Sieging high level forts?

[gaius valerius]

As the title says, in a war with human players both players typically have built up their forts to quite high levels (Level 4 to 5 perhaps even 9 in some cases), especially in a late-game scenario. What is the best way to go about and siege these? Because were one to siege them with 10 units it'd take 4-5 years.

Artillery (lots) + a good general + blockade (if at seaboard) - possibly ideas if you have them.

Yeah, its so stupid, I hate how the AI tries to build super massive forts with march. I think they should make the maximum level fort 5 instead of 9. 5 is siegeable but 9 is impossible.

Napoleon said 'screw your forts I'll march straight for your capital', worked most of the time (except that time in Moscow) and for some 20 years made forts more or less obsolete in European Warfare.

 

[marat271]

Has anyone made any tests to see how many units you need to effectively assault forts at each level?

If no one has I'll try later today, and post my results.

Before I proceed though, can anyone confirm whether the type of troops used actually affects this assault? So if the troops are a few tiers ahed/bellow, will it affect the result?

 

[marat271]

Okay, I've done some testing, and here are the results I've come up with.

Note: All tests have been with a siege 3 general.
Note 2: that this was conducted without without any siege bonuses that various nations have.

Legend:
Infantry: Infantry amount, these are the only things that attack during a siege
Artillery: Artillery amount, having 5 artillery per 1000 in a garrison adds a +1 modifier to the siege, up to 5.
Loses: How many units infantry units were lost during an assault.
Wipe: All attacking units lost

Fort Level 3 (4k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
40k 20k 7,5 k
30k 20k Wipe (Note no general was used here)
40k 0k 19 k
50k 20k 6 k

Fort Level 4 (5k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
50k 25k 8k
50k 0k 14k
100k 25k 4,5k

Fort Level 6 (7k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
50k 35k 27k
70k 35k 9k
100k 35k 7k

Fort Level 7 (9k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
70k 45k Wipe (4,3 k garrison left)
100k 45k 22k
150k 45k 8k

From what I can conclude the 10:1 ratio still works if you have a +5 modifier from artillery with a decent siege general. Attacking with less is suicidal and will result in a wipe. But still its definitely possible to assult larger fortresses, it's advised to do so only later in the game where supply limits are higher.

Besides this from I can conclude is that there is some element of luck in all of this, since I've had assaults where for some unknown reason I lost more than the averages I've found above. I've been unable to actually find anything online as to how assault damage is calculated.

 

[ChildeR]

Okay, I've done some testing, and here are the results I've come up with.

Note: All tests have been with a siege 3 general.
Note 2: that this was conducted without without any siege bonuses that various nations have.

Nice. Were both nations the same military tech? Did they have significant infantry or morale bonuses? Were the nations the same in all the tests?

 

[bbqftw]

Okay, I've done some testing, and here are the results I've come up with.

Note: All tests have been with a siege 3 general.
Note 2: that this was conducted without without any siege bonuses that various nations have.

Legend:
Infantry: Infantry amount, these are the only things that attack during a siege
Artillery: Artillery amount, having 5 artillery per 1000 in a garrison adds a +1 modifier to the siege, up to 5.
Loses: How many units infantry units were lost during an assault.
Wipe: All attacking units lost

Fort Level 3 (4k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
40k 20k 7,5 k
30k 20k Wipe (Note no general was used here)
40k 0k 19 k
50k 20k 6 k

Fort Level 4 (5k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
50k 25k 8k
50k 0k 14k
100k 25k 4,5k

Fort Level 6 (7k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
50k 35k 27k
70k 35k 9k
100k 35k 7k

Fort Level 7 (9k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
70k 45k Wipe (4,3 k garrison left)
100k 45k 22k
150k 45k 8k

From what I can conclude the 10:1 ratio still works if you have a +5 modifier from artillery with a decent siege general. And its definitely possible to assult larger fortresses, it's advised to do so only later in the game where supply limits are higher.

Besides this from I can conclude is that there is some element of luck in all of this, since I've had assaults where for some unknown reason I lost more than the averages I've found above. I've been unable to actually find anything online as to how assault damage is calculated.

this is actually pretty important (for me) as I have a cheese strategy that revolves around assaults. Does your data indicate that cannons help assaults?

Besides this from I can conclude is that there is some element of luck in all of this, since I've had assaults where for some unknown reason I lost more than the averages I've found above. I've been unable to actually find anything online as to how assault damage is calculated.

I suspect that there is a casualty dice roll by both assaulter and defender, and furthermore, that attacker casualty is multiplied by defensiveness. For example, I once was wiped assaulting a 5k garrison fort with March with 128k men.

 

[Maerd]

Napoleon said 'screw your forts I'll march straight for your capital', worked most of the time (except that time in Moscow) and for some 20 years made forts more or less obsolete in European Warfare.

To be precise, Moscow was NOT the capital of Russia in 1812, the St. Petersburg was. If Napoleon had better contemporary geography knowledge, he might have won, who knows.

 

[Maerd]

Okay, I've done some testing, and here are the results I've come up with.

Note: All tests have been with a siege 3 general.
Note 2: that this was conducted without without any siege bonuses that various nations have.

Legend:
Infantry: Infantry amount, these are the only things that attack during a siege
Artillery: Artillery amount, having 5 artillery per 1000 in a garrison adds a +1 modifier to the siege, up to 5.
Loses: How many units infantry units were lost during an assault.
Wipe: All attacking units lost

Fort Level 3 (4k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
40k 20k 7,5 k
30k 20k Wipe (Note no general was used here)
40k 0k 19 k
50k 20k 6 k

Fort Level 4 (5k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
50k 25k 8k
50k 0k 14k
100k 25k 4,5k

Fort Level 6 (7k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
50k 35k 27k
70k 35k 9k
100k 35k 7k

Fort Level 7 (9k Garrison)
Infantry Artillery Losses
70k 45k Wipe (4,3 k garrison left)
100k 45k 22k
150k 45k 8k

From what I can conclude the 10:1 ratio still works if you have a +5 modifier from artillery with a decent siege general. And its definitely possible to assult larger fortresses, it's advised to do so only later in the game where supply limits are higher.

Besides this from I can conclude is that there is some element of luck in all of this, since I've had assaults where for some unknown reason I lost more than the averages I've found above. I've been unable to actually find anything online as to how assault damage is calculated.

Very interesting. So, does the combined score matters? Components like time, breached walls, artillery count, naval blockade and general's ability? Or only some components matter?

 

[marat271]

Nice. Were both nations the same military tech? Did they have significant infantry or morale bonuses? Were the nations the same in all the tests?

Nice. Were both nations the same military tech? Did they have significant infantry or morale bonuses? Were the nations the same in all the tests?

To clarify, I took the 1776 start as France, all nations in Europe are tech 27. Both nations have the same level of units.

And yes, the modifiers from breeched walls, artillery and siege from general are paramount, don't assault without it.

 

[Osman Pasha]

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.

In my game, Portugal builds level 5 forts all over its territories, one of them even with a march built. The game is really just 400 years, and it takes 4 years just to siege a single level 7 fort.

 

[marat271]

In my game, Portugal builds level 5 forts all over its territories, one of them even with a march built. The game is really just 400 years, and it takes 4 years just to siege a single level 7 fort.

Don't bother assaulting marches, it's pretty impossible to do anything when they're there.

 

[Maerd]

And yes, the modifiers from breached walls, artillery and siege from general are paramount, don't assault without it.

What about timer counter, did it matter?

 

[marat271]

What about timer counter, did it matter?

I actually didn't check, I assaulted instantly before the garrison decreased, though I can imagine it helps since all other modifiers do.

 

[ChildeR]

I actually didn't check, I assaulted instantly before the garrison decreased, though I can imagine it helps since all other modifiers do.

How about blockading? Would be weird if that had an effect.

 

[marat271]

How about blockading? Would be weird if that had an effect.

Blockading adds a +1 modifier, and if its not blockaded that's a -1 modifier.

Note that I don't actually know in which way modifiers affect sieges, just that they do.

 

[Maerd]

How about blockading? Would be weird if that had an effect.

Why is it weird? Ships have cannons that were often used to bombard the fortress if it was close enough to the shore.

 

[marat271]

Why is it weird? Ships have cannons that were often used to bombard the fortress if it was close enough to the shore.

If anything the weird thing is that the impact isn't bigger.

 

[kralex]

Pro Tip: assault is a great way to waste other nations' manpower. Just move your own infantry out, leave any one unit though to keep siege leadership. In 1.7 at least, I've seen assault pulling in all infantry stationed in that province, even units of nations not at war with the target, and the AI has done the same to me on multiple occasions. Great way to cut your beloved allies, or even random innocent bystanders down to size. France has too much manpower? *click* Not any more! Bonus points for style if you DoW them afterwards.

 

[ChildeR]

Why is it weird? Ships have cannons that were often used to bombard the fortress if it was close enough to the shore.

More due to the way the modifiers work: it's a penalty if unblockaded, which doesn't exist inland.

 

[calvinhobbeslik]

More due to the way the modifiers work: it's a penalty if unblockaded, which doesn't exist inland.

That's because coastal forts can be supplied by sea, whereas your siegeing army would prevent supplying of an inland province.

 

[ChildeR]

That's because coastal forts can be supplied by sea, whereas your siegeing army would prevent supplying of an inland province.

Yeah. I'm saying the same doesn't make sense in an assault.