Post-Seige Modifiers

[psbirch]

It seems odd to me that the act of winning a siege against a fort completely resets all the modifiers, particularly those from supplies, disease, and breached walls.

I propose three modifiers be applied when a siege against a fort is successful:
1) Siege status starts equal to the fort level for 1 year. For example, if a Fort has a level of 3, any any subsequent attempt to siege the fort in the next 365 days would start at a siege level of 3.
2) If the walls were breached during the previous siege, a 50% penalty against the fort level for 1 year. For example, if a Fort has a level of 3, any subsequent attempt to siege the fort in the next 365 days attackers would get a +1.5 to their die roll.
3) Additionally, I would suggest a penalty for defending a fort in a province that is not an accepted culture. For example, Austrians defending a fort in Sienna would receive a penalty. However Pisa would not receive the penalty.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

As it stands currently you get a +1 bonus for the insufficient garrison the fort will have for quite a while (unless the nation has modifiers to improve their garrison growth or they use their army professionalism ability to top up the forts). Additionally the garrison will often be so low if you jump on the fort in the next few months that once you get a disease outbreak or food shortage etc. the fort will automatically surrender due to having too low of a garrison. Additionally, if you get a wall breach the garrison will be so low that you an assault would probably instantly win the siege back.

If you sieged down a lvl 8 fort in the last year and an enemy force came to siege it back starting at a +8 bonus would mean they have a 21% of ending the siege in the first phase (and if they combine this with a good general and artillery, the fort would always surrender in the first tick).

Maybe the insufficient garrison modifier could be +2 instead of +1, but +1 is already very powerful (most players desperately strive for even a +1 siege modifier).

 

[psbirch]

... the garrison will often be so low if you jump on the fort in the next few months that once you get a disease outbreak or food shortage etc. the fort will automatically surrender due to having too low of a garrison. Additionally, if you get a wall breach the garrison will be so low that you an assault would probably instantly win the siege back.

...Maybe the insufficient garrison modifier could be +2 instead of +1, but +1 is already very powerful (most players desperately strive for even a +1 siege modifier).

Agreed, but that's a lot of 'ifs' that I've not seen play out consistently. Perhaps modifiers to increase the likelihood of those ifs happening might be equally useful, but especially in the early game I've seen re-sieges take as long or longer as the original.

If you sieged down a lvl 8 fort in the last year and an enemy force came to siege it back starting at a +8 bonus would mean they have a 21% of ending the siege in the first phase (and if they combine this with a good general and artillery, the fort would always surrender in the first tick).

But I would argue this is correct. Taking that lvl 8 fort the first time around would be quite an effort. Recovering from that effort shouldn't be accomplished in a day or even a month; new supplies need to be brought in, the damage shored up, the dead disposed of -- and unless you want the next army who comes to siege it have an advantage, all your siege-works need to be disassembled.

 

[PyroMegaManZ]

Agreed, but that's a lot of 'ifs' that I've not seen play out consistently. Perhaps modifiers to increase the likelihood of those ifs happening might be equally useful, but especially in the early game I've seen re-sieges take as long or longer as the original.



But I would argue this is correct. Taking that lvl 8 fort the first time around would be quite an effort. Recovering from that effort shouldn't be accomplished in a day or even a month; new supplies need to be brought in, the damage shored up, the dead disposed of -- and unless you want the next army who comes to siege it have an advantage, all your siege-works need to be disassembled.

It should be a bunch of ifs though and not a nearly guaranteed certainty that you will win it back instantly. You already get the +1 from the the insufficient garrison which is a very large modifier already and is about equivalent to +10% siege ability (unless your enemy has spent their precious manpower to re-garrison up the fort instantly) and in general the siege will be a lot easier. The only reason re-sieges would take longer is either pure bad luck through lots of bad rolls, or because you don't have as much artillery or as many siege pips on your leader or a blockade if it is a coastal fort.

Historically it would usually only take a couple of days for an army to restock a city in preparation for a re-siege (many famous sieges where a nation was able to completely prepare to face overwhelming enemy numbers in just a couple of days). From a game point of view it would make wars a huge pain if everytime you spent a whole year sieging a lvl 8 fort down, you would have to wait another whole year sitting on that fort to make sure the enemy didn't swoop back in and instantly take the fort back.