'I stopped playing because the unoptimized rat men kill the fucking framerate when they die.';

'>>1712067
Warhammer 3 killed sieges. I don't give a fuck what your retarded picture says. The sieges in WH 2 may have sucked but they weren't unplayable. Sieges are the sole reason I will never play WH 3 again.';

'>>1713409
Dude, the problems that killed sieges in WH3 have their origins in Empire (2009).';

'>>1713409
what has changed in W3 for the worse compared to the previous games?';

'>>1712067
Sieges have always been shit in this franchise, because of terrible mechanics.';

'>>1712067
previous sieges you could at least abuse to win quickly now its a total slog';

'>>1713675
The design philosophy. They decided to adopt industry standards of subversion by making the sieges worse than they have ever been.';

'>>1713619
Sieges always sucked since S1 and the only one where they weren't broken or a slugfest was in R1.';

'>>1713675
Trying to make sieges into a tower defence minigame where barricades and towers are magically constructed in 90 seconds. Don't get me wrong, they were bad in the previous two games as well, but this change brought them to a whole new level of tedium. They also failed to code the AI to properly understand them, it's only in recent times they've patched it enough so the AI is actually kind of passable at understanding the mechanics CA put in.';

'How would (You) do the sieges?';

'>>1714049
The AI will never be able to handle sieges well, but siege assaults should be costly slogs where small numbers of defenders can cause severe damage to the attackers. High level forts and decently strong defenders should make an assault practically suicide.

Siege equipment is a really important part of this but it isn't inherently vital, castles are very effective in Shogun 2 despite no siege equipment, multiple layers of walls helps, lots of places for the defender to leverage strong local numerical superiority and to use ranged weapons. But I still believe siege weapons should be a necessity.
This is sort of siege related, but archers shouldn't be able to fire arrows at a high arc with near perfect accuracy. Particularly in Shogun 2 you can easily sit outside castles and annihilate the defenders with archer fire way too effectively.

Unless you have a large army and a castle has a poor defence you should be waiting the siege timer out a decent amount of the time.';

'>>1714049
Shogun II style, inside the castle is at the height of the walls.';

'>>1712067
is it really this hard to write semi competent AI, they had 25 fucking years to improve it and somehow went backwards';

'>>1714049
None of this would ever work in the engine, it'd be too complicated for the average player, and CA could never be trusted to put it all together, but this is what I'd like.
>take away the ability for units to pull ladders out of their asses
>remove all the retarded capture the flag bullshit
>knocking walls down requires purpose-built siege weapons that take time to construct instead of the one cannon you brought with you
>army arty would be supplementary and/or used for bombardment of defenders
>if you want to attack from multiple angles you need more siege weapons which takes more turns to build, giving a trade-off on meat grinder but shorter siege, or more strategic battle but more time invested to prepare
>defender can build their own defences as attacker is building up war machines
>AI should have some basic understanding of where to defend, and where to pull back and with which units to create chokepoints and kill boxes
>rewards for taking towns increased to make it worth the effort
>have it possible to damage or destroy settlement buildings during the battle to incentivise the defender to actually defend certain sections instead of cheesing in the final capture point
>force a minimum army size depending on settlement size in order to siege so a four-unit stack of gobbos can't bring an entire city to its knees by sitting outside';

'>>1714049
the problem is that any complication would slow the game tempo as it already happened. There are like 200 cities in the game, and its basically a map painter, you should be able to take them quickly. Maybe just make the siege maps smaller and add unique mechanics to the faction capitals.';

'>>1712067
>they listened to the player's whining and suggestions
big mistake';

'>>1714049
Back to WH2 but remove ladders.';

'>>1714042
And if you aren't min-maxer. You can just wait 1 turn and auto resolve it. Even if it was loss before. They are bad and you have easy way to bypass them.';

'>>1712067
sieges sucked since rome 1, people "fighting to the death" on the city walls were annoying as shit or the AI just standing infront of wall towers and dying
they are never getting fixed';

'Total War has been shit since Empire completely fucked the battle mechanics and people have been grasping for excuses to like the games ever since';

'>>1714049
>How would (You) do the sieges?
Make the main capture point the only way to inflict full army loss on the defenders
Make the secondary capture points give a individually negligible moral boost to whoever control them
Make it so that the attacker's reinforcement is available from deployment phase rather than wait for them to pop into the map
Prevent player AND AI from building more temporary defences past the deployment phase
Give a lot more resources to build said defences to compensate

The main issue is the size of the maps versus the unit limit of an army, 20 units + unupgraded garrisons on maps that have like 6 different potential fronts is not enough and upping the unit limit per army would create a lot more problems in the long run';

'Sieges should be turn-based. Lords of the Realm figured this out in 1993… field battles were RTS and sieges were turn based.

When placing a castle under siege, each turn you would have resources based on the number of troops you have. Both sides took attrition. During your turn (baked into the overall turn), you’d select the siege and decide which actions to take (build siege engines, move siege engines, troops, etc. attack walls, etc.)

This dragged out the length of the siege ofc but made them critically important. You could design the castles too which was awesome.';

'>>1714533
Turn-based is for pathetic weak dysgenic spitiful mutants.

The real strategy and fun is in the real-time.';

'>>1714093
>The AI will never be able to handle sieges well
Then is no AI, because no Intelligence.
>>1714105
Same engine since Empire (2009), original devs left and new ones are just "muh diversity", what do you expected?';

'>>1714665
>total war
>real strategy
lmao';

'>>1714674
multiplayer total war was great, you'll never get a good challenge out of RTS AI';

'Assuming I wanted to buy a Warhammer game but only really plan to play Karl Franz which one should I buy?';

'>>1714905
if you mean total war then tww2 is the best but tww3 has some qol improvements that i consider essential now and its bigger. But its expensive. I would suggest renting a steam account that has all 3 games and see for yourself';

'>playing Vamp Coast on SFO
>recommended to blow up the walls and towers with artillery instead of immediately assaulting
>turn walls into Swiss cheese
>send my crew in on ground
>enemy units hidden between wall leftovers shred them
>can't get gun units in for line of sight
What can I do better here? Even crabs have trouble not getting flanked.';

'>>1714946
>what do I do here?
Reconsider sieging with pirates. They’re only serviceable in open terrain and get fucked in just about every other scenario';

'>>1714049
Make starving out an enemy a viable strategy.';

'>>1715217
assaults were vanishingly rare in any era and that TW doesn't model actual siege warfare with trenches, mining, raids, interdiction and bombardments through anything more than a turn counter is an embarrassment';

'>>1714042
There was a mod that removed real time building in sieges and just gave the defender a flat amount, but it hasn't been updated in a long time. Actually made sieges pretty alright.';

'>>1715220
The issue is that these are minor skirmishes that happen over a long period of time and there's just no way to make "a lot of time passes and not much happens" fun in an RTS, especially if the outcome of each individual skirmish is just 'indecisive' or small incremental progress towards an eventual resolution.

Plus, assaults themselves were far more common than you think. It was actually pretty rare to starve a population center out, and dedicated military fortifications would tend to have decades worth of grain stockpiled and an independent water source with relatively few mouths to feed. Sieging was more about systematically eroding a defender's advantage until assault was possible.';

'>>1714105
AI is the interaction of code with mechanics. The code has to interpret and execute the mechanics within an environment for it to work well. Game coders are bad at coding even when they aren't under crunch conditions, and mechanics can often go unimplemented until late into the development cycle.

In order to fix this, you'd have to have the mechanics fleshed out early and not change them. They'd have to be implemented within a reasonable time frame in order for any coding to take place that could properly utilize them for NPCs. And the lead devs would actually have to give a shit about implementing good AI, which they don't.';

'>>1714105
>>1715432
The problem is that the AI in TW thus far is fairly good for what it is, and getting it beyond its comfort zone without spazzing out is likely impractical.
As of right now, it can build a formation, march it towards your army, and do basic hammer and anvil. That's probably the skill of a basic TW player. Asking the AI to do anything fancy might cause it to break a good formation and open itself up to obvious counterattacks. You'd need to teach it how to divide its forces without being defeated in detail. Even human military commanders struggle with this.';

'>>1714153
Those mostly seem reasonable, but
>knocking walls down requires purpose-built siege weapons that take time to construct instead of the one cannon you brought with you
Is kinda dumb - i agree that there should be a difference between a normal field gun and a siege weapon, but the latter should just be a unit that is slow as shit. If you don't want it, you can just use stuff like mining or siegeworks you craft on-site instead.';

'>>1715432
>>1715440
Wait until AI starts to do coding, maybe we will finally get a decent to good TW game since Med2.';

'>>1714153
>remove turns
>remove campaign map
>campaign map and battle map are now the same map
>all is real-time with pause (like in PDX games)
>remove demigod units';

'>>1712067
Siege battles will never be fun. The bad thing is that they don't find ways to encouraged land battles.
One good thing nu Total Wars made is that small settlements are open field battles (unless walls are built or whatever).';

'It's kinda crazy that in Rome Total War 1 sieges included
>actual ladders, siege towers, and siege rams that were manned by physical soldiers and were vulnerable to missile fire
>troops could leave or enter the walls through doors leading into wall towers
>soldiers could be killed by being knocked off the wall
>you had to enter towers and gatehouses to take them over
>street battles wth choke points
>multiple squares
>you could see, damage and destroy campaign map buildings
Imagine if they just taken that and added some more city and wall variety';

'If sieges are so shit then why CA doesn't simply deincentivize siege battles?
Force AI to seek out more open field battles, make fortifications more scarce, introduce tools to bypass the sieges etc';

'>>1720924
People have been saying this for years but the AI is simultaneously too smart and too retarded for this. They can't beat player armies in field battles and they don't like taking battles they'll lose, so they just mill about trying to take undefended cities and hide out in their own cities if a player is nearby.
As a result
>players will never get to fight a defensive siege battle unless they're ridiculously outnumbered
>players will rarely fight field battles unless they can ambush, intercept, or bait an enemy stack, or are again ridiculously outnumbered
>players will fight a LOT of offensive siege battles because it's the only way you can reliably force the enemy to fight';

'>>1720957
>>players will rarely fight field battles unless they can ambush, intercept, or bait an enemy stack, or are again ridiculously outnumbered
Yeah, the biggest problem, and as I said, the good thing they did is making minor settlement battles be open field battles (unless they have walls built or something like that, depending on the game).';

'>>1716061
Hegemony does this. I think it would be very difficult to do without downsizing the battles. It's still great though, it's much more immersive.';

'>>1715238
I'm using it now. Works fine';

'>>1716055
>Wait until AI starts to do coding
We have bigger problems than gaming AI if AI could actually achieve self-improving code.';

'>>1712067
The video game industry is one of the worst in the world, devs are allowed to do the most incompetent lazy shit like OP's picture and most fans will defend them for it and pay them for every crap piece of dlc anyway not caring about the fundamental issues of the game ever being fixed.';

'>>1721709
>The video game industry is one of the worst in the world
Central banking: Hold my beer';

'>>1713409
It's impressive how they somehow actually made them worse, I guess on a technical level there's more to them but they're honest to fuck less fun now than in 2.
Previously I would sometimes play a siege every now and then in 2, while in 3, I probably played less than a dozen.';

'>>1720890
pretty much all of that still exists and works well in R2, Attila and 3K. Just today I tried to send a lone siege tower up to the city trying to cheese the AI with a nonstop conga line up a single tower and the AI sent Cav out from the city to kill the guys pushing it and then ran back inside the city. then I had to send the guys I wanted to push and an escort which was cool.and when I was defending during a siege they had multiple cavalry run around to the other side of the city where there were no other attackers and none of my defenders because of that, they dismounted climbed the wall, controlled the gate and remounted running through my city before I could respond. I didn't even see them until the "we lost control of a gate" popup.I feel like attacking in sieges in those games is actually pretty tough and I generally do take a lot of losses, and defending choke points is amazingly fun

sieges in WH just cannot be balanced around magic flying units and how insanely accurate and overpowered ranged combat is. I don't know why they changed the firing arc of ranged combat but in the historical games shooting at units on the walls barely does anything, most of the arrows just hit the walls since they just fire straight and shooting over it to units that are in the ground just seems wildly inaccurate. in WH every volley is like this perfect straight up arc over the wall whether shooting a unit on the wall or behind every volley is insanely accurate. so you get these busted ass sieges were every defender is dead before you even climb the walls because magic and OP range.';

'>>1721709
Laziness is getting point where retard like me is noticing what wrong. Like models that tank performance.
Just stick on stuff to existing model to make it work.
Then there is professional lazy devs like overwatch devs. What on earth did writers, modelers and level designers did during overwatch 1?';

'>>1721701
>AI could actually achieve self-improving code.
By the Omnissiah-Mata-Nui, there is hope.';

'>>1714049
>make ladders a built siege tool
>make walls work like normal terrain (still destructible)
>make barricades cheaper
>fewer but more important victory points (and have the ai actually go for them)
>make the ai focus on fewer flanks (no more 1 unit and a battering ram on the opposite side of the map)
And remove army losses for defenders. Warhammer is a very "to the last man" setting.';

'>>1714049
>Handcrafted maps that doesnt feel like copypaste, do some form of walls thats not only copypaste 90° angle
>for smaller settlements highest tier = some walls + bastion, last stand type of small area
>for large settlements few layers of defence + large castle area as a last stand zone
>deserting the exterior wall/defenses mean that settlement can be pillaged which destroys your buildings and eco, but leave your inner defenses intact. It would be a optimal strategy for some factions (both sides of the sige)
>ai rework where said ai know where to go/where to fight (capture points for pillage located all around the city and strategic capture point for thaking the city located in bastion/last stand zone)
>no ladders from ass, but some other option of scaling the wall (buildable ladders, some units got hooks and ropes or even ability to climb on the walls, like spiders in table top) also almost every unit should be able to get ontop of the wall one way or the other.
>fix the fucking pathfinding in your +2y old game, where there are still issues with units having mental breakdown when going throught the gate.
I think this sums it up pretty much. I think ca got it all wrong in the begining. They wanted to make siges uniform. In a history titles it works, just slap some different graphics, get inspired by old cities layout and call it a day.
When it comes to warhammer, sige/city defense abilities should be linked to the factions. Races like dwarfts should be extra good on defense and make use of altillery during sige. Orcs should have very few defense options (more like spiked traps or makeshift barricades, some difficult terrain everywhere) and their sige strat should involve in a tide of bodies that would wash over the walls. Ofc some factions would be more similar to others but there could be at least 5-6 main strats/faction settlements "type" of defense avaliable. It would diversify it so it wouldnt be so dull to have same siges over and over.';

'>>1721810
It is only worse because of the campaing changes as overly favourable AR for the defender and AI that won`t attack but rather siege you down, it is actually far easier to cheese sieges against unfavourable odds.';

'>>1712067
I don't understand what's going on here.';

'>>1723568
Nothing, it's just schizoshit';

'>>1723568
>>1723570
In previous titles, the wall was only half as wide. Formations needed to be different, there'd be a different kind of wall combat.
With it being this wide, it's just normal combat but on top of a wall. If Creative Assembly could, they'd have you be able to flank the enemy on top of the wall with your cavalry.';

'>>1714049
What’s wrong with sieges? They shake up the battles a bit but ultimately aren’t very frustrating
t. only plays factions with artillery or monsters for wall breaching';

'>>1714037
>slugfest
Yes, sieges should in fact be an unpleasant slugfest for the attacker.';

'>>1723601
>it's just normal combat but on top of a wall. If Creative Assembly could, they'd have you be able to flank the enemy on top of the wall with your cavalry.
I mean, people praise Shogun 2 all the time.';

'>>1713681
Med2 sieges were awesome (in mp)';

'>>1714946
Your first mistake was playing the siege battles';

'>>1714049
They should first separate siege from assault. Often historically a siege would have multiple assaults to take a fortress, not one big wave of siege towers taking wall segment after wall segment and then the fortress is taken in less than an hour. Another major problem is huge armies are often not present on the defense, because the attacker can just sit them out and starve them. The defender pretty much always had a force in the hundreds, maybe low thousands to give their supplies enough room to bring in reinforcements or wait out the attacker. The final thing I'll say about TW sieges is that waging the siege is free other than the wages of the soldiers. Laying siege will probably need a cost associated, even down to the cost of supplying the siege force and also maintaining a barricade around the fortress. And taking the fortress should be more rewarding as well, not only in loot or whatever but in strategic victory. Fortresses were typically used as bases of operations which were massive advantages to have in the region, and taking them was difficult but very powerful. The strength of fortified cities was typically in their ports, which could bring in reinforcements and supplies easily. The attacker had to defeat the city with a navy first to have any hope of taking it.

They'll probably have to not have full sieges in multiplayer, except maybe some assault scenarios that are taking parts of a fortress or something.';

'THOONDERBARGE!

LANDSHIP!

ELSPETH!';

'>>1725163
>THOONDERBARGE!';

'>>1725163
>>1725206
Not to mention the Nurgle stuff.
Also I thought we'd be getting Grim, but Malakai seems to be promising.
Now I wonder what we get with the Khornate DLC...unless we get something between it and ToD.

Oh, and BTW. If Gotrek & Felix are present, then betting these two are getting a serious rework...hopefully.';

'>>1725288
>Oh, and BTW. If Gotrek & Felix are present, then betting these two are getting a serious rework...hopefully.
They certainly need it.
I love G&F, its something I've been long wishing for.';

'>>1712067
Apologize, now.';

'>>1712067
How do I not suck at this game? It's the only Total War game I own.';

'>>1725288
I don't know what they were thinking with G&F. Recruiting them means ditching one of your existing generals, so... why would you do it if your existing generals are currently where you want them?';

'>>1725605';

'>>1723601
>With it being this wide, it's just normal combat but on top of a wall.
No, it isn't. Moving units on walls doesn't work like on ground
Focusing on a wooden extension is retarded to begin with. It's just a texture and a mesh. They could have make walls thicker if they wanted. They simply thought that wooden extension looks cool.';

'>>1725359
>>1725617
These two should've been unique heroes or even one hero Skarsnik and Gobbla style.
With some really crazy skills for some extra fun.
But nope. Gotrek was made into a LL for absolutely no reason while Felix is constantly mogged by vampire ladies, Chaos Champions, stinking gobbos, oversized bovine, angry priests, Dwarfs with a grudge, angry trees, oversized rats and lizards, pointy ears and more...not to mention that he literally along with Gotrek can't level up nor use any actions.
At their current they are a liability on the campaign map and only good in a fight.
So bad they are you need a mod to make them fun.

>>1725490
Shut up Volund.';

'>>1714049
Just remove them entirely from the game and make faction capitals scripted missions like in Dawn of War Dark Crusade.
If the settlement doesn't have walls or if it has an army in it, it's gonna be an open battle. If it does have walls and no army in it, it's a campaign only siege with events happening every turn (multiple decisions from a pool with different outcomes depending on the faction you fight, so picking the same option against dwarves as you do against VC will flip the result from positive to negative). Outcomes can include losing certain units or having your general wounded or destroy a building or add/ remove turns from the siege etc.
Also add a certain RNG element to it so nothing is certain. Make safer options slower and aggresive ones riskier.
If it has walls and an army you fight the army and then you siege with what remains of your army.
Garrisons replaced entirely with a "garrison strenght" tier meter. Say tier 1 gives the army you might need to fight in open field basic units as reinforcements. Tier 3 gives them elites. For sieges this means you need to siege the city for longer if it has a stronger garrison.
The main issue is that there are a bazilion factions and making unique battle maps for all that are fun, engaging and balanced would be a pain. Maybe just reduce the unique maps to their main "lore" capital for that specific race.';

'Next DLC actually looks fun because I wanna play all 3 lords.
Will probably play Nurgle first because of the biggest change.';

'>>1725852
>These two should've been unique heroes or even one hero Skarsnik and Gobbla style.
Maybe they will get made into a single 2-person unit in the rework, would be the most sensible option.

Let them be a melee killing machine of a 'Legendary Hero'';

'>>1725903
Aye. But knowing CA, they will misinterpret it and do something really stupid.
Though after the Nurgle rework (which is actually fun), maybe some hope has been restored in me.';

'>>1714049
just give me rome 1 sieges back. idgaf.';

'>>1725605';

'i want naval and amphibious battles back
including naval sieges';

'i wonder what the good timeline is like where CA kept refining the simulation aspects and performance instead of cranking out themed stinkers every year?';

'>>1728224
IIRC that doesn't work anymore on Very Hard, the AI will now avoid shooting single units.';

'>>1720882
Honestly, I've played a lot of /tg rules, fantasy, ancient, medieval. They all have rules for sieges, to some extent. They're also probably the least read sections of any rulebook because as cool as "once more unto the breach!" sounds, the actual gaming is dull as ditchwater.';

'>>1712067
'Member when Warhammer 2 "fixed sieges"? I 'member.';

'>>1728820

You have autism';

'>>1713619
This. Instead of abandoning the awful af engine introduced in Empire they just kept adding band-aids and stop-gaps to it without documentation on what they were doing until it got to the point that the people brought on to make Warhammer didn't even know what they were looking at';

'>>1714037
Rome 1 sieges were super broken, what are you on about?';

'>>1728866
Rome 1 and Medieval 2 sieges were messy with pathfinding but at least they did what they're supposed to do, troops manned the walls, defended the walls, killed a lot of your people before you took the city. They could be cheesed with but all the AI dating back to STW could be cheesed if you knew what you were doing. It's just really really easy to cheese the AI now';

'>>1728873
>machine gun towers
>towers that shoot inwards
Warhammer isn't any less broken than the historical titles.';

'>>1728874
The inward shooting towers was a weird design decision, even weirder that it was only a couple of cultures that had those types of towers';

'>>1728878
Bold of you to assume that it was a conscious design decision.';

'>>1728820
There was never Warhammer 2 siege overhaul. They only added forts for the Empire';

'slaanesh dlc when?';

'why did they make elspeth the nuln lord instead of emanuelle?';

'>>1728864
I wish i could confidently talk out of my ass to this degree';

'I wish I could confidently fuck my ass.';

'>>1712067
>play any race
>turn 50
>chaos spawns
>too far away to be a threat
>still 10-20 turns before endgame units are unlocked and viable
>already hold too many settlements with fully built eco
>can field 3-4 full-stack armies
>get bored
>restart as other race
>repeat
How to stop snowballing and have fun?';

'>>1736030
kys';

'>>1712067
how to fix sieges in total war games:
you siege a city, and after some turns you create breaches etc. when you want to storm, the game starts with some parts of the wall already destroyed because of your long siege. additionally, gates might be weakened or destroyed too. if you don't wait, the castle will be intact.

there, i fixed it';

'>>1714049
See, their basic problem is that they treat sieges as just regular field battles with some walls streets and towers. So you grab some ladders, or shoot the walls open and just go in.

In reality, sieges tended to be long drawn out affairs. The defending army had massive advantages and so the attackers usually just camped outside until the defenders starved. They would dig trenches, make artillery emplacements, raid the countryside for food... If they decided to take it by storm they would have to have a high advantage in numbers as well as a crapton of siege engines.

The defenders on the other hand would launch constant raids against the attackers construction projects, try to smuggle in aid one way or another, carefully ration their supplies...Disease was common for both sides. Getting hit by the plague could wipe out large proportions of either army.

None of this would be a very fun experience especially when you consider how this interlocks with the rest of the game. Some kind of 10 turn siege where you slowly whittle down the enemy would turn the game into a slow grind. Given how quickly you (and especially the AI) recruit armies, actually taking enemy territory and especially their big cities would be a fucking nightmare. The ease with which you build fortifications and the sizable size of free garrisons is also an issue.

You would have to basically rethink the whole experience from the ground up and here's the thing: I don't think it would be worth it. The fantasy in TW games is going a map-wide conquest and painting the whole map. It's not sitting in front of some shithole until it breaks. If you're under attacks, the fantasy is basically Helm's Deep. Your heroic army beating back the enemy assault. It's not you just sitting there while hoping the enemy shits themselves to death.';

'>>1738089
why not skip the siege entirely and just have the fight be storming the citadel after you already breached the walls?';

'>>1736058
I remember the first Rome 2 teaser having those. What a load of bullshit it turned out to be';