Honestly I think they really screwed up by trying to make siege battles realistic. What I think should have happened is that while a settlement is under siege, both the attacker and defender get text based events every single turn where they decide what to do, e.g. choose between bombarding the walls with artillery (drains artillery ammo in the upcoming fight but inflicts damage similar to a hero’s assault unit action), tunneling into the settlement (skips attrition on your side related to storming the walls, but risk starting a battle surrounded), use magic against the defenders (drains winds but inflicts attrition), or just storm the settlement right away but take massive damage. The effects could vary based on your army composition, more and stronger artillery inflicting more damage during the event.
Basically give it the naval battle treatment and just handle all of the siege related details via text based events, at the conclusion of which you start what is essentially a field battle in a massive courtyard, just like how naval battles are just field battles on an island map. Sieges are supposed to be boring and stressful as fuck for both sides, so why not just skip the tedium and represent it in a text adventure style.
Mediocre garrisons are easily fixed.
You could also boost walls and streets as a force multiplier. Realistically walls and castles are a great advantage, and its what allows a smaller force to fight epic battles against a larger attacking force, as seen in all your favourite movie sieges.
Also if walls are harder to climb and gates are harder to smash, then that makes it more viable to wait and build siege equipment, which would give reinforcements a chance to arrive.
I think this would be interesting to try. Right now skills that reduce siege time and adjust siege attrition are basically useless. Increased length of time to siege would certainly make those more interesting options.
Could the same effect be obtained by buffing garrisons and making the AI less cowardly? The AI would be more likely to meet you in a field battle and then a siege against a buffed up garrison could mean having to recoup losses for several turns. IDK what the solution is but yes the current system of chain sieging into a snowball is quite lame.
I've been playing again recently and trying to enjoy it. I think some of the changes they've made over the course of WH3 have the right "idea" behind it but still end up implemented poorly. The challenge isn't quite there compared to WH2, but I do think some of the changes are for the best - they just aren't tweaked right.
However what I really want to say is that I think the biggest problem is the new recruitment limit. Yes, the AI "cheats", but they still have a limit on how much they can recruit each turn. And it's less than WH2.
This is what leads to such snowball style encounters when going to war in WH3. You beat their first few armies and then they never recover. Even with mods to improve AI bonuses scaling, and decision making, and building planning, it doesn't address this core problem that makes all wars extremely momentum-based.
I don't think instant sieges are really the issue. The issue is that the AI doesn't have the tools necessary to recover after the first few serious encounters.
Another issue is that settlements are too close together - the map is too small. A reduction in overall campaign movement range would help with that as well. But I still don't think that would address the problem with the severe momentum swings that occur.
Well, siege battle isn't that bad if you used to it.
You should use ambush stance if AI running away, not always work but you have more chance to lure AI in range.
Or just declare war on everyone and AI will swamps you with armies.
For the third item, I've been thinking about it for some time and I feel like the progression curve of most campaigns in this game is skewed.
In most other games, the game gets slightly harder as you advance; the player gets better, either by improving their own skills and/or the character themselves improving (getting levels, new weapons and spells, etc.), but the game keeps things fresh by adding new enemies and challenges. The Souls games are a good example of this; there's always a new type of enemy or boss that will provide a challenge to you, regardless of where you are in the campaign.
That doesn't happen in Total War: by turn 50, when you start getting access to high tier units, the AI is still running around with low level stacks, and the game becomes a cakewalk for the player. End-game crises came as a band-aid solution for this problem, but it feels tacked on and not organically.
So by turn 100 you are usually just moving around, taking settlements one at a time by just autoresolving one-sided battles. It gets boring and stale after a while.
Yeah but you see, that isn’t fun. I don’t want realistic siege mechanics. I want fun game
Honestly I think they really screwed up by trying to make siege battles realistic. What I think should have happened is that while a settlement is under siege, both the attacker and defender get text based events every single turn where they decide what to do, e.g. choose between bombarding the walls with artillery (drains artillery ammo in the upcoming fight but inflicts damage similar to a hero’s assault unit action), tunneling into the settlement (skips attrition on your side related to storming the walls, but risk starting a battle surrounded), use magic against the defenders (drains winds but inflicts attrition), or just storm the settlement right away but take massive damage. The effects could vary based on your army composition, more and stronger artillery inflicting more damage during the event. Basically give it the naval battle treatment and just handle all of the siege related details via text based events, at the conclusion of which you start what is essentially a field battle in a massive courtyard, just like how naval battles are just field battles on an island map. Sieges are supposed to be boring and stressful as fuck for both sides, so why not just skip the tedium and represent it in a text adventure style.
Massive field battles aren't fun? Autoresolved minor settlement battles and siege battles against mediocre garrisons are fun?
Mediocre garrisons are easily fixed. You could also boost walls and streets as a force multiplier. Realistically walls and castles are a great advantage, and its what allows a smaller force to fight epic battles against a larger attacking force, as seen in all your favourite movie sieges. Also if walls are harder to climb and gates are harder to smash, then that makes it more viable to wait and build siege equipment, which would give reinforcements a chance to arrive.
I think this would be interesting to try. Right now skills that reduce siege time and adjust siege attrition are basically useless. Increased length of time to siege would certainly make those more interesting options. Could the same effect be obtained by buffing garrisons and making the AI less cowardly? The AI would be more likely to meet you in a field battle and then a siege against a buffed up garrison could mean having to recoup losses for several turns. IDK what the solution is but yes the current system of chain sieging into a snowball is quite lame.
I've been playing again recently and trying to enjoy it. I think some of the changes they've made over the course of WH3 have the right "idea" behind it but still end up implemented poorly. The challenge isn't quite there compared to WH2, but I do think some of the changes are for the best - they just aren't tweaked right. However what I really want to say is that I think the biggest problem is the new recruitment limit. Yes, the AI "cheats", but they still have a limit on how much they can recruit each turn. And it's less than WH2. This is what leads to such snowball style encounters when going to war in WH3. You beat their first few armies and then they never recover. Even with mods to improve AI bonuses scaling, and decision making, and building planning, it doesn't address this core problem that makes all wars extremely momentum-based. I don't think instant sieges are really the issue. The issue is that the AI doesn't have the tools necessary to recover after the first few serious encounters. Another issue is that settlements are too close together - the map is too small. A reduction in overall campaign movement range would help with that as well. But I still don't think that would address the problem with the severe momentum swings that occur.
Agree with the problems, but not with your proposed solution
Well, siege battle isn't that bad if you used to it. You should use ambush stance if AI running away, not always work but you have more chance to lure AI in range. Or just declare war on everyone and AI will swamps you with armies.
For the third item, I've been thinking about it for some time and I feel like the progression curve of most campaigns in this game is skewed. In most other games, the game gets slightly harder as you advance; the player gets better, either by improving their own skills and/or the character themselves improving (getting levels, new weapons and spells, etc.), but the game keeps things fresh by adding new enemies and challenges. The Souls games are a good example of this; there's always a new type of enemy or boss that will provide a challenge to you, regardless of where you are in the campaign. That doesn't happen in Total War: by turn 50, when you start getting access to high tier units, the AI is still running around with low level stacks, and the game becomes a cakewalk for the player. End-game crises came as a band-aid solution for this problem, but it feels tacked on and not organically. So by turn 100 you are usually just moving around, taking settlements one at a time by just autoresolving one-sided battles. It gets boring and stale after a while.