Inexpugnable cities

[Poliorketes]

I don't know if is me, but in the last wars than I saw I noted one growing impregnability of cities. In realms with, at better, ten warriors, any city who can have easily 5-10 militia units is simply non-attackable.

thoughts?

[vonGenf]

I don't know if is me, but in the last wars than I saw I noted one growing impregnability of cities. In realms with, at better, ten warriors, any city who can have easily 5-10 militia units is simply non-attackable.

thoughts?

Walled cities have always been very hard to attack. Raiding a city without taking over or torching the rurals first is an extremely rare strategy and unlikely to work unless the city is very poorly defended. If you can cut the food and gold sources that allow the city to replenish militia, however, whittling the defenders down is possible.

[Scarlett]

The last time I saw a heavily defended city fall in a huge battle was Anacan in 2006 (though I don't play much on Atmarra or BT).

Given that the only option is assault and that there is no real 'siege' mechanism, this is consistent. Most medieval sieges were won by endurance or intrigue and not 'let's all go charge that giant wall'

[Ender]

'let's all go charge that giant wall'

And sometimes that doesn't even work once they start throwing vegetables and farm animals at us.

Aside from siege engines, have actual siege mechanics been considered for BM? I suppose it may not be terribly exciting, but it could open up some interesting mechanics perhaps.

[Anaris]

And sometimes that doesn't even work once they start throwing vegetables and farm animals at us.

Aside from siege engines, have actual siege mechanics been considered for BM? I suppose it may not be terribly exciting, but it could open up some interesting mechanics perhaps.

Considered, yes.

Implemented, no.

It's one of the things that we do need to try and do something (or some things) about, but won't likely be able to for a while yet.

[Scarlett]

Yeah, as much as I love the idea of proper sieges, you'd really have to change a lot about how BM combat works. To model it correctly, you'd have to have garrisons (not just purposefully-planted militia) as well as mechanics for longer campaigns, because sieges could easily last a year without going home.

[Anaris]

Yeah, as much as I love the idea of proper sieges, you'd really have to change a lot about how BM combat works. To model it correctly, you'd have to have garrisons (not just purposefully-planted militia) as well as mechanics for longer campaigns, because sieges could easily last a year without going home.

Meh. That's definitely not going to be the kind of siege we implement.

I'm thinking something more along the lines of a way to interdict food from getting into the region (not sure how yet), and some more interesting siege engines.

[Poliorketes]

mmm... right now, the only thing it could be made is to make 'defensive' units to not move forward in battle. This would make some 'ranged battles' in the cities, and the attackers could loot, etc. the city-region, I suppose.

It won't be a real siege but it could do the work.

[Scarlett]

But that isn't a siege. That's an archer fight over walls, which was pointless.

A siege means a bunch of guys surrounding your castle so nobody can get in or out and so nobody can get food in or out. It doesn't starve the peasants in the surrounding area (so it isn't like looting) it just starves the garrison. A siege was only broken one of three ways:

- the defenders charged out of the castle, sometimes by surprise and to great effect (such as the Crusaders did in the siege of Antioch in 1098 - probably the most lopsided defensive siege victory in the Middle ages)
- the attackers charged into the castle, after building sufficient engines (these were built on the spot, not dragged across Christendom)
- the attackers buggered off for some other reason

You did also have intrigue leading to #1 or #2. The original siege of Antioch (with the Crusaders on the outside trying to get in) was won because Bohemond bribed somebody to turn over control of a tower, and then they opened the gates.

[Tom]

You forgot one way, which was quite commong:

Surrender

When food supplies were running out, and a sally was suicide, that was pretty much the option left. The romans, for example, won most of their sieges by surrender after they had established a reputation for never giving up a siege (i.e. excluding option #3).

[vonGenf]

You forgot one way, which was quite commong:

Surrender

He did say those were the ways to break a siege. An unbroken siege will end up in surrender or a ghost town sooner or later.

[Perth]

But that isn't a siege. That's an archer fight over walls, which was pointless.

A siege means a bunch of guys surrounding your castle so nobody can get in or out and so nobody can get food in or out. It doesn't starve the peasants in the surrounding area (so it isn't like looting) it just starves the garrison. A siege was only broken one of three ways:

- the defenders charged out of the castle, sometimes by surprise and to great effect (such as the Crusaders did in the siege of Antioch in 1098 - probably the most lopsided defensive siege victory in the Middle ages)
- the attackers charged into the castle, after building sufficient engines (these were built on the spot, not dragged across Christendom)
- the attackers buggered off for some other reason

You did also have intrigue leading to #1 or #2. The original siege of Antioch (with the Crusaders on the outside trying to get in) was won because Bohemond bribed somebody to turn over control of a tower, and then they opened the gates.

Dwilight seems like the only continent in which realistic sieges of this type would really be possible in BM because of its unique "donut" townlands around the cities. Because of that, one army truly can surround a city and control who goes in and out.

The other continents would be way to difficult to place a significant force (able to deter an enemy from simply breaking out) in every region that borders the city region.

[Vellos]

FWIW, Aurvandil has directly attacked and laid waste fortified cities a number of times semi-recently. Rettleville and Chateau Saffalore come to mind; Fatmilak and Madina before that.

[Ender]

Fatmilak and Madina before that.

Technically, Tower Fatmilak. Fatmilak itself is the rural surrounding the city.

I'd forgotten all about the regions in Dwilight where they surround the cities as extensions of the city proper. That layout would help with the mechanic for for sieges, I would think, since it does typically cut off all land access to the city in question. Though Tower Fatmilak and Madina, I think, have sea routes attached to them.

I guess if we had sieges we'd need a way to blockade the harbor too.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Actually, you could just make it so that bringing food through only the harbor is less efficient, making you lose more food than you buy. (off the top of my head number, 75 out of 100 bushels get lost due to space on ships, ships getting wrecked in storms, pirates, etc.)