My experience was that with conservative assault orders you will start a battle and withdraw after one round, and then immediately start another battle, and another until you are eliminated at which point all surviving forces in the region retreat regardless of orders. Looking at the logs the units with assault orders having lost 2 battles and being badly damage simply attacked again.Pocus wrote:I don't see why in the case of assault, calling it off would be impossible, the code don't differentiate anything on that. Try to assault with a conservative ROE e.g
As for siege itself, I have added rules on ammo usage and attrition in past RC, try it out...
The tool tip says "provides no benefit" the effect is not close to nothing - two extra levels of entrenchment for 10 corps is a big bonus.Sir Garnet wrote:Breaches are hardly easy going, and there are further defenses behind. At best it is difficult going, slowing the attackers. Rubble is also great for defenders not committed to close order formations, and building breastworks.
From memory every stack in the region with orders higher than defend - though that was probably because they were committed to the battle.Who is totally eliminated? The elements in the assault frontage (plausible) or the attacking division/corps/force entirely?
Given that the force with defend orders was bigger than the besieged force and, on full cohesion, if they sallied then they should have been wiped out. From memory the logs shows the battered units with assault orders starting a third assault of the turn.Kensai wrote:sagji, what you describe is quite different from my own experience in assaults both in PON and other AGEOD titles that mostly share the same battle code. As Garnet says, if you fail the assault you simply stay there. Are you sure you weren't beaten by an army that sallied forth? Otherwise the besieger stays put, even if he had lost.
This address the inability to damage a large force in a fort, it doesn't address the problem that all of the large force gains all of the benefits of the fortress - including 2 extra levels of entrenchment when the walls are totally breached. Beyond a certain point the more defenders you put in a fort the easier it is to take, in practice at that point the defenders then spread out but are then partly outside the fort and that part is vulnerable to normal combat without the benefits of the fort.If Pocus has already added some more damage for the besieged under cannon siege, especially if a huge force in a small fort, then we are all set, it fixes most unrealistic situations.
Certainly at the moment ships in the MTB are almost invulnerable, but you also need to look at moving to/from/between MTBs - commerce ships are much more vulnerable here but this should not be any different to the implicit movement that being in an MTB represents.Pocus, please consider beefing the damage done to enemy trade ships and fleets in MBTs as well. Right now and since v1.02 brought repairing of trade ships in MBTs, destroying the rival mercantile capability is pretty difficult if not impossible. I believe the probability of encounter is pretty low, unless this is WAD because we are relatively early in the game.
Another area to look at is coastal bombardment when there are shore batteries - last time this just totally wiped out the ships, mostly doing 20 damage in each hit. IIRC 3 under strength coastal batteries wiped out 10 ships (so 10 elements wiped out 40 where the 40 had complete control of the battle). The ships were attacking land units and effectively ignoring the coastal batteries (other than by random target selection) - in reality any shore bombardment would start with action to suppress the coastal batteries, or not happen (regardless of orders) if that wasn't achievable.
