Siege Mechanics Are Broken

[Kamanaokekai]

While siege battles in WH2 left certain things to be desired, I find that WH3 siege battles to be much worse. The "Supplies" mechanic is siege battles while novel, are implemented terribly. From the AI's ability to instantly rebuild a destroyed tower, to the insane amount of time it takes to cap a point that can recaptured by the defense when invading further into a settlement, not to mention the sheer amount of of barricades or towers that can be constructed simultaneously while the settlement is under attack is downright ludicrous.
While I understand this is a game set in a fictional world, I find it hard to grasp the logic to explain these mechanics. My mind comes to the following questions when trying to justify the mechanics: 1. How much construction could a settlement achieve whilst under siege, 2. Why would an invader not merely destroy a captured Supply Depo it knows it wont defend 3. How is a Supply Depo in a settlement not considered captured immediately if there is no one there to defend it.

[Saiyansixx]

Originally posted by KUSH:

Sieges in WH3 are much better
In WH2 it was too easy to almost solo an entire army with a single high level spell caster even on legendary

lol, are you suggesting that isnt still a thing in 3? maybe you should level up a spell caster first.

[KUSH]

Originally posted by Seven:

lol, are you suggesting that isnt still a thing in 3? maybe you should level up a spell caster first.

I didn't say that it wasn't a thing. But the current system certainly seems not to cater as much to cheesing as the sieges in WH2 due to the map layout which basically always was you attacking a single straight wall.
Also most of the complaints sound like people feel the current system is too hard and favors the AI. It does not. It just makes sieges more micro-intensive than they were before because you just can't have your entire army dock the walls and be done with it.

[archmag]

Originally posted by Kamanaokekai:

...
Perhaps if you play the game on higher difficulties you would see similar siege battles to where im seeing issues with capture points.

Do you play on legendary/vh? Because I play on vh/vh and don't see such issues.

When fighting siege battles with comparative or stronger defending forces strength and number, sometimes a unit will flank around and recapture points after you've moved past them.

Only had one battle where enemies were still running around after the first battle. It was against a minor skaven settlement which had a full stack inside and half stack outside. I had an ogre army 17/20. After the initial battle near the entrance when I finally pushed main enemy group back and captured two points, one with my main part of the army, another with an initial monster and two ogre units I had to leave the second point and a lot of skaven units were still running around. Joined both groups to advance them on the main enemy point to remove their leadership and defense bonuses so that I can finally route them all and thought that one of those enemy units that were running around would take one of the two points that I captured but they never did. And I had to fight for few more minutes before the battle ended (mostly because of an issue with some units losing orders for no reason).

And my point still stands on why should there even be a capture timer if there is no defending force at the point, how many units I've sent there should be irrelevant in that regard.

I imagine it as if there are civilians running around building stuff which are not displayed in battle. You capture the point by scaring away enemy civilians and deploying your own, the time to scare away enemy civilians and bring your own is the time required to capture a point. But this is just my imagination, I am sure it is possible to imagine other reasons while you have to wait instead of doing it instantly. And when you are a defender this timer is a good thing because it gives you a time to react before you lose everything you invested your resources in on this point.

Also just because I'm posting about a mechanic I have issue with doesn't mean I haven't "learnt it first", your lack of an issue with a feature doesn't mean everyone else has the same experience. I did begin my post with "I find that" meaning I am speaking from my experience and not yours.

Well, you certainly didn't have time to learn it because it is just 1 day since the game was released. Unless you are a genius, in which case I wonder why you can't simply deal with it and find a genius solution. Some games take longer than few tries to learn how to deal with things successfully.

[Saiyansixx]

Originally posted by KUSH:

Originally posted by Seven:

lol, are you suggesting that isnt still a thing in 3? maybe you should level up a spell caster first.

I didn't say that it wasn't a thing. But the current system certainly seems not to cater as much to cheesing as the sieges in WH2 due to the map layout which basically always was you attacking a single straight wall.
Also most of the complaints sound like people feel the current system is too hard and favors the AI. It does not. It just makes sieges more micro-intensive than they were before because you just can't have your entire army dock the walls and be done with it.

No one is complaining about the difficulty, trust me. I beat every faction on legendary in 2, I am having zero issues with difficulty and i dont think the other complainers are either. The complaint is that the current mechanics make sieges unfun, and always the same fight, with zero replay ability. the mechanics feel ripped straight from a cheap mobile tower defense game.

[KUSH]

Originally posted by Seven:

The complaint is that the current mechanics make sieges unfun, and always the same fight, with zero replay ability. the mechanics feel ripped straight from a cheap mobile tower defense game.

If you think sieges were more dynamic and complex in WH2 than they were in 3 your are delusional. WH2 had one of the worst siege systems of all Total War games due to the map layouts being so simplistic, and the AI just waiting to get sniped unless you literally throw your troops at their walls. Also there are basically no "siege mechanics" other than walls and towers, which basically have 0 player involvement. I also never had a siege battle occcur where holding the control point in the center for 5 minutes was a better option than just cheesing/sniping the enemy.
Things like the gate bug have also never been adressed and just serve to show that the system in that state was in desperate need of a rework. Sieges were one of if not the biggest complaint regular players of previous TW:WH entries had.

[Saiyansixx]

Originally posted by KUSH:

Originally posted by Seven:

The complaint is that the current mechanics make sieges unfun, and always the same fight, with zero replay ability. the mechanics feel ripped straight from a cheap mobile tower defense game.

If you think sieges were more dynamic and complex in WH2 than they were in 3 your are delusional. WH2 had one of the worst siege systems of all Total War games due to the map layouts being so simplistic, and the AI just waiting to get sniped unless you literally throw your troops at their walls. Also there are basically no "siege mechanics" other than walls and towers, which basically have 0 player involvement.
Things like the gate bug have also never been adressed and just serve to show that the system in that state was in desperate need of a rework. Sieges were one of if not the biggest complaint regular players of previous TW:WH entries had.

The sieges in wh2 were lackluster sure, but you could at least go about winning them all sorts of ways. in the new system in victory points or nothing, its a horrible implantation. and the AI doesnt stand a chance against a player who has half a brain, there is no challenge on Legendary.

[KUSH]

Originally posted by Seven:

The sieges in wh2 were lackluster sure, but you could at least go about winning them all sorts of ways.

I really don't get your point. In WH2 it always ended up in having to rout the defender, since the 5 minute capture point victory never was a reasonable alternative to begin with.
I always ended up sniping the enemy army with lords/heroes and "hide" my other 18 stacks on the other side of the map so the enemy wasn't even in a proper defensive position, because the AI always deploys the troops according to the threats it can actually see.

This wasn't tactical. This was exploitative. But it was the only thing that made sense, unless you didn't care about casualties. If you are playing a VH or legendary campaign you will have to though - until you reach that critical mass at which point the game is basically already over anyway.
Sure, you can disregard doing that. But then all you are left with is throwing your army at that single straight wall. And that's imo still less fun than normal land battles.

[Saiyansixx]

Originally posted by KUSH:

Originally posted by Seven:

The sieges in wh2 were lackluster sure, but you could at least go about winning them all sorts of ways.

I really don't get your point. In WH2 it always ended up in having to rout the defender, since the 5 minute capture point victory never was a reasonable alternative to begin with.
I always ended up sniping the enemy army with lords/heroes and "hide" my other 18 stacks on the other side of the map so the enemy wasn't even in a proper defensive position, because the AI always deploys the troops according to the threats it can actually see.

This wasn't tactical. This was exploitative. But it was the only thing that made sense, unless you didn't care about casualties. If you are playing a VH or legendary campaign you will have to though - until you reach that critical mass at which point the game is basically already over anyway.
Sure, you can disregard doing that. But then all you are left with is throwing your army at that single straight wall. And that's imo still less fun than normal land battles.

I play only on legendary and i never did any of that cheesy ♥♥♥♥, speak for yourself and your own skillset.

[CHZ PFFS]

Originally posted by Seven:

Originally posted by Kolwyn:

I thought sieges in WH2 were not very good. WH3 changed my mind.

100% i used to think the WH2 sieges were lackluster, now im wishing they were back more than anything. 3 is almost unplayable with the current state of sieges.

Anybody who says it's unplayable is just really bad at strategy games. I would hate to go back to tw2 where you just have on lord run back and forth while you artillery everything, it's honestly kinda pathetic people would rather the easy way out.

[Saiyansixx]

Originally posted by CHZ PFFS:

Originally posted by Seven:

100% i used to think the WH2 sieges were lackluster, now im wishing they were back more than anything. 3 is almost unplayable with the current state of sieges.

Anybody who says it's unplayable is just really bad at strategy games. I would hate to go back to tw2 where you just have on lord run back and forth while you artillery everything, it's honestly kinda pathetic people would rather the easy way out.

I only play on legendary, never once used any cheese tactics like that, you admitting to doing that is the reason why you hated sieges in WH2. Sounds like your just bad.

[KUSH]

Originally posted by Seven:

I play only on legendary and i never did any of that cheesy ♥♥♥♥, speak for yourself and your own skillset.

Yeah, sure.
I am just making use of mechanics the way they were intended. If I am not supposed to do that since the AI apparently cannot respond appropriately, it's just a ♥♥♥♥ system. I don't know how it's more skillful to you to not hide the bulk of my forces when I don't need them, taking losses when I don't have to.
I'd rather get ♥♥♥♥ done in campaign and not have 3 regions by turn 150 because I'm losing half my armies when I don't have to.
It's no different from stacking Khainite Assassins in a single slave region as dark elves to get a stable 50k surplus income by turn 50.

[Saiyansixx]

Originally posted by KUSH:

Originally posted by Seven:

I play only on legendary and i never did any of that cheesy ♥♥♥♥, speak for yourself and your own skillset.

Yeah, sure.
I am just making use of mechanics the way they were intended. If I am not supposed to do that since the AI apparently cannot respond appropriately, it's just a ♥♥♥♥ system. I don't know how it's more skillful to you to not hide the bulk of my forces when I don't need them, taking losses when I don't have to.
I'd rather get ♥♥♥♥ done in campaign and not have 3 regions by turn 150 because I'm losing half my armies when I don't have to.
It's not different from stacking Khainite Assassins in a single slave region as dark elves to get a stable 50k surplus income by turn 50.

lol.


No.

[[FuFo] Da HALOSHOCK]

Originally posted by Buldor:

You can't instantly rebuild. Watch the AI, they barely build at all compared to what player does. And you can see the lockout timer of a tower above after you destroy it.

That lockout timer is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ to the ai. i have seen it on multiple occasions instantly rebuild a tower the second it was destroyed same with barricades.

[GeekFreak]

Are the sieges really that bad? I find them much more interesting than previous WH titles

[Saiyansixx]

Originally posted by GeekFreak:

Are the sieges really that bad? I find them much more interesting than previous WH titles

Wait till that fresh coat of paint wears off, it is 100x worse than before, once you realize theres no replay ability with it, less than that of WH2 even.