Are You Content with the Siege Mechanics?
- Thread starter Chlodio
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
This sort of thread is not particularly useful. If you have a specific problem you think you see, please point it out.
And with the predictability I mean, you can tell when a castle is about to give up, in EU4 it's chance-based, which is something I have always appreciated. Historically sieges were all but predictable, the besiegers could be forced to leave after they ran out of supplies or routed as a result of a bold sortie that spread panic (in 1171 Strongbow drove away a large Irish army besieging Dublin by sallying the enemy camps with just a token force).
Another interesting element would be that some great cities (such as Constantinople) should require an assault because enforcing an efficient blockade on such cities for several months isn't plausible.
Sometimes they speed it up.
Now that you mention it, though, is there something if 3.2.1 that keeps them from firing? I haven't seen one In a long time, and I know I have siege events turned on in the game rules.
Maybe my message settings have gotten changed, and they're firing, but I'm just not seeing them.
Now that you mention it, though, is there something if 3.2.1 that keeps them from firing? I haven't seen one In a long time, and I know I have siege events turned on in the game rules.
Maybe my message settings have gotten changed, and they're firing, but I'm just not seeing them.
I voted in the negative for one reason.
Typically , the field battles are the real nail - biters. If I win those , then sieges are just the aftermath process of sitting on the clock , and an inevitable running up of the score.
Roughly two years ago , and vaguely remembered , sieges could be nail - biters on their own account , on account of good generals , or even your king , could die , if I remember correctly , due to a defender sally that really turned ugly for the besieger , or on account of illness due to the horrid sanitary conditions endemic to sieges.
More than once I lost a super - star King suddenly on account of that . To be replaced by a five year old , or an incompetent relative.
Saw an already won war turn really ugly on that account.
I don't recall seeing a single such siege event , though , in the past two years.
Sieges these days are perfectly safe.
Typically , the field battles are the real nail - biters. If I win those , then sieges are just the aftermath process of sitting on the clock , and an inevitable running up of the score.
Roughly two years ago , and vaguely remembered , sieges could be nail - biters on their own account , on account of good generals , or even your king , could die , if I remember correctly , due to a defender sally that really turned ugly for the besieger , or on account of illness due to the horrid sanitary conditions endemic to sieges.
More than once I lost a super - star King suddenly on account of that . To be replaced by a five year old , or an incompetent relative.
Saw an already won war turn really ugly on that account.
I don't recall seeing a single such siege event , though , in the past two years.
Sieges these days are perfectly safe.
There is a game rule for it:
Allowed / disallowed / only for the defenders
I am content in the sense that they meet my minimum standards, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.
I have seen them in 3.2.1. I recently had a holding that I was sieging go from 20 to 60% morale from a siege event (albeit it was losing 20% every 12 days so it didn't put me back that much). And I have definitely seen small forces lose just enough that they were no longer enforcing the siege.