Implement siege for strat (not only assault)

[Warham]

Suggestion to fix this situation:

(click to show/hide)

Current battle & loot system prevents dynamic warfare. Even within 4 months you couldn't do much.
For example current Tshibtin situation: UIF & Anti-UIF have about 10k troops each. UIF could attack the village only with 1.5k max(constant charge, little tactics) due to battle timer. & Anti-UIF need to have 2-2.5k troops in the village to always win & to get shitload of loot. So all we could do is to send 1.5k armies one by one, until one side will finally run out of tickets(which is hard since every side have more than one hundred active recruiters).
Same goes for Anti-UIF. They can't counterattack our armies in the field, cause we could reinforce our 1.5k armies to unbeatable 2.5k amount & get a lot of loot after battle.
Thats why Strat is boring as hell right now on EU.

P.S. same shit was at the beginning of the Strat 4 when Coalition, Crusader alliance, Peacebrakers, Caravand Guard & others brought about 10k troops to the DRZ desert. They besieged Jameyed castle, lost a loot of troops, saw UIF reinforcements(who could prevent any fief capture) & retreated to homeland. Because they couldn't take any fief without loosing almost all their army.

1) Siege takes some time (days) depends on fiefs population and army. More population more time, more army less time. For example 1000 population with 1000 army can hold for 6 days. With 2000 army 3 days.
2) During the siege, the defending side with progressive losing tickets from hunger. In first 3 days they can counterattack (open field battle). After that they will surrender on the 6th day if an ally army will not come to take off siege
3) Siege can be removed from the outside, there will be a fight in the field.
4) Siege can stop if attackers go to the assault. Let's say 4 days besieged to count defenders, 5th day assault.
5) To cancel the siege attacker press special button, but he can move his army only after 12 hours.

I think its not to much work for devs and it can accelerate actions in strat, cause defending side will have less advantage. And its historically. Most of towns and castles were taken by siege, not assault.

Sorry for my terrible english, i hope you understand what i mean )

[Kelugarn]

Only 6 days? To make these changes reasonable all of strat's movement/reinforcement mechanics would have to change to be more like a SP campaign on a much longer time scale.

I like some of the ideas, and I would prefer sieges become much more drawn out and involved affairs, but I'm not sure how well this would work. I would like to see armies turning into "siege camps" outside of a target city, allowing for enemy armies to attack the camp directly and break the siege that way.

IMO taking a castle or town should require multiple assault waves, thousands of troops (even if the defenders only have a few hundred) and much more blood/sweat/tears that it currently does. The best way to do make sieges risky and costly would be to change the respawn timer mechanic, because currently all the attackers have to do is ladder across choke points and pin the defenders into one to spawn rape them. After defenders get respawn timers >30 seconds attackers generally have free run of the castle while having far shorter respawn timers themselves.

Maybe the real solution is to change the way ladders work, or make the walls of most cities/castles more defensible (and some of them less bugged out/weaker, because I think we all know wooden walls should take catapult damage).

[Digglez]

only thing a siege should do is prevent people from entering/leaving town, and curve increase troop wages based on the number of days siege has been secured

[Lt_Anders]

http://forum.meleegaming.com/strategus-general-discussion/sieges-versus-assaults/