How to play siege - a guide

[Mr_Puddins]

autoresolve... xD

[Ashardalon]

guess people do tend to avoid the things they are bad at
thats not how you get better tho

[Dagy47]

15/10 guide, ngl

[Zefar]

They are easy enough.

Lots of archers + Artillery + Spell users.

1: Get rid of towers
2: Throw spells at groups.
3: Finish with archers.

If you have gunners, break all of the walls and use heroes as bait for enemy forces.

[Mr_Puddins]

Originally posted by Zefar:

They are easy enough.

Lots of archers + Artillery + Spell users.

1: Get rid of towers
2: Throw spells at groups.
3: Finish with archers.

If you have gunners, break all of the walls and use heroes as bait for enemy forces.

Tactics isn't the issue for me personally. I just don't like building an army around bugged out siege mechanics. I'd rather just use auto-resolve with overwhelming force. Otherwise, just wait a turn or two for attrition to hurt the defenders enough I can then auto-resolve anyway.

The idea of an offensive siege is really fun. But how it works in-game is just too much a pain. The main issues being the gates and then assaulting with ladders.

Last time I tried to do an offensive siege I sent guys to deploy ladders and then they just decided to halt right under the enemy's towers and just stood there getting rained on.

I defend well enough. In fact, playing as the defender is actually fun. I just defend bottlenecks. Kinda feels like a survival mode, especially when yer outnumbered.

[Commisar Jon Fuklaw]

0/10 guide; daemonettes tied me up and made me listen to them talking about their feelings... and their day

[tinywars]

Yep. Tower defence isn't fun. I much prefer how the sieges in game two played out.

[AkumulatoR]

Unless I do some kind of gimmick like doing it solo with Kairos and just spells or some such, it's just tedious and boring and time consuming. Also bugs.

[Zeek]

Glory to field battles

[Ashardalon]

Originally posted by tinywars:

Yep. Tower defence isn't fun. I much prefer how the sieges in game two played out.

there are no towers anymore
any defensive advantage has already been whined away by people that dont play it anyway

[Mr_Puddins]

Originally posted by Ashardalon:

Originally posted by tinywars:

Yep. Tower defence isn't fun. I much prefer how the sieges in game two played out.

there are no towers anymore
any defensive advantage has already been whined away by people that dont play it anyway

I take it the buggy gates and your ladder assault troops stopping under wall towers doesnt bother you?

[Havean]

Originally posted by Ashardalon:

Originally posted by tinywars:

Yep. Tower defence isn't fun. I much prefer how the sieges in game two played out.

there are no towers anymore
any defensive advantage has already been whined away by people that dont play it anyway

There are towers buildable and wall based ones, walls and gates. I don't think you have played very much.

Why be angry at players not having fun at sieges? Should you not be angry at CA for failing to make them fun?

[Ashardalon]

Originally posted by Mr_Puddins:

Originally posted by Ashardalon:

there are no towers anymore
any defensive advantage has already been whined away by people that dont play it anyway

I take it the buggy gates and your ladder assault troops stopping under wall towers doesnt bother you?

yes those do bother me
but then suggesting game 2s sieges where better makes you sound dumb

Originally posted by Havean:

There are towers buildable and wall based ones, walls and gates. I don't think you have played very much.

Why be angry at players not having fun at sieges? Should you not be angry at CA for failing to make them fun?

2 max in town and the wall ones got nerfed in both range and effectiveness to the point you can just ignore them if you dont want to bother using a cannon

because the players whined a good system into the miserable state its in now
towns hold no defensive value anymore, wich speeds up the game, from pointless fight to pointless fight never stopping never needing to think
towns being a hurdle slowed the entire campaign down, making thinking necessary and forcing some strategy into this strategy game
the people that whernt going to play them anyway as they autoresolve every fight have removed a gameplay mechanic i enjoyed from the game and now they find out that its still not good enough because nothing will ever be as they will continue to autoresolve anyway

the nerfed system doesnt even make the cappoints relevant anymore
just hunker in a corner and pretend your smart as you abuse the chokepoint
just like the dumb sieges in game 1 and 2
screw all the mobile factions or the concept of layered defense thats actually fun to play

[Havean]

Yes no one is denying the siege battles are aweful. That's why this topic was made.

The idea that the siege battles used to be good in Warhammer 3 however is so ludicrous that I must assume you are making a joke. Warhammer 3 has never had good siege battles, they need to look at Troy and 3K to understand that it is still possible to make fun siege battles.
But they where so dam proud of their preset location for defences, despite the fact that 3K let you set them wherever you wanted. 3K had large garrisons for unwalled locations and small more elite garrisons for walled cities. Another great idea that was dropped.
3K Maps had natural choke points you could use before having to fall back. W3 seems to think that every location must have 5 entry points to make sure the defending AI can never cover them all.

[art_loots]

Originally posted by Havean:

Yes no one is denying the siege battles are aweful. That's why this topic was made.

The idea that the siege battles used to be good in Warhammer 3 however is so ludicrous that I must assume you are making a joke. Warhammer 3 has never had good siege battles, they need to look at Troy and 3K to understand that it is still possible to make fun siege battles.
But they where so dam proud of their preset location for defences, despite the fact that 3K let you set them wherever you wanted. 3K had large garrisons for unwalled locations and small more elite garrisons for walled cities. Another great idea that was dropped.
3K Maps had natural choke points you could use before having to fall back. W3 seems to think that every location must have 5 entry points to make sure the defending AI can never cover them all.

funny to see you have the opposite view on that as me.
personally think the battle maps have way to many choke points which leave no room to flank. in 3k i had less issue with this. for troy it mattered less cause it was more about infantry then cav lets be honest.
rome 2 had way beter siege maps and it made them actually beter then field battles. with all the issues that game had they had solid sieges and i liked the pace of combat. did they take time yes but it should be given that it's like 1/2 the game and the point of why you buy different kind of units

[Havean]

Originally posted by art_loots:

Originally posted by Havean:

Yes no one is denying the siege battles are aweful. That's why this topic was made.

The idea that the siege battles used to be good in Warhammer 3 however is so ludicrous that I must assume you are making a joke. Warhammer 3 has never had good siege battles, they need to look at Troy and 3K to understand that it is still possible to make fun siege battles.
But they where so dam proud of their preset location for defences, despite the fact that 3K let you set them wherever you wanted. 3K had large garrisons for unwalled locations and small more elite garrisons for walled cities. Another great idea that was dropped.
3K Maps had natural choke points you could use before having to fall back. W3 seems to think that every location must have 5 entry points to make sure the defending AI can never cover them all.

funny to see you have the opposite view on that as me.
personally think the battle maps have way to many choke points which leave no room to flank. in 3k i had less issue with this. for troy it mattered less cause it was more about infantry then cav lets be honest.
rome 2 had way beter siege maps and it made them actually beter then field battles. with all the issues that game had they had solid sieges and i liked the pace of combat. did they take time yes but it should be given that it's like 1/2 the game and the point of why you buy different kind of units

Hey that's not fair Rome 2 had no butt ladders. That means you could actually plan a defence for where they where coming and had to organise an attack with limited entry points. and we know CA don't think we can have sieges now without butt ladders.