Sieging (order 260)

mepbmlist
#1

So I have two "banks" of questions:

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.

Agree with how often it happens. Have to disagree about the usefulness
though. Whilst capturing or destroying a settlement is obviously preferable
to besiegeing it, besieging someones can be useful. For starters a besieged
settlement doesn't provide any income and actually uses up food if there is
any present. Also, beseiging someone's capital prevents any of their Nation
Sells going off & prevents any NatTrans going off. Also, you can't transfer
anything to a besieged settlement so if someone is running on a deficit
beseiging their capital can be a real pain 'cos they can't do any Natsells
to cover the deficit and their allies can't send money to their capital.
This can also make the tax rate go up, affecting the loyalties of all
settlements. I have seen this done (admittedly only once) to great effect.
However, having said that, it's always better to capture/destroy if
possible.

Regards
Adam Mitchell

Having said that

#2

A siege tends to attract agents/cursers who quickly kill off all
commanders and raise the siege, so it's pretty useless. In order to
siege an important MT/city (and why would you siege anything else?)
you need large amounts of troops, just waiting to be dissolved.

But of course you can use the order to do just that, bring in the
enemy. If you want to prepare an ambush, place a curse squad outside,
bring in in insane amount of killers and stealthy emmies, and when
the enemy shows up, you curse the hardest one, double them all, kill
the agents and kidnap the rest.

/Pontus Gustavsson

···

On 16 Apr 2001, at 20:22, Heather Taylor wrote:

>>So I have two "banks" of questions:

>>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.

Agree with how often it happens. Have to disagree about the usefulness
though. Whilst capturing or destroying a settlement is obviously
preferable to besiegeing it, besieging someones can be useful. For
starters a besieged settlement doesn't provide any income and actually
uses up food if there is any present. Also, beseiging someone's
capital prevents any of their Nation Sells going off & prevents any
NatTrans going off. Also, you can't transfer anything to a besieged
settlement so if someone is running on a deficit beseiging their
capital can be a real pain 'cos they can't do any Natsells to cover
the deficit and their allies can't send money to their capital. This
can also make the tax rate go up, affecting the loyalties of all
settlements. I have seen this done (admittedly only once) to great
effect. However, having said that, it's always better to
capture/destroy if possible.

Regards
Adam Mitchell

Having said that

Middle Earth PBM List - Middle Earth and Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.egroups.com
http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#3

Unless of course you're playing in a Limited Agent or No Kidnap/Assassinate scenario.
Admittedly, it's still possible in the LA scenario, but usually not until later, and
even then not as bad.)

Mike Mulka

···

------Original Message-----
-From: Pontus Gustavsson [mailto:pontus@gustavsson.net]
-Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 3:31 PM
-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
-Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Sieging (order 260)
-
-
-A siege tends to attract agents/cursers who quickly kill off all
-commanders and raise the siege, so it's pretty useless. In order to
-siege an important MT/city (and why would you siege anything else?)
-you need large amounts of troops, just waiting to be dissolved.

#4

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Heather Taylor" <heather.taylor@v...> wrote:

Agree with how often it happens. Have to disagree about the

usefulness

though. Whilst capturing or destroying a settlement is obviously

preferable

to besiegeing it, besieging someones can be useful. For starters a

besieged

settlement doesn't provide any income and actually uses up food if

there is

any present. Also, beseiging someone's capital prevents any of

their Nation

Sells going off & prevents any NatTrans going off. Also, you can't

transfer

anything to a besieged settlement so if someone is running on a

deficit

beseiging their capital can be a real pain 'cos they can't do any

Natsells

to cover the deficit and their allies can't send money to their

capital.

This can also make the tax rate go up, affecting the loyalties of

all

settlements. I have seen this done (admittedly only once) to great

effect.

However, having said that, it's always better to capture/destroy if
possible.

Regards
Adam Mitchell

Oh yes, having your enemies pop centres under seige is useful. The
only problem is how to have that happen. The seige order is
apparently harder to pull off than threaten (I've only issued it
once, failure..). What a waste. Although, I have beseiged a few
pop centres on purpose, but suiciding a too-small army against it.
With those 10 commanders, issue Capture with 100 ma, and the
city-citadel is seiged for that turn....Effective Rhudaur strategy
in one game against the WK, waiting for Argeleb and his 7000 friends
to finish the job...

Regards,

Brad Brunet

#5

ditletang@canada.com wrote

What a waste. Although, I have beseiged a few
pop centres on purpose, but suiciding a too-small army against it.
With those 10 commanders, issue Capture with 100 ma, and the
city-citadel is seiged for that turn....

But that's actually another great weakness in the game, and a case for
revision isn't it. Why should 100ma and a C10 be able to besiege a
city/citadel by committing suicide, when a C50 and 4000hi surrounding it
fail to stop the local farmer's wife coming in with her basket of eggs?

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

#6

There is a much simpler mechanism in the game.
Have an expendable character with 100 troops attack a population
center. The hero will die, and the population center will be sieged.

IMO sieges would be useful if they reduced the fortification level
when they worked. Vaguely historical, at least.

Right now sieges fit in nicely with light troops and
archers...potentially useful ideas that currently serve only to
confuse new players.

cheers,

Marc Pinsonneault

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...> wrote:

ditletang@c... wrote
>What a waste. Although, I have beseiged a few
>pop centres on purpose, but suiciding a too-small army against it.
>With those 10 commanders, issue Capture with 100 ma, and the
>city-citadel is seiged for that turn....
But that's actually another great weakness in the game, and a case

for

revision isn't it. Why should 100ma and a C10 be able to besiege a
city/citadel by committing suicide, when a C50 and 4000hi

surrounding it

fail to stop the local farmer's wife coming in with her basket of

eggs?

···

Regards,

Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/