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.
It certainly is. It feels a bit like WWI, so, perhaps it should be at the end of Victoria instead.

Though, if you have 1M+ manpower, you can just boom and assault as folks have suggested. That will work much better than at Verdun or the Somme.

I think its a bit of punishment for not conquering before the late game too. But, perhaps not.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I don't mind the forts at all. Rather I think it's annoying that we have to still carpet siege. AI will death war the player every time.

Refuses to peace out because an OPM is still in the war. Or they have a few stacks running to Siberia because they won't fight you. You've occupied their entire nation, where is their Court hiding that they refuse to surrender? They will sacrifice every man woman and child to 0 manpower because you're the player. You have to fight every rebel that spawns in their territory on top of that.

How can you stack wipe 100,000s of soldiers and mercenaries and they have no incentive to peace out. So annoying.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't mind the forts at all. Rather I think it's annoying that we have to still carpet siege. AI will death war the player every time.

Refuses to peace out because an OPM is still in the war. Or they have a few stacks running to Siberia because they won't fight you. You've occupied their entire nation, where is their Court hiding that they refuse to surrender? They will sacrifice every man woman and child to 0 manpower because you're the player. You have to fight every rebel that spawns in their territory on top of that.

How can you stack wipe 100,000s of soldiers and mercenaries and they have no incentive to peace out. So annoying.
This is only true if you’re trying to fully annex them. How quickly would you agree to an game over if a war wasn’t going your way?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I've felt for a while it would be cool if they added a siege ability advisor or something. If there's a discipline, manpower and manpower one there should be a siege advisor imo.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I've felt for a while it would be cool if they added a siege ability advisor or something. If there's a discipline, manpower and manpower one there should be a siege advisor imo.
Advisors haven't been updated in a long time. There could be so many more advisor types, and would make stuff like 'available advisors' slightly more useful.
 
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.
All warfare in this game is tedious , I can't wait to finish any wars I find myself into out of simple frustration and boredom , exactly what wars shouldn't be in games.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions: