On sieges and surrendering

[Hallsten]

Having read alittle on mainly 17th century warfare I've realized that a very successful army/general sometimes had cities/fortresses surrender just by showing up at their doorstep. Will this be modelled at all in the game? I don't know exactly what the math should look like, but the mightier the city walls the smaller the likelihood of surrender and the higher the warscore/success of the enemy country/general the higher the likelihood of surrender.

Another flavour I'd like to see is the possibility to attack a besieging army using the garrison of the city. If the attack is successful the siege is lifted, but if it fails the city is lost.

 

[unmerged(18239)]

Interesting idea. But won't it make those generals way too powerfull?

And shouldn't we keep in mind there are probably more then one city in every province?

 

[Registered]

The surrendering would be realistic true. But would it not unbalance the game?

The sallying should definitely be added of course. Though against a well entrenched army the chance of succes would be very low. Unless, of course, when attacking at the same time as a relief army.

 

[unmerged(53535)]

Give "famous" generals an added siege rating to simulate cities surrendering in abject fear.

 

[unmerged(35826)]

Depends on the characteristics the generals will have in EUIII. The stuff mentioned by Hallsten could be handled via siege events like in CK.

 

[jonti-h]

The surrendering would be realistic true. But would it not unbalance the game?

I think that while it is a nice idea, it would lead to massive exploiting by the player - just sending a general around to all sieges and quickly getting 100% warscore.
It is a good idea, but possibly better modelled by a very large shock value.

 

[Hallsten]

Interesting idea. But won't it make those generals way too powerfull?

And shouldn't we keep in mind there are probably more then one city in every province?

Well, some of them WERE too powerful, but obviously the highest percentage of surrendering without fighting until the end should be small.

Does the game model more than one city in each province? EU2 didn't even abstract a second city, there was only one.

The surrendering would be realistic true. But would it not unbalance the game?

The sallying should definitely be added of course. Though against a well entrenched army the chance of succes would be very low. Unless, of course, when attacking at the same time as a relief army.

As I wrote in the reply above, the maximum percentage should be pretty small.

Give "famous" generals an added siege rating to simulate cities surrendering in abject fear.

Why? If a historical general appears on May 5th he can't be feared and famed by the 6th, right?

Also, historical monarch-leaders won't appear at all given the new monarch-system.

 

[unmerged(53535)]

Why? If a historical general appears on May 5th he can't be feared and famed by the 6th, right?

Also, historical monarch-leaders won't appear at all given the new monarch-system.

Dynamism, m'boy. Victories = siege rating. Or high "tradition" = siege rating.

Try thinking before speaking.

Over-eager use of the rolleyes smiley is uncouth. The more you know...

 

[unmerged(19042)]

Having read alittle on mainly 17th century warfare I've realized that a very successful army/general sometimes had cities/fortresses surrender just by showing up at their doorstep. Will this be modelled at all in the game? ..

Example? The only fortified city that did surrender unexpectedly that I can think of id Magdeburg, after the crushing defeats of Jena/ Auerstadt in the 19th C.

I don't know exactly what the math should look like, but the mightier the city walls the smaller the likelihood of surrender and the higher the warscore/success of the enemy country/general the higher the likelihood of surrender..

This might be nice. Perhaps the starting siege value of a looted province could be lower than an unlooted one, and starting siege values decrease wi thrising WE generally.

Another flavour I'd like to see is the possibility to attack a besieging army using the garrison of the city. If the attack is successful the siege is lifted, but if it fails the city is lost.

Yes, but failure should lead to immediate surrender as well to make thing even.

 

[Registered]

Example? The only fortified city that did surrender unexpectedly that I can think of id Magdeburg, after the crushing defeats of Jena/ Auerstadt in the 19th C.

Zutphen and Naarden surrendered without a fight when the Spanish army showed up. In 1672, when France attacked, Naarden, which had been badly maintained, surrendered once more without a fight. True, they're not very big places but they're the only examples that come to mind at the moment.

Yes, but failure should lead to immediate surrender as well to make thing even.

I think that's what he said.

 

[Hallsten]

Zutphen and Naarden surrendered without a fight when the Spanish army showed up. In 1672, when France attacked, Naarden, which had been badly maintained, surrendered once more without a fight. True, they're not very big places but they're the only examples that come to mind at the moment.

I can think of a few instances where this happened during Karl X Gustav's war on Poland.

I think that's what he said.

yes...

Dynamism, m'boy. Victories = siege rating. Or high "tradition" = siege rating.

Try thinking before speaking.

Over-eager use of the rolleyes smiley is uncouth. The more you know...

oook, misunderstood you there...sorry...

Depends on the characteristics the generals will have in EUIII. The stuff mentioned by Hallsten could be handled via siege events like in CK.

This is true, it could probably be handelled like in CK...hadn't thought about that...

 

[Jens Z]

And shouldn't we keep in mind there are probably more then one city in every province?

Indeed. Besieging in EU2 does not only simulates the siege of one single city but represents the subduing of the whole countryside including minor cities and castles.



If we want to include the mentioned element of psychological warfare (threatening/bullying the defenders) a simple solution might be to randomize the time necessary for succcessful sieging a bit more.

However, I dont think that the historical low frequency of such occurences justifies any major game altering.

 

[Bismark776]

Also think of the ubalancing effect that active garrisons would have on the game. Unless you have to manually garrison your fortresses (which they really ought to do) you will have large numbers of active troops who cost no upkeep to maintain and cost nothing to produce.

 

[unmerged(19042)]

I can think of a few instances where this happened during Karl X Gustav's war on Poland.

Zuothen and Naarden are prettty small place arent they? The EU province town is usually a somewhat bigger place, I think the EU2 Belgium provinces are Arras, Antwerp, Brussels, all rather bigger. If you had lots more provinces, then sure.

yes...

So you did, I somehow blanked out the bit after the comma! o

 

[Registered]

Zutphen and Naarden are prettty small place arent they? The EU province town is usually a somewhat bigger place, I think the EU2 Belgium provinces are Arras, Antwerp, Brussels, all rather bigger. If you had lots more provinces, then sure.

They are yes. But in that same year (1672) the French blazed through most of the south of the Netherlands without opposition. Easily taking the EUIII provinces Utrecht and Breda.

 

[unmerged(19042)]

Werent the Dutch in disarray at that point though with William III and Johan de Witt arguing? Also I believe England abandoned Holland and chose to support France at that point, though I am not sure of the dates. This would be more like having to invest in garrisons and the Dutch not having made such investments. I really dont like th idea of someone showing up and the alls falling Jericho style.

 

[Registered]

Werent the Dutch in disarray at that point though with William III and Johan de Witt arguing? Also I believe England abandoned Holland and chose to support France at that point, though I am not sure of the dates. This would be more like having to invest in garrisons and the Dutch not having made such investments. I really dont like th idea of someone showing up and the alls falling Jericho style.

Yup, the country was pretty much in chaos. The chance of cities falling should be tied to province RR and stability.
No one is talking about walls falling, just gates opening.

 

[unmerged(19042)]

Well Hertellen did say:

I've realized that a very successful army/general sometimes had cities/fortresses surrender just by showing up at their doorstep.

Who cant read now, eh? HAHA ok I promise to behave o

 

[unmerged(11600)]

In EU1 I've seen seiges end on the second day, where the fortress is on the small side facing an army with lots of cannon and a leader with a very good seige rating.

In the board game, there is an economic event allowing the player to automatically win an on-going seige.

Historically, I've read that the cities of the Levant in large part opened their gates to the Ottomans.

-Pat

 

[Okawoa]

In EU1 I've seen seiges end on the second day, where the fortress is on the small side facing an army with lots of cannon and a leader with a very good seige rating.

In the board game, there is an economic event allowing the player to automatically win an on-going seige.

Historically, I've read that the cities of the Levant in large part opened their gates to the Ottomans.

-Pat

Perhaps you could bribe cities to open the gates? Or use a spy to...? The chance to open is determined by positive or neg traits.

Pos: Same culture, same religion, high paid, revolt risk high
Neg: Dif culture, dif religion,