We need to see if sorties are otherwise identical to usual battles. Given combat width, you'd be taking a -2 penalty but also flanking them even in mountains, as they don't shave width THAT much. This is most definitely a nerf to carpeting, but I'm not sure how much of one. If it makes it possible for nations with no units to come back on 8 regiments (4 of which are sieging) though it will be annoying.
Will Sorties be Attackers or Defenders?
- Thread starter Kerschey
- 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.
We need to see if sorties are otherwise identical to usual battles. Given combat width, you'd be taking a -2 penalty but also flanking them even in mountains, as they don't shave width THAT much. This is most definitely a nerf to carpeting, but I'm not sure how much of one. If it makes it possible for nations with no units to come back on 8 regiments (4 of which are sieging) though it will be annoying.
It does prevent carpet sieging, especially if the two countries are relatively similar in size or if one army is ground down by battles. It's a big nerf to offense in general. Wars that were close wins will now turn into losses. If the enemy is low on manpower, sortie them to death. Sorties having the defender modifier is a joke. I understand no river penalty, but they are leaving their fortresses and attacking against the terrain they were previously using. War speed will be atrocious. You still need to occupy large parts of countries to get decent war score. 40% from battles simply doesn't cut it and war goals take forever to tick. Not to mention you still need to siege down everything you want to annex according to peace deal mechanics. According to the mechanics already stated, this is a big unneeded buff for Europe and larger countries in the sake of 'realism' without adjusting the other mechanics like army creation, war score, and peace deals.
It's okay 3 people will use it in Multiplayer. That's enough justification for Paradox to do anything.
It's just so obvious that this is another feature made for and only tested for large European countries.
This would not really come into effect because total combat width due to tech will always be significantly higher then max garrison level. So in 1444 a garrison in 2000 men strong, combat width is (at least) 15. Terrain subtracts 3 from the width making it 12. 12,000 against 2,000 means they will still have flanking on either side. Even if a tech 0 country besieged a fully upgraded garrison they would not really suffer any penalties from terrain.
It's more a question of how many soldiers you need on the garrison to prevent getting shattered when the garrison somehow magically attains defensive terrain. For non-mountains at equal tech, garrison + 1 regiment should do. For mountains, that will only work if your units are better, though with 4 regiments you'd still be a fort 2 no problem like that.
Well, as long as each sortie costs 10 mil points, I'm fine with wars getting potentially slower. Hell, I'll use a crapload of single-regiment merc armies just to bleed the AI out of his MPs 
Yes, god forbid you actually make it risky to siege mountain fortresses while large enemy armies are nearby. Really dodged a bullet there.
I should point out that sieges were often rather large ordeals. If a city is several kilometres in diameter, the besieging army has to cover an immense amount of terrain, since they don't want to go near the range of the city or fort's artillery. My point is, they're not standing right in front of the fort, and their artillery might not even be in range (lest it get hit by enemy artillery). Besieging a mountain fort mostly involves blocking off paths and roads and screening the surrounding area with scouts. A garrison that sorties would have no particular advantage in assaulting a road block compared to the people defending it. On the contrary, the besiegers are the ones who get to choose their positions.
When it comes to more flat terrain, a sortie would probably be fought just outside the city. Due to the distance and the fact that the besiegers would be out of formation to begin with, there would be time for the sortie to get in formation, but they still would be silly to leave the range of friendly artillery and enter the range of enemy artillery. In other words, the sortie generally exits the city, at which point the besiegers would or wouldn't take the bait and attack. If they didn't, the sortie would take a huge risk in attacking entrenched positions with artillery without even having artillery of their own.
I guess my point is that the besiegers probably have the terrain advantage either way. But that's assuming there's terrain near the city or fort to be advantaged by. Additionally, it would make sense for the game to have a "dug in" bonus. Trenches warfare wasn't a thing, so "dug" might be the wrong word, but any general would probably realise what could be done to improve the defensiveness of whatever location their troops were stationed.
When it comes to more flat terrain, a sortie would probably be fought just outside the city. Due to the distance and the fact that the besiegers would be out of formation to begin with, there would be time for the sortie to get in formation, but they still would be silly to leave the range of friendly artillery and enter the range of enemy artillery. In other words, the sortie generally exits the city, at which point the besiegers would or wouldn't take the bait and attack. If they didn't, the sortie would take a huge risk in attacking entrenched positions with artillery without even having artillery of their own.
I guess my point is that the besiegers probably have the terrain advantage either way. But that's assuming there's terrain near the city or fort to be advantaged by. Additionally, it would make sense for the game to have a "dug in" bonus. Trenches warfare wasn't a thing, so "dug" might be the wrong word, but any general would probably realise what could be done to improve the defensiveness of whatever location their troops were stationed.
One other key aspects would be the likeliness of the IA to use it.
If the IA loves sorties when it feels it can win, there is an obvious strategy of one big stack with several small ones and you move it around to wipe out the sorties.
Two consequences: instant assault and massive depletion of military MP.
So you end up with a quicker conquest and a weak opponent.
Will the strategy be to move from carpet sieging to "solar system" approach? (one big stack surrounded by several small ones)
If the IA loves sorties when it feels it can win, there is an obvious strategy of one big stack with several small ones and you move it around to wipe out the sorties.
Two consequences: instant assault and massive depletion of military MP.
So you end up with a quicker conquest and a weak opponent.
Will the strategy be to move from carpet sieging to "solar system" approach? (one big stack surrounded by several small ones)
It may make sieging take less time if IA commit to sorties that lose, thus surrendering the fortress earlier. Carpet sieging could still be a good option in this scenario.
My 2 cents (and +1 for Sorenzo)
Imagine you are horde. You do not invest city/fortress closely, you just pillage, burn, rape countryside etc. It might even be mountainous province. So we have massive infantry sortie form fortress which hits what? Empty space. You are safe behind your walls but if you leave this valley and attack horde in next valley are you still defenders???
(btw. hordes did not have much problems conquering mountainous Persia repetitively)
(and if you are sortieing (sp?) in more modern times (XVIIth+ century) you need time to deploy troops and then you have to attack enemy encampment without your artillery)
As people already said it is probably multiplayer fature which again has chance to break sp games.
Maybe you should be able to recruit in province if siege is ineffective (attacker force smaller than garrison), and recruited troops would get exiled flag so they do not fight and instantly lose.
Maybe kind of "garrison" units could be added like in MotE, but it would probably require too many changes.
Imagine you are horde. You do not invest city/fortress closely, you just pillage, burn, rape countryside etc. It might even be mountainous province. So we have massive infantry sortie form fortress which hits what? Empty space. You are safe behind your walls but if you leave this valley and attack horde in next valley are you still defenders???
(btw. hordes did not have much problems conquering mountainous Persia repetitively)
(and if you are sortieing (sp?) in more modern times (XVIIth+ century) you need time to deploy troops and then you have to attack enemy encampment without your artillery)
As people already said it is probably multiplayer fature which again has chance to break sp games.
Maybe you should be able to recruit in province if siege is ineffective (attacker force smaller than garrison), and recruited troops would get exiled flag so they do not fight and instantly lose.
Maybe kind of "garrison" units could be added like in MotE, but it would probably require too many changes.
I think the main goal of a sortie would be to weaken besieging troops so that they had insufficient numbers to continue sieging or reset the siege timer. I don't think the mechanic is there for a sortie party to stack wipe a sieging army or even force them to retreat to another province it's merely to buy them more time until relief comes. Or have I misunderstood something?
Almost all good feature additions generally help human more because human brain is better at developing strategies & finding exploits in game rules than the AI (Artificial Idiot).
IA?
Edit:
Why does the forum remove the capitalization of that acronym?
Edit 2:
And now it doesn't...
Can you name for me a single example at any point in human history where a fortress was sieged without being surrounded or under fire? Because otherwise you aren't describing sieging, you are describing passing through the province.
The game abstracts things to the strategic level. You aren't positioning companies of soldiers on a battlefield, you are broadly deciding if armies are attacking or defending.
I guess he was referring to a possible misuse, where you can attack passing armies with your sortie-bonus, despite said army is only passing by and not besieging the fortress/fortyfied city. Though looting of countryside isn't properly representing in the game.
vBulletin has an anti-CAPSLOCK feature that remove caps from full CAPS messages.
I was copying the previous poster who I assumed was French. Intelligence Artificielle. I was counting on someone bringing it up. You didn't disappoint
I was copying the previous poster who I assumed was French. Intelligence Artificielle. I was counting on someone bringing it up. You didn't disappoint
I generally don't mind the acronym used that way because it makes sense, but when you've IA = Imperial Authority too it does require some context. In this thread the context is obvious enough, but in others getting IA via defending IA against other IA is a bit too much "yo dawg"
.