I'm trying to get a feel for the Siege order.
I tried the sieging order years ago and consistently
failed with 40- and 50- rank commanders, so I just
gave up. At the moment I have a c44 with 3400 troops
facing a major town/fort. I don't have the strength
to take it, but I'm wondering what my chances are
of sieging it.
So I have two "banks" of questions:
1) Success of siege order.
a. What does it take to succeed?
b. How much do enemy fortifications affect the result?
c. How much do troop count help vs. command rank vs. war machines?
2) How useful is sieging?
I'd especially like to hear answers on this from players
who have been the recipient of successful siege orders,
as they are the ones that can say what the real affect
was. In particular, how much was the loyalty lowered?
Thank for any help...
Jeremy
JeremyRichman@compuserve.com wrote
So I have two "banks" of questions:
1) Success of siege order.
a. What does it take to succeed?
An army bigger, or perhaps almost as big as that which you'd need to
capture. Seems to me that when this order was "designed", the thinking
was that armies may wish to besiege (which in England at least is the
correct verb, "siege" is a noun) in order to reduce losses. The facts
that armies need to keep moving in order to remain economically viable,
and of the over dominance of agents in the game, appear to have been
utterly overlooked. When they were realised, the order seems to have
been left in as a completely redundant organ.
b. How much do enemy fortifications affect the result?
As above. If you've got war machines, you might reduce the
fortifications by one level, before attacking on the following turn, but
you need a lot, I think it's about 20WM for a fort or tower - generally
better just to move on, attack somewhere else, come back later.
c. How much do troop count help vs. command rank vs. war machines?
As above.
2) How useful is sieging?
As useful as a fish's bicycle. In a score of games, over 8 years, I
think I've only ever seen it used successfully once. A great shame
really, because sieges should have a place in (pseudo) mediaeval
warfare. We could go back to the 2nd ed. discussions if you like - a
besiege order would have to be much easier, and more advantageous to the
nation giving it. Commanders in a besieging army should be assumed to
have some extra protection against assassins - pickets in a heightened
state of alert - though many players I believe would support a general
adjustment versus assassins in favour of army commanders, in all
situations.
Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
