Yeah I would never assault such a high level fort without breaching the walls first. 128k men and 57 artillery regiments only caused 4k casualties for the defender? That is some crazy fort.
Sieging high level forts?
- Thread starter marat271
- 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.
Wait you guys break off seige stacks???
Your wars are too small.
Personally I use 50k army stacks (late game) 20/10/20 and never break them apart for seiges... as that leaves them open to counter attack. Get defensive and the attrition isnt an issue. Seiges are often over in less than a year... then I move on to the next. The ai sucks at seiges, so I can seige down half an empire while they win 1 or 2 seiges against me.
Your wars are too small.
Personally I use 50k army stacks (late game) 20/10/20 and never break them apart for seiges... as that leaves them open to counter attack. Get defensive and the attrition isnt an issue. Seiges are often over in less than a year... then I move on to the next. The ai sucks at seiges, so I can seige down half an empire while they win 1 or 2 seiges against me.
When you are getting to the point where you have huge fortifications then you will probably have mass warfronts with limited movement, plenty of time to slowly siege the provinces you can get to.
Yes, just another confirmation that the assaults are just retarded in this game. Combined with jump to zero bug I noticed recently , which can kill 100k troops in a instant assaulting level 2 fort, think about this feature as a decoration and never use it again. The only time assaults sort of work if the garrison is 100-300 people strong.
Well, at fort level 2 you can siege without problems with a 10:1 ratio, meanwhile at level 5 it tends to be something like 50:1...
The loses of that siege were simply insane. He even had the +5 modifier from art, how would it go if you had a 6 siege general also?
Its actually stated in the game if you hover over the defensiveness icon in the military tab
Not only insane, they are completely not realistic. For example, the siege of Ottoman's fortress Izmail by Russians ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Izmail ) in 1789 was an all-in assault with artillery bombardment softening defenders just for a few days. 31k Russians stormed a fortress with not just regular garrison but the 35k strong Ottoman and Crimean armies hiding inside. As a result, Russians lost only about 5k dead and wounded. Ottomans and Crimean lost 26k dead and 9k captured out of which about 2k died next day due to wounds.
In the game, the above scenario is just impossible no matter what tech and what generals you have.
I am just really mad at this game, especially the stupid siege mechanics. It takes WAY TOO LONG!!!! A level 5 fort with 5000 garrison should be easily taken down with 100k men. The march building just doesn't make sense, remove that stupid building its giving me a headache.
That bug is only triggered when you win another siege while an assault is going on, so you can work around it. Still extremely annoying though.
The 20% siege bonus in offense is a joke in terms of usefulness, because its only additiv.
If you take quantity you can just field enough cannons for +5 on several sieges at once.
Yeah I would just not bother. People are much, much easier to beat than AI.
They don't recruit constantly in every province they own (smart people don't... the AI isn't too smart... lol)
They try not to take huge attrition...
the list goes on.
But yeah, like previous posters I'd just sit on top of it even if not sieging and wait for his country to bankrupt and such. Eventually he'll give up.
They don't recruit constantly in every province they own (smart people don't... the AI isn't too smart... lol)
They try not to take huge attrition...
the list goes on.
But yeah, like previous posters I'd just sit on top of it even if not sieging and wait for his country to bankrupt and such. Eventually he'll give up.
That is not true; if you try to assault at a 10:1 without breached walls you'll usually kill the whole infantry especially in high level forts. The minimum should be 20:1 but like the poster above showed even with a ~26:1 ratio he wasted his entire infantry trying to assault a level 5 fort.
The fort has 200% defensiveness, the only way it can be that high is if it is a march.
He lost his army because it is a march, 200% defensiveness is a huge bonus. Against a normal fort the results would have been much better.
Other than whats already been said, luck can play a bit into it, A bit ago Fresh IM France game, Avignon, Lvl 4 Fort, PRE cannon, fell in just 6 months from dice rolls. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=349212573
Defeat the player in a scenario where he wants to peace out... you don't need to occupy a player for him/her to be willing to give concessions, depending on his/her strategy and many other factors that are not so easy to determine for a human.
Your only choice is to just beat his/her army and make the war unfeasible for the opposing player.
Why? So the game would be easier for you? I don't really see the AI building high-level forts, so I don't see your concern. If anything, the AI SHOULD focus more on forts because they're very effective for large/medium nations that want to keep their land. It's too easy to just wipe out an AI's army and then carpet siege the entire nation to 100% warscore within a year or a few more, but that'd be close to an impossible task if the nation was covered with very high level forts (at least majority of the border provinces, since those are the ones you'd want to take).
The maximum fort level is completely fine, because if you take it - you can't get other really good special buildings that can add forcelimits, make a province rich or really useful for trade.
9 is not impossible, it's hard, that's the point. If a fort is really strong and well managed with lots of investment into it, why would it be easy to assault it? It's fair from both historical/realism (to some extent, depending on how many cannons is a single cannon unit supposed to represent) and gameplay perspective.
I normally use 8/6/10 stacks (inf/cav/art) so by the time people can get high level forts the supply limit is big enough fro me to sit two of them on the province without excessive attrition. Getting that siege ability idea is brilliant for this. Speeds up sieges a hell of a lot. Don't know if it's been nerfed lately though. It was pretty OP, and extremely noticeable to my recollection, in contrast to what people seem to be saying here. Reducing siege roll times by 20% is ridiculously valuable IMO
Artillery doesn't matter for assaults, only infantry. Not sure about the general, whether the siege pips have an effect or fire/shock. Anyone know?