How to siege properly?

[Kayeka]

So, like many others, I've lately been complaining about how the siege AI really needs to be fixed. But when I was trying think about how the AI could siege better, I've realised that I really shouldn't be talking because I'm pretty bad at sieges myself. I mean, sure, I will usually win if the odds aren't stacked too high against me, but I'm taking far more losses than I should, and saying "we have reserves" isn't quite as fun as going for the high score.

So I'm just going to muse a little on how I could conduct a siege properly, and I'm looking forward to hearing you thoughts on the subject. For discussion's sake, let's assume the attackers and defenders are about equalish, the walls are made of stone and the opponent is more competent than the current AI.

-When attacking;

I generally just do the same thing as the AI is trying: bring up the ladders, capture the gates, and pour your units through and slog it out with with the units within the city. It works, but it could be better.

For starters, I should be more careful about what units to send up the walls with the ladders (though siege towers do the exact same thing, except better). The unit needs to be cheap, because they will be shot at from towers and skirmishers, but with a good melee attack stat so that they can cut through the skirmishers on the walls quickly. Barbarian mercenaries often seem to be a good option for this. Sending up hoplites is just asking for trouble, though.

These units should have no trouble capturing the gates form the AI, but against a player or hypothetically improved AI, there will probably be units within the capture zone of the gate, meaning that the best they can do is neutralise it for a while before they are routed by the numerically superior defenders. I could send in more units with the ladders already at the walls, but they'd be taking more casualties from tower fire, and I'd just be sending them to fight the enemy one-by-one. Quite unfavourable.

So the best thing to do would be to use this small window of opportunity when the gate towers are not firing to bust through the walls. Burning the gates down is a possibility. Bringing a battering ram is even better, to make the gates fall that much quicker so that the units on the wall don't have to keep out that long. With the gates down, you can attack the gate defenders from multiple directions for a quick victory and entry into the city.

With the Siege Experts military tradition, you can bring Tortoise Rams. Great stuff. Destroys walls, bypassing the burning oil completely, and protects the men within from arrow fire. I should use these more often.

Or just bring ballistas/onagers and skip pretty much everything of the above, but where's the fun in that?

And then it's just on to the centre. I can bring in my cavalry, so I only need to charge my best troops and flank the defenders. A good idea might be to first have my skirmishers use all their ammo, if the defender is okay with sitting and waiting.

If everything went according to plan, there'd be victory and cookies achieved in a little while. Pretty basic stuff, probably should have given this a bit more thought sooner.

-When defending

Let's assume that the attacker would be using similar tactics to the above. Can't just leave my skirmishers on the wall, as they'd get chopped to bits by infantry climbing the walls. I think it would be a good idea to loose a few volleys, and have the skirmishers retreat as soon as the ladders reach the walls (unless the attackers come on siege towers, at which point you might as well not have bothered putting the skirmishers there). In their place there'd be one or two sturdy melee units defending the way to the gate and/or nearby tower. The melee units will keep the attackers in place while the towers shoot hem to bits. Though they might not win the battle then and there, the attacker will probably have suffered heavier losses than the defender.

Assuming they'll fall, the attacker sits on the gate, neutralises it and breaks through. Not much to be done about this, so no need to lose even more men in a fight that has already been lost, unless you think you can rout the enemy units and recapture the gates fast enough. Have some light infantry supported by skirmishers sit around whatever breaches the attacker has made, just to incur some more losses. Unless you think your elite troops can pull a 300. Then you just have them defend the breaches on their own.

Then we retreat in the city. Pick a few bottlenecks defended by heavy infantry, and have your cavalry run around to charge the enemy in the back when they engage. By now, the enemy should be weakened and divided, and since you've managed to preserve your best units, it should be alright.

In theory, a win for the defenders. Again, very basic stuff, looking forward to actually having to think like this against an AI opponent.

In the meantime, how would you play a siege battle when going full tryhard?

[Kayeka]

Messaggio originale di appanugu:

Ballistas on the attack.

There's nothing to really think about as Defender at this stage of beta development.

Of course, but what if ballistas are out, or you are defending against a competent opponent?

[Powellinho.72]

i dont think we will have to wait long for the siege to get better , if the next patch is lots of fixes for it then maybe later today or tomorrow we might get it , ca said early this week hopefully patch 14.

[SuperGorp]

Well my strategy isn't very complicated. Rain down the artillery, let loose the ranged units and then CHAAAAAAAARGE!

[Knox]

I try to rarely use artillary. It felt a bit OP for a while there.

I use a weaker unit to take hits and get the ladders up then either they or a secondary low cost unit will go up the ladders. With a more combat ready troop behind them to actually start the fight once some of the arrows are occupied and there is some room to get up and not be a 1 vs everyone fight as they climb.

So using Rome as an example: Mercenaries or hastati on ladders, mercs or hastati up the ladders with principii close behind. I don't like to waste the more combat ready troops on arrows before they can ever get into combat. From there you can either bring more up to reinforce, or send them to try to capture a gate as the principi will hold off units for a while. (As long as they are not surrounded)

[Kayeka]

@Appanugu: All very sensible points to consider, but I don't quite agree with the following:

Messaggio originale di appanugu:

But, that's not as big of a deal as it should be - because in Rome2 - missile units fire as well from behnind the walls as on top - just with slightly less range - not due to loss of height - but due to having to stand back a bit further from the targets.

Are you sure about this? In my exerience, firing over obstacles results in a pretty hefty loss of accuracy. slinger can't fire over obstacles at all. Perhaps it's better to save the ammunition until you can get a better shot.

Messaggio originale di appanugu:

As it stands in Rome2, and I suppose depending on Difficulty Level? and Tech the attacker will also take Attrition damage while laying siege.
This is the main reason I also, as well as the AI, apparently feel compelled to assault without laying siege.

This is definitely true at first, but once you get teched up to reduce siege attrition, the men saved by siege engines might just make up for the losses in attrition.

[mdcpaladin]

ive never had an issue sieging against garrison/stack with just 1 stack. i usually breach at 2 points, drawing their strength. i send elites with ladders on their own while my main body goes with ladders and burning the gate. if they have oil i cap the gate before rushing through. at this time my elites have taken the walls and the main body drags the enemy into a pitched mas battle and by then my elites have moved into a flank position, smashing them between the hammer and the anvil. missile units i move to the side and they eat right through the mass. done at 15% loss to 100% of theirs on hard. war dogs do a great job when u bring them into a flank attack. 400+ kills each

[Pastori Silli]

If both sides have an army of equal strength - you may assume identical units for this thought exercise - then even if a field battle would come down to a display of superior tactics, a siege never favors the assaulter. The most crucial shortcoming of the AI is that it never really *sieges* you; it simply sends whatever stack it has in a suicidal attempt to bumrush you. That would never work. The AI never waits out the siege, or even attempts to build the equipment it needs to breach the walls reliably. If the AI were to play as a human did, I'd like to see some of the commenters fight against an organized defender with their own war dogs and elite infantry. Another factor to consider is that the game is hugely skirmish- and cavalry driven, and cavalry is nigh useless in the usual cityscape. If you ever play a head to head campaign and attack a full stack army defending a town, you'll see how effective it is to bleed out the attacking force by forming chokes, even if they use superior troops.

In my view the core issue is that not only is the pathfinding really wonky in walled assaults, but the AI doesn't seem to realize at all that it's not a place you can just walk into. Even in unwalled settlements, the AI attacks with *never* sieging you but just bumrushes, refusing to use envelopment through multiple entry points and just sends everything into a single choke. One could sort of reasonably argue that the game has been tuned for the impatient. The AI certainly acts in such a way. I usually deliberately let the AI keep building up units to give myself a challenge in the campaign, conducting sieges and such instead of cheesing the crap AI with a single ballista and two breaches. I'm not criticizing anybody here; what I'm saying is that even in Shogun 2 the AI had more understanding of what was going on. I got sieged every once in a while when it didn't want to assault a full stack, and that actually forced my hand with reinforcements. I'm not saying it was better, I'm saying they forgot some things on the way to Rome II. I will not even comment on the AI defending its settlements because that's exactly as pants-on-head. It rigidly and without fail sends skirmishers on the walls to stand, doesn't avoid or hide from artillery fire. There are no ambushes from between the structures, no clear blockage of streets, forming of chokes or anything of the like. It feels as though you're beating someone who just got the game and are supposed to be proud of it.

EDIT: I don't think it's ultimately the most productive thing to do to ruminate over how to siege effectively, although I do admit it does invoke some skill to do it right. It's very fun when fighting head to head against a friend :) Against a human, no set tactics work, whereas the Rome 2 AI is sadly predictable. I'm not angry at you or the game, I'm simply a bit sad over what I perceive as either deliberate lack of work towards the AI (production costs/timetable issues), or simply caving in to demands about making the Total War franchise more Arcade (faster, less waiting, rewarding the player by having a dumber AI to exploit).