4th crusade and the Nicean reconquest were exceptions as people more articulate than me (Granite) have already said
- 2
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Constantinople should only be harder to take, if the Romans want to maintaine the theodisian walls and that should be expensive. Otherwise this is just modifier stacking for no particular reason.
- 2
It should be extremely hard unless you have a very clear military superiority or you unlock great siege weapons, there's a reason why Costantinople was conquered so late compared to the first Ottoman' expansion into Europe, and it wasn't for lack of trying
The geography of the city is just too advantageous for the defenders, there's no way you should be able to take the city with 4k levies (in the video it happens with a 2k army) unless the city is just completely abandoned and the Byzantines don't pay for the walls anymore
- 1
If you maintiane the expensive walls: Yes. Otherwise I dont see a reason why it should be harder than let's say Belgrade. Generally speaking the Ottomans had other matters to attend to, which is why they had to break up the siege. Mind you at various times the Ottomans had good relations with the Romans and at other times they were literally vassals. Your comment implies that there was a 150 year attempt, which is not the case.
By the logic that people defend here, we should buff Belgrade for no reason, because you know the Ottomans actually failed to get the city, unlike Constantinople, were they only had to abandon the siege.
- 1
If a city holds for 8 years with high level of scarcity and a significantly stronger foe i would consider it a victory since sooner or later something would have happend, the point still stands: Costantinople is a hard city to take unless the Empire became somehow poorer then it's real life counterpart, which would honestly be impressive
- 1
Constantinople was always open through the sea route. Thanks to the italians. So you are comparing apples to bananas.
And again: If you maintaine the fortifications: Yes it should be hard to conquer, but you are essentially saying:
I dont want to pay anything and the city should just have a flat modifier to be hard to conquer, so I can have an easier time playing as them.
I disagree with that.
- 1
I’m guessing it’s 2k of regulars, but yeah that’s nowhere near enough unless the city was basically abandoned.
Last edited:
Ludi already mentioned Byzantium gets the best city walls ever in the game with a special event after a few decades IIRC. He even said that Serbs spent lots of time and manpower just to siege Constantinople but couldn’t take it
- 1
No i think they should pay, not that much considering how cost efficient the walls are but they should still pay
I never said they shouldn't because that would be unfair considering you have to pay for normal forts, why not stronger ones?
Still holding for 8 years is impressive, most cities would have fell in that time and context, plus the open sea route is one of it's strong geographical points, that's why it should be a hard city to attack
- 2
You can hold indefinetly with an open sea route. You are not running out of supplies. A large army infront of your city can. That is not reason enough to buff the city defences.
Rhodes essentially was a city on an island and hold out for "centuries" regarding that. So did Cyprus for the most part and essentially as a city state. You also have several examples of Corfu and Malta being impenetrable forts. Crete itself is also arguably one of it. None of it should get a special modifier making it hard to conquer. The difficulty comes from the supplies and the maintained fortifications.
I think in the Age of Traditions it should be practically impossible to take cities (High population/walls). It should require a standing army (10k?) to siege, and even if you take it somehow it should be really hard to control IF it is the wrong religion and culture.
Fully disagree. If you do that Yuan will never fall and large conquests across the old world will be made impossible. That is simply not the reality of the 14th century.
The actual answer is that it should be naturally hard to sieze any fortification that can reliably resupply who's walls you can't easily and consistently breach and keep breached. Whether game mechanics will represent such well is another topic tbh.
At the very least a fleet blockade should be required without heavy enough cannon which is how the city was taken in the 4th Crusade (and only after the Crusaders had entered is when Alexios fled).
At the very least a fleet blockade should be required without heavy enough cannon which is how the city was taken in the 4th Crusade (and only after the Crusaders had entered is when Alexios fled).
- 3
The small penalty to siege difficulty from unblockaded coastal forts seen in EU4 is completely insufficient. We have examples of sieges lasting decades under that exact circumstance in this period. IMO there should be some way for ships to resupply forts with men and provisions, pretty much forcing you to take the fort by storm, which of course requires a lot of men of your own as well as enough cannon to create a breech.
- 2
Yeah to me the thing here is that Italians should help the Byzantines in sieges, overbuffing the fort is not the point.
If you can't starve it you need artillery, if you can starve you don't
If you can't starve it you need artillery, if you can starve you don't