Is it just me or is sieging in the late game incredibly tedious?

  • 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.

Travis_Bickle

Colonel
27 Badges
Dec 30, 2012
1.187
2.906
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
Am asking a genuine question.

I've not played to the late game on the most recent patch until now, and late game sieging is the first time in 4 years I've really been put off playing this game.

I understand the need for necessary artillery, siege pip general, offensive + espionage ideas, spy networks and so on in speeding up sieges, but it seems that despite that the plethora of level 6/8 forts makes the game an awful slog to play as sieges continually take years. Even if you barrage every fort you're still looking at a long, long time to even half siege down a large nation.

I understand as well there may be a realism aspect to this, but from a gameplay perspective for me this just makes the game much slower and much more boring.

Am happy to be told I am wrong btw, just expressing an opinion.
 
  • 3
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
You're not wrong. Late game level 8 forts everywhere. Battles become insignificant due to the insanely high numbers of troops. Helps contribute to why so many players bail after the age of reformation.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
You're not wrong. Late game level 8 forts everywhere. Battles become insignificant due to the insanely high numbers of troops. Helps contribute to why so many players bail after the age of reformation.
It never used to be like this on the WC's I did in previous patches. This is far far worse.

The thing is it doesn't make the game more difficult. Just far more tedious to the point that for the first time in my life since discovering EU4 I couldn't be bothered to open it for 2-3 weeks.

Wish the forts would just be toned down. Am fine with battles/manpower being harder to manage, but sitting on forts is just so boring it hurts.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The AI are good to build those forts. I would build those myself. I didn't play late sieges yet but let's use millions troops to assault them, if 3 day siege ticks is not good enough. Some said it cost 5x the defenders to assault a fort.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Should fort levels just not go up as high? I basically never play the late game so very inexpert opinion, but maybe it should just be 2,3,4,5 instead of 2,4,6,8?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Should fort levels just not go up as high? I basically never play the late game so very inexpert opinion, but maybe it should just be 2,3,4,5 instead of 2,4,6,8?
It might speed things up a little (allowing your dice modifiers to push the roll above 20 a little sooner for surrender to occur), but the problem rather lies in the number of forts of consolidated opponents and not necessarily in their level.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Yes. It's tedious if you're not prepared to handle it.

And it's why stacking siege ability is great in lategame. Most people get offensive ideas at some point, but stuff like policies (religious + quality, or espionage + Divine) + Army tradition + army professionalism + military hegemon and then roll for siege pips + barrage (pick the barrage military government reform) and forts go down quickly.

Honestly, try out a theocracy with espionage + offensive + divine ideas and you melt forts so quickly.

Also, you can kind of just ignore it as well with Quantity ideas. Just start multiple wars and siege at a normal pace.

But yes, it can be tedious. And it's the number one reason why military hegemon is better than economic for me.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Sieging forts hasn't really changed over the past few years. The number of forts has. Pre-1.33 (I think) is when the AI almost never built forts and often didn't upgrade them. Then 1.33 was over the top with a massive number of top level forts. Then it got toned down to the current state.

I've always prioritized siege ability (Offensive is my favorite military idea group) because the speed at which you can win a war is largely determined by how quickly you can siege down forts. Tedious? Yes. And easy, given the AI's competence. The late game consists of parking large stacks on or next to forts while the AI army is scared off and goes to siege down a province on the other side of the world.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Just personally feel it makes the game excessively tedious. I understand it's something you should plan around with siege ability and all, but my god you should have seen how long it took my revoke Austria with Spain, Portugal, Commonwealth and GB PU to siege down a few remaining provinces in western France with forts despite the army being wiped. It was incredibly boring.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Just personally feel it makes the game excessively tedious. I understand it's something you should plan around with siege ability and all, but my god you should have seen how long it took my revoke Austria with Spain, Portugal, Commonwealth and GB PU to siege down a few remaining provinces in western France with forts despite the army being wiped. It was incredibly boring.
Sieges are boring, if sufficiently fortified you can draw your enemies out to a balanced peace instead of full annexation, which is why they were so important irl. Late game you should have the money to max out the artillery bonus to siege along with rolling for dedicated siege generals/hiring mercs with good general pips.
Is it more excessively tedious than beating the ottos
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Should fort levels just not go up as high? I basically never play the late game so very inexpert opinion, but maybe it should just be 2,3,4,5 instead of 2,4,6,8?
Everyone has too much money. For fort people found to have 3 day siege tick. The new Infra idea also boost siege.

So, if you are a war monger in late game you should have at least: offensive, espionage, infra.. and barrage, spy network. Also the wiki said your siege ability help your assault (terrain not used in assault, but fort defense - siege abiltiy)

The game is designed to have fast siege as in Napoleon time.

More:

 
Last edited:
Moreover, despite people saying to me it is confirmation bias, I really believe there is a bug either in the dice roll (or the display).

As an example (but it happends really often), yesterday it took 1600 days to siege down Lisboa in 1460 as Spain with a 2 siege general and full blockage. And at the end failed 14 time in a row to finish the siege whereas it was written 21% on the map (I counted it because I hadn't anything else to do). 4/5^14 = 4% chance. Sure it is not zero. What's wondering me is that it happened too commonly.
Obviously, in another war the AI ends a siege at 14% for the first time. I'm not saying it is cheating, i'm sure it isn't. And it happend to me also to be in that situation. But it adds frustration to the tediousness.
 
Everyone has too much money. For fort people found to have 3 day siege tick. The new Infra idea also boost siege.

So, if you are a war monger in late game you should have at least: offensive, espionage, infra.. and barrage, spy network. Also the wiki said your siege ability help your assault (terrain not used in assault, but fort defense - siege abiltiy)

The game is designed to have fast siege as in Napoleon time.

More:

This is another thing, I think that as the game's timeline progresses, sieges should be quicker not slower. Yet seemingly it's quicker to siege in 1448 with mere infantrymen than it is in 1700s with full artillery, army professionalism, ideas to improve siege ability etc.

Let's face it, by 1700s, any half decent player will be strong enough to beat any nation in the world so it's not about a "skill issue". My fully revoked Austria with all my PU's are going to beat the rest of the world 1v1 from 1600. But sitting on sieges for many years at a time just makes me go "eurgh I'll play something else".

The ironic thing is, it actually makes the AI easier to beat in the long run. Have one decisive war against them, take all their forts + cash and they'll never really recover. You can truce reset them and attack them in 5 years time and at that point it's a simple carpet siege + take capital fort.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Yet seemingly it's quicker to siege in 1448 with mere infantrymen than it is in 1700s with full artillery,

The early 1700s had forts that could withstand a siege for essentially the entire war season. That's why the War of the Spanish Succession dragged on for 13 years. Both sides parked their armies on their opponents forts, tried to breach them, and when they invaribly failed went home to try again next year.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't find late game sieges to be any worse than pre cannon sieges. You just need more forts and do not be afraid to fire the cannons. By this point your army tradition should be good enough/from ideas to have at the minimum 2 siege generals.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't find late game sieges to be any worse than pre cannon sieges. You just need more forts and do not be afraid to fire the cannons. By this point your army tradition should be good enough/from ideas to have at the minimum 2 siege generals.
Yeah. Sieges are mostly shorter actually. You just don't notice it because the game itself runs slower.
 
  • 2Haha
  • 2
Reactions:
A weird quirk I saw recently in my 1444-1821 Germany game was that major world powers weren't putting forts on their capitals. France, for example, had a level 1 fort in Paris all the way until the end, while it had level 8+ forts elsewhere (and no shortage of income). Just a weird thing I noticed.

As for sieging, it's not that bad if you level your army tradition and siege ability properly. I was sieging even level 8 forts realtively quickly (about the same speed as siegeing in 1444 I suppose), any forts below that level and it was sub 200 day sieges. Albeit this is Germany with Prussian ideas so I had 100 tradition, professionalism etc etc so plenty of buffs.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I don't find late game sieges to be any worse than pre cannon sieges. You just need more forts and do not be afraid to fire the cannons. By this point your army tradition should be good enough/from ideas to have at the minimum 2 siege generals.
Same here. I often find them shorter. The amount from larger Empires is in my experience not that excessive after the first war. The AI seems to delete them to save money in my experience.
 
  • 2
Reactions: