In paradox games* sieges are the worst of both worlds – they are neither realistic nor fun. A vital part of warfare until the post-industrial era, the waitfests that Paradox turns them into doesn’t match how they worked at all.
In Crusader Kings 2, you either wait for the garrison to starve, or storm the fort in a bloodbath. Europa Universalis is slightly better in this respect, with its “artillery barrage” option, but the requirement it draws on your nation’s elementary powers is downright infuriating, mostly but not entirely because the optimal strategy with monarch points is almost always to be miserly with a capital M. (The highly RNG dependent nature of sieges in EU4 is also very frustrating game design) My knowledge of Victoria 2 is very rusty, but going by the wiki it seems that after putting men on a province, waiting was all you could do.
In reality, sieges did not involve sitting in a ring shaped camp for nine months until the fort ran out of food. This would be terrible for the besiegers’ morale, and they were more likely to run out of food and water than the defenders. But the alternative was not to swarm over the walls and into the meat grinder like a remote controlled undead army, but to gradually weaken the walls through mining, pounding with heavy weapons etc. Note that any siege would be costly on the attacking armies’ manpower; the defenders can choose when to fight in tunnels or sorties, and when the invasion of the weakened part of the fortress comes, the defenders still have a large enough advantage that they will inflict several times the casualties on the attackers then themselves take. Any well-designed fortress will also have layers of defence, so that the attackers repeat this many times to take it.
Note that this is a significant contributor to the somewhat inevitable blobbing in Paradox games. A while back there was a thread complaining that England usually conquers most or all of Scotland in EU4 games. Well, if England’s armies actually wore down in men and moral besieging Scottish forts, Scotland’s initially smaller army would have a decent shot of defeating the English one in battle. Similarly, this is a sufficient but not necessary factor in causing wars against small realms in CK2 to be totally over after the first major battle, unless a third party attacks.
What to do about this? The existing examples of player choice are good game design and should be expanded upon. Events can be used to make sieges interesting – and well-designed ones will have different optimal choices each time (yes, it is perfectly possible). What follows is therefore a two-pronged proposal as to how sieges ought to work in Crusader Kings 3:
Instead of just two ways of taking forts in Crusader Kings, there should be three. The first would be the “passive” approach, where no attempt is made to enter the city proper, blockade and bombardment would be used to coerce the city into surrendering, and treachery would provide opportunities to quicken the siege. This would usually take the longest (between a couple of months and a couple of years) and would sap the besiegers’ moral (to a point). This could be countered by the besieged could sallying forth to attack the attackers, or with a relieving army.
The second would be “intermediate” where the attackers aim to weaken the castle significantly before trying to storm after created breaches in the walls by undermining and bombardment. This would cost the besiegers more casualties than the defenders, and much more if the fortress was well built. Depending on the fort’s construction, it would take between a couple of weeks and several months. This method is likely to cause significant damage to the fortress. Treachery would again allow the siege to be hastened but would be less likely (even per unit time) due to the fact the inhabitants are much less likely to be starving or diseased.
The final approach would be “active” and would involve simply swarming over the walls and through the intended entrances to conquer the fort. This would inevitably give the attacker at least several times the defender’s casualties, even in the dodgiest fort. The advantages are that it would only take a few weeks at the very most and would cause comparatively little damage to the fortress.
The idea would be that, based on a multitude of circumstances, such as the urgency of the fort falling (in turn based on factors such as the political situation, the prisoners capturing it would gain and size of one’s war chest), amount of manpower one had, and the strength of the fort, different ones would be optimal when either trying to blob out the fastest or min-max prestige and piety.
Event Examples
The commander of _____ must be craven to the bone, as he surrendered the fortress unconditionally without us even giving a demand. What shall be done with him?
a. Let him and his family leave unmolested as gratitude. (They like you more, and holdings are likely to resist less)
b. Let him leave, but his family will be useful as hostages.
c. Imprison him and his family; they will serve us better as prisoners. (He likes you less, and sieges are likely to resist slightly more)
d. Execute him for being a traitor to his people. (Sieges are likely to resist more)
Now the commander and his family have been dealt with, what shall be done with the rest of the inhabitants?
a. Let them all go where they please. (Chance of gaining kind, people fear you less, people are more likely to defect during sieges)
b. Imprison them all.
c. Execute the lot. (Gain cruel, holdings are more likely to resist much more)
Our forces have surrounded _____. What should we do next?
a. Point out they have a grand opportunity to (re)join their rightful liege**.
b. Offer the people safe passage should they surrender.
c. Tell the inhabitants their lives will be spared if they yield.
d. There is no mercy for my enemies. If they give up without a fight their deaths will be swift . . . er
The enemy commander has offered to yield in [time period] with the condition that [condition]. Should we accept his offer?
a. Does he take me for a fool? He may have [shorter time period].
b. Does he take me for a fool? He may have [harsher condition].
c. He is a wise negotiator. Accept it.
d. He thinks himself a wise negotiator. Tell him we accept while preparing for a surprise attack! (Chance of gaining deceitful, others are more likely to renege on deals and less likely to offer them)
For cities that have been taken by force:
The city has fallen, and the men are beginning to pillage. What shall be done?
a. Let them have their fun; they need to let off steam after the hard-fought engagement. (Gain a morale boost, lose piety if Christian or Muslim, province loses wealth and gets depopulated. Lose just if one has it. Cities are more likely to surrender in future.)
b. Discourage them, but don’t press the issue. We don’t want a munity on our hands. (Province loses small amount of wealth and population)
c. It is our duty to protect the innocent. Order them to cease and execute any that disobey. (Gain piety if Christian or Muslim, chance of gaining just, army suffers major moral hit. Cities are more likely to fight longer in the future.)
For cities that surrender:
The city is ours, but some men have begun to loot. Should we put a stop to them?
a. No; the men need some blood to satisfy them. Best not risk a mutiny. (Lose piety if Christian or Muslim, province loses wealth and gets depopulated. Lose just if one has it. Cities are more likely to fight longer in the future.)
b. Discourage them, but don’t press the issue. We don’t want a munity on our hands. (Province loses small amount of wealth and population)
c. Yes; the people yielded honourably and should be rewarded. (Army suffers small morale hit. Cities are more likely to surrender in future.)
Some events about defectors might by good too.
*At least Victoria 2, Crusader Kings 2 and Europa Universalis 4
**This option would only be presented when the case could be made that the attacker is the rightful liege, like when the holding is under occupation, it’s a claimant or part of the relevant land in a de jure war, ect.
In Crusader Kings 2, you either wait for the garrison to starve, or storm the fort in a bloodbath. Europa Universalis is slightly better in this respect, with its “artillery barrage” option, but the requirement it draws on your nation’s elementary powers is downright infuriating, mostly but not entirely because the optimal strategy with monarch points is almost always to be miserly with a capital M. (The highly RNG dependent nature of sieges in EU4 is also very frustrating game design) My knowledge of Victoria 2 is very rusty, but going by the wiki it seems that after putting men on a province, waiting was all you could do.
In reality, sieges did not involve sitting in a ring shaped camp for nine months until the fort ran out of food. This would be terrible for the besiegers’ morale, and they were more likely to run out of food and water than the defenders. But the alternative was not to swarm over the walls and into the meat grinder like a remote controlled undead army, but to gradually weaken the walls through mining, pounding with heavy weapons etc. Note that any siege would be costly on the attacking armies’ manpower; the defenders can choose when to fight in tunnels or sorties, and when the invasion of the weakened part of the fortress comes, the defenders still have a large enough advantage that they will inflict several times the casualties on the attackers then themselves take. Any well-designed fortress will also have layers of defence, so that the attackers repeat this many times to take it.
Note that this is a significant contributor to the somewhat inevitable blobbing in Paradox games. A while back there was a thread complaining that England usually conquers most or all of Scotland in EU4 games. Well, if England’s armies actually wore down in men and moral besieging Scottish forts, Scotland’s initially smaller army would have a decent shot of defeating the English one in battle. Similarly, this is a sufficient but not necessary factor in causing wars against small realms in CK2 to be totally over after the first major battle, unless a third party attacks.
What to do about this? The existing examples of player choice are good game design and should be expanded upon. Events can be used to make sieges interesting – and well-designed ones will have different optimal choices each time (yes, it is perfectly possible). What follows is therefore a two-pronged proposal as to how sieges ought to work in Crusader Kings 3:
Instead of just two ways of taking forts in Crusader Kings, there should be three. The first would be the “passive” approach, where no attempt is made to enter the city proper, blockade and bombardment would be used to coerce the city into surrendering, and treachery would provide opportunities to quicken the siege. This would usually take the longest (between a couple of months and a couple of years) and would sap the besiegers’ moral (to a point). This could be countered by the besieged could sallying forth to attack the attackers, or with a relieving army.
The second would be “intermediate” where the attackers aim to weaken the castle significantly before trying to storm after created breaches in the walls by undermining and bombardment. This would cost the besiegers more casualties than the defenders, and much more if the fortress was well built. Depending on the fort’s construction, it would take between a couple of weeks and several months. This method is likely to cause significant damage to the fortress. Treachery would again allow the siege to be hastened but would be less likely (even per unit time) due to the fact the inhabitants are much less likely to be starving or diseased.
The final approach would be “active” and would involve simply swarming over the walls and through the intended entrances to conquer the fort. This would inevitably give the attacker at least several times the defender’s casualties, even in the dodgiest fort. The advantages are that it would only take a few weeks at the very most and would cause comparatively little damage to the fortress.
The idea would be that, based on a multitude of circumstances, such as the urgency of the fort falling (in turn based on factors such as the political situation, the prisoners capturing it would gain and size of one’s war chest), amount of manpower one had, and the strength of the fort, different ones would be optimal when either trying to blob out the fastest or min-max prestige and piety.
Event Examples
The commander of _____ must be craven to the bone, as he surrendered the fortress unconditionally without us even giving a demand. What shall be done with him?
a. Let him and his family leave unmolested as gratitude. (They like you more, and holdings are likely to resist less)
b. Let him leave, but his family will be useful as hostages.
c. Imprison him and his family; they will serve us better as prisoners. (He likes you less, and sieges are likely to resist slightly more)
d. Execute him for being a traitor to his people. (Sieges are likely to resist more)
Now the commander and his family have been dealt with, what shall be done with the rest of the inhabitants?
a. Let them all go where they please. (Chance of gaining kind, people fear you less, people are more likely to defect during sieges)
b. Imprison them all.
c. Execute the lot. (Gain cruel, holdings are more likely to resist much more)
Our forces have surrounded _____. What should we do next?
a. Point out they have a grand opportunity to (re)join their rightful liege**.
b. Offer the people safe passage should they surrender.
c. Tell the inhabitants their lives will be spared if they yield.
d. There is no mercy for my enemies. If they give up without a fight their deaths will be swift . . . er
The enemy commander has offered to yield in [time period] with the condition that [condition]. Should we accept his offer?
a. Does he take me for a fool? He may have [shorter time period].
b. Does he take me for a fool? He may have [harsher condition].
c. He is a wise negotiator. Accept it.
d. He thinks himself a wise negotiator. Tell him we accept while preparing for a surprise attack! (Chance of gaining deceitful, others are more likely to renege on deals and less likely to offer them)
For cities that have been taken by force:
The city has fallen, and the men are beginning to pillage. What shall be done?
a. Let them have their fun; they need to let off steam after the hard-fought engagement. (Gain a morale boost, lose piety if Christian or Muslim, province loses wealth and gets depopulated. Lose just if one has it. Cities are more likely to surrender in future.)
b. Discourage them, but don’t press the issue. We don’t want a munity on our hands. (Province loses small amount of wealth and population)
c. It is our duty to protect the innocent. Order them to cease and execute any that disobey. (Gain piety if Christian or Muslim, chance of gaining just, army suffers major moral hit. Cities are more likely to fight longer in the future.)
For cities that surrender:
The city is ours, but some men have begun to loot. Should we put a stop to them?
a. No; the men need some blood to satisfy them. Best not risk a mutiny. (Lose piety if Christian or Muslim, province loses wealth and gets depopulated. Lose just if one has it. Cities are more likely to fight longer in the future.)
b. Discourage them, but don’t press the issue. We don’t want a munity on our hands. (Province loses small amount of wealth and population)
c. Yes; the people yielded honourably and should be rewarded. (Army suffers small morale hit. Cities are more likely to surrender in future.)
Some events about defectors might by good too.
*At least Victoria 2, Crusader Kings 2 and Europa Universalis 4
**This option would only be presented when the case could be made that the attacker is the rightful liege, like when the holding is under occupation, it’s a claimant or part of the relevant land in a de jure war, ect.
Last edited:
