Ok but think this through...why would these things not happen while in the field and not sieging?
What makes sieging a castle different?
All these issues you present are captured by increased attrition rate. This mechanic is senseless.
- 4
"Disease Outbreak" Mechanic Is Backwards
- Thread starter Ziggy187
- 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.
What makes sieging a castle different?
All these issues you present are captured by increased attrition rate. This mechanic is senseless.
I've been saying it's a bad mechanic all along. All the issues with sieging a fort are captured by increased attrition. No need for an added slap to the face that makes zero sense. I'm pointing out that if disease outbreak is desired in the game it should be applied to the castle dwellers and not those outside in fresh air with supply lines. This mechanic should be tossed.
- 4
Jusy 2 examples in 30 seconds search.
siege of the city of Lisbon from 29 May to 3 September 1384, between the Portuguese defenders of the city led by John I of Portugal and the Castillian army led by King John I of Castile. The siege ended in a disaster for Castile. A plague outbreak together with the constant attacks by Portuguese forces led by Nuno Álvares Pereira caused huge casualties among the Castilian ranks, who were forced to retreat four months after the start of the siege.
Siege of Cochim:
The cholera epidemic had taken a heavy toll on the Zamorin's army – more than 10,000 men were lost.
What you ask makes no sense.
Supply lines are attacked, castles get supplies in, diseases spreads when a huge concentration of people is at months at end on the field with poor hygiene conditions, at the mercy of cold, heat, pests, and exhaustion.
siege of the city of Lisbon from 29 May to 3 September 1384, between the Portuguese defenders of the city led by John I of Portugal and the Castillian army led by King John I of Castile. The siege ended in a disaster for Castile. A plague outbreak together with the constant attacks by Portuguese forces led by Nuno Álvares Pereira caused huge casualties among the Castilian ranks, who were forced to retreat four months after the start of the siege.
Siege of Cochim:
The cholera epidemic had taken a heavy toll on the Zamorin's army – more than 10,000 men were lost.
What you ask makes no sense.
Supply lines are attacked, castles get supplies in, diseases spreads when a huge concentration of people is at months at end on the field with poor hygiene conditions, at the mercy of cold, heat, pests, and exhaustion.
- 3
- 2
The 1% minimum attrition and +1 supply weight for besieging armies, both of which are only incurred on enemy territory, does not, in fact, achieve this.
- 2
Well, since the castle is mostly isolated from the outside world during the siege, it sort of makes sense that they would have a decreased chance of getting a new disease that wasn't already inside. They are also exposed to less disease-carrying insects and animals than those sleeping outside in nature.
My guess is that this mechanic is really referring only to contagious diseases that need a carrier, as opposed to disease in general which can be caused by bad hygiene, poor nutrition, etc.
My guess is that this mechanic is really referring only to contagious diseases that need a carrier, as opposed to disease in general which can be caused by bad hygiene, poor nutrition, etc.
So you're taking a castle siege as illustrated in the game and finding historical data for sieging a city? Not at all apples to apples.
- 4
Yeah and the bastards in the castle get no attrition. I call BS!
- 3
It's just a terrible mechanic. No need to rationalize it. Just get rid of it!
- 6
If the modified dice roll is high enough to progress the siege, the defenders take casualties.
- 4
Again you aren't talking about it as a bad mechanic, you keep bringing it up as "making no sense" when it does make entire sense.
There's good reason why humans have developed houses around the world. Homeless people aren't healthier than those that live in houses. Just being out in a field does not protect you from a disease outbreak, living there for weeks to months increases the odds of a disease outbreak which isn't the same as the standard attrition. Supply lines don't exist during the period, only having the supplies you can carry your self or steal isn't a reliable system.
- 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege , search for the term "disease"
It mentions "disease" in 4 different places, 3 times it states that disease affected both defenders and attackers, 1 time it mentions the tactics of mongols who used corpses to plague the defenders.
So I don't think that disease outbreak is bs.
It mentions "disease" in 4 different places, 3 times it states that disease affected both defenders and attackers, 1 time it mentions the tactics of mongols who used corpses to plague the defenders.
So I don't think that disease outbreak is bs.
Disease absolutely happened to both sides. It isnt like modern war, with trucks of supply lines. They would of lived off land, in a time with no concept of sanitation or how disease spread.
And the prevelant diseases were much stronger than covid. Syphilis being the major one of the EU time period. As the seige goes on, these soldiers would pillage and rape. They would live next to literal sewage from the army. Eat whatever they could find.
And the prevelant diseases were much stronger than covid. Syphilis being the major one of the EU time period. As the seige goes on, these soldiers would pillage and rape. They would live next to literal sewage from the army. Eat whatever they could find.
I'm not saying disease never happened. I'm question why we need a mechanic for that specific event when so many other parts of the game are white washed with abstracts. If we are having disease outbreak as a thing, why not have ammo running out? How about a dice roll for friendly fire? And another one for a General that shot himself in the foot?
It is utterly ridiculous to have this specific instance. It doesn't match the rest of the game. It's like placing antlers on your dog, it doesn't belong. Are you just arguing because you like to disagree or do you really love this mechanic?
- 2
The attrition rate is a joke. It barely even registers and it's hard capped at only 5% because the AI can't handle it. The current iteration of attrition makes seiges look like peaceful little picnic.
No idea why you think a massive army camped outside a fort in shabby temporary buildings would be more resistant to disease.
No idea why you think a massive army camped outside a fort in shabby temporary buildings would be more resistant to disease.
- 6
- 1
Since the main argument is that the mechanic is duplicated, how about this:
The increased attrition is for a bit of disease bound to happen in a camp.
The disease outbreak is for a more serious disease.
The increased attrition is for a bit of disease bound to happen in a camp.
The disease outbreak is for a more serious disease.
I've posted this before:
As far as I can tell sieges have not been reworked since the very first Europa Universalis and, frankly, they suck.
They are terrible for three reasons.
1) They do not reflect historical siege warfare. EU4 is a game that doesn't really try to reflect history, so this reason is the least important of the three. Paradox devs are never going to make fighting in winter as difficult as it was historically, and they'll never make it so that taking an intact force as difficult as it actually was (indeed, the last time this topic came up we had difficulty finding a single incident of a prepared, undamaged fortification falling to an assault. Everytime a fortress fell to assault it was either stormed in a surprise attack, taken with the aid of treachery, poorly maintained, or damaged by siege craft first).
2) They kill balance. In CK2, larger armies beat smaller armies 99 out of a 100 times unless the smaller army was very unusual. Smaller nations and alliances have almost no hope of beating larger nations. Why even bother fighting most wars when the outcome is known from the start? Making a more interactive form of siege warfare would finally give smaller nations the tools they need to protect themselves from larger attackers.
3) They are bad gameplay mechanics. This is by far the most important reason. They aren't fun. They aren't interesting. They aren't exciting. I've never seen anyone argue that siege warfare in Paradox games is something they enjoy; most supporters say that they simply tolerate it.
Making siegecraft a bigger part of warfare would give more choices to the player. The men inside the castle should be somehow connected to a nation's manpower, so that every man in the castle is a man who can neither sow the fields nor invade the enemy (and, likewise, every man killed in battle should harm a nation's economy as well as it's ability to defend itself). Sieges should be more interactive, where both defender and attacker should make moves and counter-moves in order to try and outflank and defeat their opponent. Diplomacy and treachery and logistics and strategy and characters involved on both sides should all come into play. And, above all, sieges should be risky. The besiegers should lose more often than they win when besieging major, built up fortifications during the first couple of centuries.
As the centuries pass capturing fortified areas should get easier, though holding on to those areas should become harder due to forces such as nationalism.
This might sound like an impossibility, but since the current system is awful, making a better one probably won't be too difficult. Indeed, Magna Mundi (the game that ended up crashing and burning, not the mod) had what looked to be an interesting yet still automated take on siege warfare, a take that could be further developed into a better system than the terrible one we have now.
As far as I can tell sieges have not been reworked since the very first Europa Universalis and, frankly, they suck.
They are terrible for three reasons.
1) They do not reflect historical siege warfare. EU4 is a game that doesn't really try to reflect history, so this reason is the least important of the three. Paradox devs are never going to make fighting in winter as difficult as it was historically, and they'll never make it so that taking an intact force as difficult as it actually was (indeed, the last time this topic came up we had difficulty finding a single incident of a prepared, undamaged fortification falling to an assault. Everytime a fortress fell to assault it was either stormed in a surprise attack, taken with the aid of treachery, poorly maintained, or damaged by siege craft first).
2) They kill balance. In CK2, larger armies beat smaller armies 99 out of a 100 times unless the smaller army was very unusual. Smaller nations and alliances have almost no hope of beating larger nations. Why even bother fighting most wars when the outcome is known from the start? Making a more interactive form of siege warfare would finally give smaller nations the tools they need to protect themselves from larger attackers.
3) They are bad gameplay mechanics. This is by far the most important reason. They aren't fun. They aren't interesting. They aren't exciting. I've never seen anyone argue that siege warfare in Paradox games is something they enjoy; most supporters say that they simply tolerate it.
Making siegecraft a bigger part of warfare would give more choices to the player. The men inside the castle should be somehow connected to a nation's manpower, so that every man in the castle is a man who can neither sow the fields nor invade the enemy (and, likewise, every man killed in battle should harm a nation's economy as well as it's ability to defend itself). Sieges should be more interactive, where both defender and attacker should make moves and counter-moves in order to try and outflank and defeat their opponent. Diplomacy and treachery and logistics and strategy and characters involved on both sides should all come into play. And, above all, sieges should be risky. The besiegers should lose more often than they win when besieging major, built up fortifications during the first couple of centuries.
As the centuries pass capturing fortified areas should get easier, though holding on to those areas should become harder due to forces such as nationalism.
This might sound like an impossibility, but since the current system is awful, making a better one probably won't be too difficult. Indeed, Magna Mundi (the game that ended up crashing and burning, not the mod) had what looked to be an interesting yet still automated take on siege warfare, a take that could be further developed into a better system than the terrible one we have now.
Last edited:
While the besieged would have to deal with issues like disease and starvation, the attackers have to deal with those issues as well. The besieging armis didn't follow social distancing practices, hygiene tended to be deplorable, food could run out, water could be poisoned, and, above all, winter could come and make sustaining a siege impossible.
It isn't the attackers who get screwed. It's the defenders. Most sieges should fail.
Edit: written on my phone
It isn't the attackers who get screwed. It's the defenders. Most sieges should fail.
Edit: written on my phone
Last edited:
- 1
Now those elements would be part of the general attrition. Running out of missiles or say powder getting damp would be covered by the siege not advancing. Out breaks of disease were an issue for besieging armies and did impact how they would then act after. So it makes sense to have it covered.
It does make sense to be there, that is why I am fine with it being in the game.
I don't think anyone is confident that a successful and total rework of any system is going to happen. It'll just break the AI more, at best. Maybe in a new game.
The biggest issue with making more interactive systems is the AI. The more complex a system is, the more the AI will struggle to handle it competently. Oftentimes strategy games get more from less, where a solid, integrated, and simple system can provide greater strategy and challenge then a very bloated and complex system. In the later we normally see high aspirations devolve into strategies that depend more on exploits then realistic strategy.
There is good reason for local armies to be detached from national manpower. In this time period local lords were in charge of their own defenses. They were separate from any national army. Local defenses are very different from levying a force that will be leaving their homeland.
Last edited: