AGEOD Forums

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMwuqq2JZkc

watching this made me remember of something I long wanted to bring to this forum.

Siege warfare in WIA, especially the French and Indian War scenario is strange. Look at the effect of artillery on a fort in america in the video at 5.10.

Wooden fort could never ever had supported a months long siege with canons involved. They were efficient against Coup de Main (commando) operation and infantry attacks, but canons destroyed them in a matter of hours. Could the presence of artillery automaticly force the fort to surrender at the end of the turn the canons arrived?

Siege warfare at this time was not cannons battering fortresses. It was a war of trench approaches. Once the opposing line approached near enough, surrender would occur.
Cannons did not win, unless the siege made their success inevitable
It was not the strength of the fort, but the progress of the investment.
View this concern from another AGEOD game, Rise of Prussia. The siege warfare in both games is pretty close to what happened.

Durk wrote:Siege warfare at this time was not cannons battering fortresses. It was a war of trench approaches. Once the opposing line approached near enough, surrender would occur.
Cannons did not win, unless the siege made their success inevitable
It was not the strength of the fort, but the progress of the investment.
View this concern from another AGEOD game, Rise of Prussia. The siege warfare in both games is pretty close to what happened.

correct ! in this period, remember the range of the guns, if you cannot put the guns at the good distance of the fortification there is no effect :
so trench approaches and surrender (question d'honneur)

Your right...for europan fortresses. Québec and Louisbourg too. But not small fort. William Henry for instance was taken after 3 days of trench work. It took 3 other days in parley. Fort Chouagen (oswego) and it's 2 supporting fort were taken after 4 days of trench work.

marechalCAMBRONNE wrote:Your right...for europan fortresses. Québec and Louisbourg too. But not small fort. William Henry for instance was taken after 3 days of trench work. It took 3 other days in parley. Fort Chouagen (oswego) and it's 2 supporting fort were taken after 4 days of trench work.

and AFAIK they were not pounded to rubble, but rather surrendered quickly to aviod needless bloodshed.

Sieges have been tweaked and tuned in WIA and RoP as much as I care to. Further changes must be done in 'mod-land'

marechalCAMBRONNE wrote:Your right...for europan fortresses. Québec and Louisbourg too. But not small fort. William Henry for instance was taken after 3 days of trench work. It took 3 other days in parley. Fort Chouagen (oswego) and it's 2 supporting fort were taken after 4 days of trench work.

Well, that's why in WiA you can always assault.

and suffer tons of maluses...But ok, I respect that the creators don't have more time to put on this subject.

It is not just time to invest in this subject. It is also that the game is about as historical as it can be with regard to sieges.
William Henry represents all the options which can happen in this game, quick surrender and long siege. All happen.
WIA sieges are as historical as games get.

Quick Surrender?

marechalCAMBRONNE wrote:Quick Surrender?

Quick = 1 turn = 30 days

It happens, especially with low quality troops inside [Militia]

a 30 days siege in a wooden fort with militias inside? Give them medals

Must you be so literal? 1 turn siege is 30 days or less

Fort William Henry endured a short [5 days or so] siege followed by a massacre by the Indians.

This models nicely as a 1 turn siege/surrender. Look in the Host Log for the exact day of surrender, if that really matters.

What's the problem ? siege 5 or 20 days, the turn end in 30 days that's all !
de toutes façons, can't make a new movement in this turn.

There is no other way. This is the length of a turn in WIA. What else can you do?