Siege is still not working right

[squarian]

Take a look at Dusseldorf in the messages for early Aug - a cavalry bde under Lueckner, 850 strong, manages to breach Dusseldorf and destroy the garrison bn there. Nice trick, when your only weapons are carbines, pistols and swords.

Oh, and when La Morliere chases Lueckner away? Naturally, he retreats across the Rhine, away from friendly territory and his supply line.

[Bertram]

Nah, the cavalry has their own methods to break a garrison. It involves a horsehead - they got plenty of those .

[lycortas]

Hi,

Stettin fell in 1806 to, IIRC, Lasalle with 1000 Chasseurs with no artillery.

Stettin had a large garrison and what, 150 or so cannon? It happened in history, don't fix what is not broken.

Mike

[Jarkko]

Hi,

Stettin fell in 1806 to, IIRC, Lasalle with 1000 Chasseurs with no artillery.

Stettin had a large garrison and what, 150 or so cannon? It happened in history, don't fix what is not broken.

Wrong century, wrong era, wrong war. 7YW was about forts and fortifications, Napoleonic wars were not.

[squarian]

Hi,

Stettin fell in 1806 to, IIRC, Lasalle with 1000 Chasseurs with no artillery.

Stettin had a large garrison and what, 150 or so cannon? It happened in history, don't fix what is not broken.

Mike

Jena. I don't think anything more need be said.

[Carnium]

Take a look at Dusseldorf in the messages for early Aug - a cavalry bde under Lueckner, 850 strong, manages to breach Dusseldorf and destroy the garrison bn there. Nice trick, when your only weapons are carbines, pistols and swords.

Oh, and when La Morliere chases Lueckner away? Naturally, he retreats across the Rhine, away from friendly territory and his supply line.

Is this with the 1.02 patch?

[squarian]

Is this with the 1.02 patch?

Yes - 1.02

[lycortas]

So, Jarkko, were Lasalle's cavalry mounted on Pegasi? Could he fly over the walls of Stettin?

Stettin could have chose to hold but did not. Lestocq did not surrender.
Stettin was simply bluffed, we have to understand that this happened in the 7YW as well. Breslau did not join Prussia in 1740, it decided to be neutral, then the Prussians infiltrated in to the city and took it, what, several months later.

I am unsure why you think 50 years mattered as everyone was using fundamentally the same weapons. Also, saying the Napoleonic wars were 'not about sieges' is silly. Italy in 1796-1800, Spain 1808-1813.

Mike

[Jarkko]

lycortas, please read up something on 7YW warfare first. Might be enlightening.

The aftermaths of Jena saw many weird things happen. Like entire nations surrendering, not just a fort.

7YW was about forts. Holding and sieging forts, and your cavalry brigades forcing forts to surrender just didn't happen. Making 7YW a fantasy game where a cavalry brigades take forts at whim... it is just beyond words. Might as well add in pegasii, elves and mole-mortars, they make just as much sense.

[Soderini]

7YW was about forts. Holding and sieging forts.

Really? Would you care to name a few important and long-lasting sieges? I know Schweidniz changed hands a few times, and Prague was besieged in 1757. But apart from those...

As far is I know, fortresses lost most of their importance during the War of the Austrian Succession, when the French smashed the fortified border of the Southern Netherlands with ease. After this war countries started to focus on a few important places which were heavily fortified (Schweidnitz, Magdeburg, Luxemburg).

[FM WarB]

See a list with descriptions of the Seven Years' War sieges at the following website:
http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Sieges

[Soderini]

I count 18 sieges, mostly resolved within the month (id est: within two game turns) in the European theatre. More over, quite some of the sieges were conducted against the same places (Dresden and Schweidnitz).
Compare this to the battles fought: http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Battles. Quite a difference.

In game terms, I'd say that level 3 Fortresses should be able to withstand a siege for 4-6 turns, provided off course that the sieging army has enough artillery and sappers. Level 2 and below should not be able to hold out for more then two or perhaps three turns.

[squarian]

As interesting as the debate is, it misses the point - namely that I believe the savegame above shows that the program is glitched. Hopefully, someone (like say Pocus ) can check it and find out.

Once it's determined whether this is WAD or not, then perhaps it will be worthwhile to debate whether cavalry should be able to take fortresses or whether sieges mattered in the 7YW. My original intention in starting the thread, though, was simply to draw the design team's attention to a suspicious result for purposes of improving the program.

[Jarkko]

I count 18 sieges, mostly resolved within the month (id est: within two game turns) in the European theatre. More over, quite some of the sieges were conducted against the same places (Dresden and Schweidnitz).
Compare this to the battles fought: http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Battles. Quite a difference.

In game terms, I'd say that level 3 Fortresses should be able to withstand a siege for 4-6 turns, provided off course that the sieging army has enough artillery and sappers. Level 2 and below should not be able to hold out for more then two or perhaps three turns.

Excuse me, are you attempting to be sarcastic or are you just being obtuse? "Most resolved within a month", huh? Also, how many forts do you see taken by a single cavalry brigade after two weeks? How can you claim the siege model in RoP isn't broken beyond belief if you have played the game even a bit?

EDIT: And about those battles in your link, as you can see they were mostly battles focusing on getting into position to take forts, cut off relief forces or retreat routes from/to besieged positions...

[Soderini]

First off, as Squarian points out, this is all getting serious off-topic.
Still, since you seem to miss the point: I'm not saying that a cavalery brigade should be able te take level 2 or 3 fortresses in one turn, I was just stating that siege warfare was not the core of the 7YW. Fortresses were important as they served as a depot.

However, sieges weren't conducted by armies anymore, but by seperate sieging forces. While the siege lasted the armies would continue to manouevre freely. "On his campaigns he followed the usefull precedent which had been set by the Marshall de Saxe in the Netherlands in the 1740s, that of keeping his field army mobile and free, while forming seperate corps to take care of any sieges." (Duffy, Ch, The Army of Frederick the Great, p 190, The Emporor's Press, 1996, Second edition).

[arsan]

See a list with descriptions of the Seven Years' War sieges at the following website:
http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Sieges

Interesting link!

Just took a look at the completed sieges shown there and make some notes about the ones in the RoP theater of operations
Around half of them were interrupted by rescuing armies or lifted because other operational changes and/or because the garrison did not surrender soon enough.
Regarding the sieges that were completed (town finally taken) this is what they lasted according to Kronoskraf info:

1757
Memel, 5 days
Gabel, 2 days
Schweidnitz, 20 days
Breslau, 14 days

1758
Schweidnitz, 26 days
Dresden, 9 days

1761
Colberg, 3 months and 20 days
Schweidnitz, no siege, outright and successful assault
Treptow, 2 days

1762
Schweidnitz (again...) two months

I see a lot of variability, with some long sieges and also a lot of very short ones.
Even the same fortress (Schweidnitz) can one year resist for months and other be taken by assault on the first try.

Jarkko, all your complains began because some siege in one of your campaigns lasted only 2 or 3 turns... Thats 30-45 days... not bad at all according to historical facts...
Maybe you should stop calling "obtuse" people that not agree with you views and offer instead some hard facts that supports your "long and regular siege durations" theories.

[Pocus]

As interesting as the debate is, it misses the point - namely that I believe the savegame above shows that the program is glitched. Hopefully, someone (like say Pocus ) can check it and find out.

Once it's determined whether this is WAD or not, then perhaps it will be worthwhile to debate whether cavalry should be able to take fortresses or whether sieges mattered in the 7YW. My original intention in starting the thread, though, was simply to draw the design team's attention to a suspicious result for purposes of improving the program.

This was not really a conscious decision from us to allow all units doing breaches, more an oversight than anything else, plus the 'lack of time' factor.

Some more code is added that will disallow besiegers to make a breach if they don't have any artillery, siege units or special leaders (so we cover also the exceptional case, like Lasalle some years later, if need be).

As for the weird retreat, I ran the turn thrice but no combat each time, so I did not reproduce it... It will resurface, rest assured, if there is a bug...

A beta patch will be out before the end of May, with much more tweaks, like a better AI, thanks to the good work of many, Clovis first.

[Jarkko]

Jarkko, all your complains began because some siege in one of your campaigns lasted only 2 or 3 turns... Thats 30-45 days... not bad at all according to historical facts...
Maybe you should stop calling "obtuse" people that not agree with you views and offer instead some hard facts that supports your "long and regular siege durations" theories.

Arsan, I have never said sieges shouldn't be short when the besiegers have vast numerical superiority and have the siege equipment available. On the contrary! So please don't put words in my mouth that I have not said, ok? Point it out where I said something like "long and regular siege durations", or please don't make it appear as if I had uttered something like that.

What I have complained about is that ridicully small forces can cause even large garrisons surrender in *no* time. This is what happens in the game, you know, right?

Lets take as example the Schweidnitz sieges, shall we?

First Schweidnitz siege, lasted 20 days (in game terms, two turns). 80,000 siegers vs 6,000 besieged. Nothing odd with the duration here with those odds.

Second Schweidnitz siege, lasted 26 days (in game terms, two turns) but the garrison had been without supply source for the past 3 months ie through the whole winter and had severaly suffered during the winter. 10,000 siegers with the elite siege artillery unit vs 8,000 besieged. Again nothing odd considering the besieged in game terms were low on cohesion and without supply.

Third Schweidnitz siege, lasted 61 days, in game terms four turns. Initially 15,000 siegers vs 12,000, but there were eventually some 25,000 siegers with special siege equipment. Again, nothing odd considering the long time and special equipment on the sieging side.

If you look at the other sieges, you see the similar pattern. When the forces sieged were outnumbered at least 10:1, or the sieged forces had been without supply for a long time, the sieges sometimes lasted a very short time.



Now, how does all that make it ok and good that in the game a single cavalry battallion can force a garrison in full supply to surrender after one turn?

[Ebbingford]

Duffy in "Prussia's Glory" tells of two examples of cavalry taking garrisoned towns without the benifit of artillery. Seydlitz took Pegau in 1757 by getting 50 of his Szekely Hussars to break in the gates with baulks of timber while the rest of the regiment waited out of musket range, they then charged in through the gates and took the place.
Before the battle of Leuthen 12 squadrons of Prussian hussars, the White and Zeiten Hussars, took Neumarkt, which was defended by 2 battalions of Croats and 2 regiments of Hussars, by breaking in the gates with axes.
I don't know the level of fortification of these places, but as a minimum I would think an old walled town, still quite a feat for cavalry to take. Frederick was still commending it to his generals in 1770.

[squarian]

Duffy in "Prussia's Glory".....

The question is whether the siege algorithm is correct - I believe what we want is a siege routine which accurately reflects the normal course of siege warfare, namely that it required siege guns, trenches and a considerable amount of time.

Once that works properly, then add the bells and whistles for extraordinary events like the coups de main you're referring to.

But please let us not justify a malfunctioning game design by reference to rare and abnormal exceptions.

Rather than compile exceptions to the rule, perhaps someone can produce a contemporary quote indicating that these coups de main of Seydlitz or Loudon were perfectly normal and expected outcomes of standard military practice?

[Generalisimo]

The question is whether the siege algorithm is correct - I believe what we want is a siege routine which accurately reflects the normal course of siege warfare, namely that it required siege guns, trenches and a considerable amount of time.

The last part is arguable... with proper siege equipment and your forces ready to storm the fortress, the normal sieges were not long... check even the posts from Jarkko stating how long and why the sieges were like that.
Unless you wanted to say that a considerable ammount of time was 1-4 turns...

The problem resides on another area... that you can storm a fortress without proper siege equipment (siege artillery, artillery, more forces, a siege expert on your side, etc).

[lodilefty]

<snip>
The problem resides on another area... that you can storm a fortress without proper siege equipment (siege artillery, artillery, more forces, a siege expert on your side, etc).

...and the solution is well under way:

Pocus quote from above:

Some more code is added that will disallow besiegers to make a breach if they don't have any artillery, siege units or special leaders (so we cover also the exceptional case, like Lasalle some years later, if need be).

Good imputs!
Patience shall be rewarded!!!