Will Sorties be Attackers or Defenders?

[spinoza013]

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" .

Well I was going to correct the poster before me but I thought what the hell let's ditch the anglocentrism for a day

 

[volseraph]

It's necessary for sorties not to become the 'click 1 day before my doomstack arrives to get mountain bonus' button.

I'm not sure I see the problem with allowing mountain defenders to spend a month or two of MP to get an edge in a single battle. (It'd certainly make sense: fighting an battle trapped with your back to a hostile citadel is not an enviable position.)

 

[zdlugasz]

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.

Yep, I am not describing siege, but I am not describing passing. I am describing situation when enemy occupies/controls/pillage province without bothering to actively capture key fortress, and I gave example of horde because it fits perfectly. If main city has fallen by surprise than fine, otherwise just burn/whatever towns without level_x forts, villages etc.
To be completely clear I am not thinking about wars in Low Countries with their dense habitation and networks of fortifications but about e.g. Eastern Europe and any other place where distances were vast

On the other hand even if we are talking about close blockade of fortress I disagree that attacker (sortie) should get defender (mountainous bonuses). At least it should be neutral "near fortress" terrain, but I think that attackers usually did not camp in range of defender guns (as many mentioned before) and set up rudimentary or better protection of their camp (ditch, whatever).
If you know historical example then enemy camped in range of defenders artillery I will be happy to change my opinion.

The point is that we are not talking about strategic situation - like e.g. when two armies collide (in such case IMO it would be better to keep random/depending on maneuver terrain anyway).
We are talking about very localized situation within few - maybe a dozen hundred meters at the start of game, and a few kilometers at the end.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

I don't think people sieging forts should ever get terrain bonuses regardless of sorties: if you're sieging a fort you're stuck in one place and can't manuever to take advantage of terrain, and no one is going to put a fort in a position where the terrain perfectly shields a besieging army.

I'd support this, but only if sieging becomes an action, and not something that you automatically do on each enemy province. Otherwise, it would simply be impossible to wait for the enemy to come attack you if you weren't in your own province.

 

[durvas]

I'd support this, but only if sieging becomes an action, and not something that you automatically do on each enemy province. Otherwise, it would simply be impossible to wait for the enemy to come attack you if you weren't in your own province.

People sieging would build fortifications of their own. They're not simply standing out in a field someplace. Sorties would leave the safety of their fortifications, and it's only right that the besiegers would be the ones with defensive buffs. Creating a bottleneck goes both ways.

 

[keynes2.0]

The point is that we are not talking about strategic situation - like e.g. when two armies collide (in such case IMO it would be better to keep random/depending on maneuver terrain anyway).
We are talking about very localized situation within few - maybe a dozen hundred meters at the start of game, and a few kilometers at the end.

How are we not talking about strategic situation? Armies moving in to occupy territory. And the situation as it stands means it's actually a heck of a lot easier to siege a mountain fortress then a plains fortress because it's basically impossible to dislodge troops from a mountain. That's bass-ackwards.

One detail, standing on it's own can make the image more inaccurate then leaving it out. Sure the besiegers benefit from standing on the high ground in a sally. But they have a million things that hurt them that aren't represented. They aren't penalized for having to disperse as they march and being easy to defeat in detail. They aren't penalized for having horrible fog of war that hurts the indigenous forces much less.

 

[durvas]

How are we not talking about strategic situation? Armies moving in to occupy territory. And the situation as it stands means it's actually a heck of a lot easier to siege a mountain fortress then a plains fortress because it's basically impossible to dislodge troops from a mountain. That's bass-ackwards.

One detail, standing on it's own can make the image more inaccurate then leaving it out. Sure the besiegers benefit from standing on the high ground in a sally. But they have a million things that hurt them that aren't represented. They aren't penalized for having to disperse as they march and being easy to defeat in detail. They aren't penalized for having horrible fog of war that hurts the indigenous forces much less.

No, it's not backwards that someone who is sieging in the mountains gets a defensive buff when another group tries to attack them. Bottlenecks go both ways. If someone is already occupying the mountainous territory, people coming to dislodge them would not have equal footing.

One detail, standing on it's own can make the image more inaccurate then leaving it out. Sure the besiegers benefit from standing on the high ground in a sally. But they have a million things that hurt them that aren't represented. They aren't penalized for having to disperse as they march and being easy to defeat in detail. They aren't penalized for having horrible fog of war that hurts the indigenous forces much less.

And there are many things a sortie isn't penalized for. As it stands, a sortie is going to be a professional level army that costs no manpower or upkeep. The idea of the local militia becoming a professional level army and breaking the siege of an occupying force without greatly outnumbering them is at least equally ridiculous.

 

[zdlugasz]

How are we not talking about strategic situation? Armies moving in to occupy territory. And the situation as it stands means it's actually a heck of a lot easier to siege a mountain fortress then a plains fortress because it's basically impossible to dislodge troops from a mountain. That's bass-ackwards.

I have problems with understanding some of your usage of verbs/tenses. Do you mean second sentence as statement of army intent : Armies MOVE in to occupy ... (not always - I gave you horde example) or action: when armies are moving .... I guess the first.
I partially agree with you (at least that it is difficult to dislodge besieger in mountains in game terms) - but was it no so historically? Besieger could block fortress and use rugged terrain for defense against relief force. I could agree that owner of province might get bonus of for maneuverer because of his knowledge of terrain, but IMO that is all.

One detail, standing on it's own can make the image more inaccurate then leaving it out. Sure the besiegers benefit from standing on the high ground in a sally. But they have a million things that hurt them that aren't represented. They aren't penalized for having to disperse as they march and being easy to defeat in detail. They aren't penalized for having horrible fog of war that hurts the indigenous forces much less.

Well, it would be quite opposite actually, fortresses are usually located on hills above besiegers.

However I am at loss what are we talking about now: siege or troops marching through province. If the latter then they are marching probably tens of kilometers from fortress so talking about sortie does not have much sense. If we are talking about siege: you can not keep much horses in fortress - so no cav, artillery is stationary - so no art, and finally problem of deployment - how long it will take to march say 6k troops through narrow gate (and gates are on purpose narrow). And we can not talk about defeat in detail because you can not deploy troops anywhere along perimeter (how will they leave fortress - down the wall on lines?) - so besieger can actually quite easily block few entrance points. (Thus any bonuses should go to the besieger)

 

[keynes2.0]

Could someone point to a single example in history of a besieger having the advantage due to bad terrain?

Beseigers dont just sit in one camp outside a fortress. Getting 2k men to exit a fortress is a cinch compared to calling forces from the opposite side of a fortress or five miles away gathering forage to respond to a threat.

 

[zdlugasz]

Could someone point to a single example in history of a besieger having the advantage due to bad terrain?

Beseigers dont just sit in one camp outside a fortress. Getting 2k men to exit a fortress is a cinch compared to calling forces from the opposite side of a fortress or five miles away gathering forage to respond to a threat.

Advantage in defence against sortie (which wont have cavalry nor artillery, I hope you agree on it).
Do you know that besiegers historically put their own defensive works, just to defend themselves against sorties, protect their positions and especially artillery ?

Let me ask you a question - do you mean sortie which will kill say 100 people, burn some tents and destroy a cannon, or sortie which will lift siege and send besieger packing?

And regarding foraging - it was very often role of cavalry, which provided defensive screen outside of the fortress as well. I do not know what image you have in mind, but I want to assure you that you do not send 90% of your infantry living off the land waiting for the fortress to fall. And everything in radius of 5 miles was cleaned almost faster than in that your cinch (or even defenders cleaned it themselves)

 

[keynes2.0]

Let me ask you a question - do you mean sortie which will kill say 100 people, burn some tents and destroy a cannon, or sortie which will lift siege and send besieger packing?

I'm talking about sorties as they are going to be in the game.

 

[zdlugasz]

I'm talking about sorties as they are going to be in the game.

So siege breaking.
I can understand Devs MP intent (while not caring for their explanation). But IMO it has nothing to do with medieval/later warfare and attacker should not get defensive bonus.

 

[208]

It's okay 3 people will use it in Multiplayer. That's enough justification for Paradox to do anything.

Similar to how saying "multiplayer" in a whine post is justification for posting egregious hyperbole, I suppose.

 

[Korashy]

Similar to how saying "multiplayer" in a whine post is justification for posting egregious hyperbole, I suppose.

Quite so.

I've actual lobbied for a similar system as this a while back, but with the addition of greatly limiting force limits in the early game and having forces raised from forts be basically your mobilized army.