB]

Pillager,

As much as I love Martin's books they are populated only by humans. There aren't even Elves/Dwarves/Orcs etc. The Dragons are so far, purely beasts as you noted (tho in most other author series like Tolkien Dragons are a sentient race). Though I would argue that 'The Others' are undead since he refers to them as Wights and they are certainly a race in his books.

Besides if you use the AD&D model (which I prefer to use compared to a single author series) there are plenty of non-humanoid races on other planes (Elemental planes, Ethereal, Astral, Celestial etc). Those races can and do occupy cities on the Prime Material plane in the AD&D universe.

To balance it out I'd suggest you need 2 stacks of 8 at opposite corners (the exact diagonals) to begin such a siege. This means that for cities next to water one of the stacks will need to be a naval stack (or all fliers over water). This makes it a *lot* harder to begin such a siege and easier for the defender to break it. Otherwise I again see abuse such as you have a +1 wall city with 8 spiders in it (8 strength). I move up 7 Pikemen+Elephant and park on an open square next to the city. Now I am 8 defense there. Why should I now get to start a siege and force you to fight on my battle ground because if you don't in a few turns you'll lose all your spiders? There is no rationale for that and it's hugely unfair for the defending player.

I think the effects of such a siege would need to be no vectoring, no new men produced and the loss of the stack bonus (which we like to call morale) during the turn. I don't believe that the defender should ever lose armies as that's too harsh a penalty.

KGB

[Pillager]

I have thought of a different mechanic, simpler, and I think is superior. Here it is...

When an army attacks a city, it retreats after half of the attacking units (rounding up) are killed. So, an 8 stack would retreat after taking 4 losses. The routed units return to the square they attacked from, with 0 movement remaining. A picture of a siege tower would replace the unit picture of the routed stack.

As long as there is a siege tower next to a city, vectoring, unit production, and gold production are blocked. Units may not enter or leave the city, except by attacking the tower.

At the start of a besieging players turn, his stacks return to normal. He may continue the siege by attacking again.

In ye olden days sieges could take months (or even years), while field battles were usually over in a day. I think that this mechanic would better represent the slow, grinding attrition of siege warfare.

[KGB]

Pillager,

A few questions:

1) How would a player differentiate between an attack meant to continue until all attacking/defending armies are killed and one where you want to stop after 4 losses? There would need to be a way to differentiate which one you want which is going to require a menu option of some kind when attacking.

2) How do you propose to stop the cheap tactic of a hero+dragon+Siege+Medusa putting 4 units in the stack and attacking and doing as much damage as possible then retreating. Then the player adding 4 more units to the stack so that it is 'full' again and unkillable? Because I'd use this as a way to freely weaken the defenders with no chance of ever losing my hero or good units, just drop in 4 cannon fodder per turn and do as much damage as possible.

3) I'm still concerned that the defender always has to eventually attack the tower to enter/exit the city. There are plenty of maps where the terrain in one spot next to the city is VERY favorable to certain units types (open - Pikemen, Hills - Dwarves) etc. Now you are locked into having to attack that stack on it's home ground even for units just coming across the land to enter the city. Not sure why *they* have to engage on that hard ground instead of whatever ground they chose to enter by (esp flying units) because normally they'd chose to engage on more favorable terrain since in theory the siege covers all squares around the city.

4) I'm also worried about preventing production in the city. I understand stopping vectoring to/from. But instead what should happen is the city should be reduced to living purely on it's gold income and having to pay for its defenders from that income. So if the defenders use up the income no new units could be made and if there was spare gold from the income-upkeep you could make units. Here's why I think you need to do this: Because again there would be the cheap tactic of planting Elephant+Pikemen in the open next to a city full of spiders with no real intention of ever attacking but instead to purely deny say a Dragon/Devil/Archon getting made there.

KGB

[Pillager]

KGB,

1)There would no longer be an option to attack a city normally. The 'retreat after half losses' would be the default (and only) option. It might be better to make it 4 losses rather than half a stack though...since that would stop folks from using two bats to disrupt a city for a turn. it would also allow people to group attackers into stacks of 4 (if they really wanted to engage in a 'do or die' attack on a city).

2)This would be the upside for the attacker. But, the hero and any routed units would have 0 movement, so they would have to wait a turn to try again. It makes sense to me because a siege is much more static than a field battle, there is no real chance of your rear assets being destroyed (unless the defenders sally out of the fortress).

3) I agree that this is an issue. Perhaps siege towers are a neutral terrain, with no bonuses awarded to either side....or it could be +1 for the besiegers (because of the palisades/earthworks they have built).

4) Yes, stopping production might not be wise. I think that stopping vectoring and containing the units within a city would probably be enough. Isolating the city for upkeep purposes makes sense to me...but It could potentially confuse players.

[KGB]

Pillager,

But what you've done now is create a 'retreat' option. One that's auto engaged too. Now:

1) You can't ever use an 8 stack to attack and capture a city because you'll be kicked out after 4 losses. So really attacking cities comes down to 4 units before the attack stops even if you would have easily won on the next man, captured the city, had movement left to potentially reach another city/ruin/enemy army group. I don't want that.
2) The retreat also means you can guarantee you will never lose a hero or bonus unit(s) to a city as long as they are the 5th-8th man in the stack. So there is no longer any risk to attacking other than loss of movement. That's taking a lot out of the game as now in the early game you can have a hero + 4 bats and attack neutrals with impunity knowing you never can lose the hero even if the battle goes badly while if you win, great, you capture a city. It's like having training wheels on.
3) In places where you really want the siege (cities full of men) having the super hero stack retreat after 4 losses is still *WAY* too good. Every player would immediately re-fill the 4 lost men. This is exactly why retreat has never been added to Warlords. The only way this is fair is if not only do you drop to 0 moves, but you can't add any men to the stack until your next turn so that the defender has a chance to finish you off with only 4 men in your stack. But now it's making a lot of complex rules.

A siege mechanism needs to be simpler that this still and can't include a 'retreat' option. The 2 effects (preventing vectoring, containing units in the city) seem fine because they are much more limited in scope than your initial proposal and no longer include loss of defenders or weakening the defending units. So maybe now just any 8 stack next to a city (on land only) can initiate this siege and grant these 2 effects. Of course it won't help you ever take that city in combat other than it won't be able to add men via vectoring. Then any breakout attack on the sieging units can take place on neutral ground (no bonus either side).

KGB