1. Is there some sort of war weariness type of penalty for prolonged wars? I've been keeping wars going forever, since it costs so much to re-start a war, but obviously I have to reconsider if there is a significant war weariness type of penalty.



2. Can I not sally out from my besieged city? I don't know if it's a bug or intended, but I teleported to a besieged city but couldn't sally out with a much stronger army than the besieging army. If this is not a bug but intended, then it frankly makes no sense.

1. There isn't any penalty for protracted wars, and there should be in the form of happiness penalties and / or greater upkeep (which so far does nothing). The exception of course would be the Necrophages who if anything, should get reduced happiness for not killing.



2. You should be able to. If you deploy a garrison and make it an army, they should be able to sally out, although they no longer get the fortification bonus.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
1. There isn't any penalty for protracted wars, and there should be in the form of happiness penalties and / or greater upkeep (which so far does nothing). The exception of course would be the Necrophages who if anything, should get reduced happiness for not killing.



2. You should be able to. If you deploy a garrison and make it an army, they should be able to sally out, although they no longer get the fortification bonus.

On #1, no penalty is indeed odd.



On #2, I guess I am doing something wrong or there is a bug then. Let me try again in the future in a similar circumstance.



Thanks!

To clarify: if your army is in a besieged city, you can't move out of the city; you can only move within the boundaries of the city. However, if you move next to the besieging army, you should be able to attack them across the border.

Antistone wrote:
To clarify: if your army is in a besieged city, you can't move out of the city; you can only move within the boundaries of the city. However, if you move next to the besieging army, you should be able to attack them across the border.

Yes, this is what I thought. And it seems like a very bad mechanic - both in terms of game-play and realism.

I disagree. An army can sally to fight the besieger. But it is not realistic to expect an army to sally out and leave, without engaging the besieger.



That said, Vaulter heroes have a skill which allows a hero and army to just leave a besieged city (via teleport or not). If this ability was the default, it would make Vaulter heroes even less useful.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
I disagree. An army can sally to fight the besieger. But it is not realistic to expect an army to sally out and leave, without engaging the besieger.



That said, Vaulter heroes have a skill which allows a hero and army to just leave a besieged city (via teleport or not). If this ability was the default, it would make Vaulter heroes even less useful.

I think what Antistone is saying - and my experience confirms this - is that you cannot sally out and fight the besieger from inside the city. If this is the case, then the mechanic really doesn't make much sense. To use an extreme example, you can besiege a city with 1 unit against a full army inside, and the army inside cannot fight unless the besieging single unit attacks?

That is not what I'm saying. You CAN attack the besieging army, by moving to a space that is both inside the city and adjacent to the besieging army, and then using the attack command as normal.

Xenophon wrote:
Yes, this is what I thought. And it seems like a very bad mechanic - both in terms of game-play and realism.

It's a pretty realistic mechanic, actually. A besieging army will take great care to not allow anyone in or out of the city during the siege, doing so would pretty much eliminate any security the besieging army has. If you want to take some time to read over actual historical records of medieval wars involving the siege of castles and forts or look into some historical reenactments (such as from the SCA), then you'd see a pretty similar thing going on in real life. The besieging army often encircles the city/castle/fort and lays siege to it with ranged weapons (longbows, trebuchet, catapults, etc) while keeping an infantry presence to prevent the garrison from charging out of the gates.



In reverse, the garrisoned army would use siege weapons to try and take down the besieging army's siege weapons and/or take out parts of the besieging army, archers to try and attack from the ramparts and towers and soldiers at the entrances/exits to prevent an infiltration and invasion of the city/castle/fort. Ultimately nobody got in or out without sneaking and many sieges were won simply through attrition (starving out the city/castle/fort or outlasting the besieging army).



EDIT: An interesting thing to consider would be having a garrisoned army dealing damage to a besieging army in the same way the besieging army damages the fortifications of the city (damage over turns) or allow for ranged units in a garrisoned army to attack the besieging army while keeping the fortification bonus or something along those lines.



Mind you, I am not an expert on game balance and wouldn't presume to believe I've covered all of the possible balance issues with implementing such a mechanic.

Antistone wrote:
That is not what I'm saying. You CAN attack the besieging army, by moving to a space that is both inside the city and adjacent to the besieging army, and then using the attack command as normal.

Ah, ok; so I misread you. So you can attack the besiegers from inside your own city? I guess I will have to try next time I am caught.

Avilyss wrote:
It's a pretty realistic mechanic, actually. A besieging army will take great care to not allow anyone in or out of the city during the siege, doing so would pretty much eliminate any security the besieging army has. If you want to take some time to read over actual historical records of medieval wars involving the siege of castles and forts or look into some historical reenactments (such as from the SCA), then you'd see a pretty similar thing going on in real life. The besieging army often encircles the city/castle/fort and lays siege to it with ranged weapons (longbows, trebuchet, catapults, etc) while keeping an infantry presence to prevent the garrison from charging out of the gates.



In reverse, the garrisoned army would use siege weapons to try and take down the besieging army's siege weapons and/or take out parts of the besieging army, archers to try and attack from the ramparts and towers and soldiers at the entrances/exits to prevent an infiltration and invasion of the city/castle/fort. Ultimately nobody got in or out without sneaking and many sieges were won simply through attrition (starving out the city/castle/fort or outlasting the besieging army).



EDIT: An interesting thing to consider would be having a garrisoned army dealing damage to a besieging army in the same way the besieging army damages the fortifications of the city (damage over turns) or allow for ranged units in a garrisoned army to attack the besieging army while keeping the fortification bonus or something along those lines.



Mind you, I am not an expert on game balance and wouldn't presume to believe I've covered all of the possible balance issues with implementing such a mechanic.

I guess it's a moot point if I was mistaken in regard to how the mechanic works. But I'd disagree strenuously with you on historical grounds. Plenty of besieged army have sallied out and confronted the besiegers - in cases where the besieged had comparable or superior manpower (Alesia is probably the most famous one that comes immediately to mind). Besides, I am talking about particularly odd, ridiculous situations were a far inferior force (I mentioned one unit as a hypothetical! ) can hem in a far stronger force. But again, this may be a moot point if I am wrong in my original observation.

Xenophon wrote:
I guess it's a moot point if I was mistaken in regard to how the mechanic works. But I'd disagree strenuously with you on historical grounds. Plenty of besieged army have sallied out and confronted the besiegers - in cases where the besieged had comparable or superior manpower (Alesia is probably the most famous one that comes immediately to mind). Besides, I am talking about particularly odd, ridiculous situations were a far inferior force (I mentioned one unit as a hypothetical! ) can hem in a far stronger force. But again, this may be a moot point if I am wrong in my original observation.

It would seem I, in turn, misunderstood the point you were making. I thought the point you were making was that an army being unable to leave the confines of the city area was unrealistic, which I was arguing against precisely because of the point you illustrated - if they wanted to leave the city, they'd have to fight through the besieging army or sneak out. Since I misunderstood your point and it seems we both agree on that regard, please disregard.