Skipping over the well known issues like pocket ladders etc. I want to propose a new way of playing sieges using defensive supplies to purchase troops, abilities, and upgrades. This new system would replace pre built garrisons.

How the mechanic works:

In battle the defending player will have access to tabs to purchase their troops, abilities and upgrades with their starting defensive supplies. Once the battle begins, the player will need to hold on to their capture points to produce more defensive supplies. 

Balance constraints:

- Units the defender purchases during the battle phase would only appear at the main central point

- Only units that the province is able to produce are able to be recruited during the siege by the defender

- Higher tier units would be more expensive

- There will be cooldowns, among unit caps and ability caps, for the defender to prevent unlimited spamming (e.g. only one steam tank can be recruited in the entire battle) 

Why I believe this is a better system:

- Enables more dynamic and strategical battles

- Gives the player more control over their defense instead of pre built garrisons

- Enables each race to be unique in their siege defenses by granting them unique abilities 

Please share your thoughts.

Personally I'm not a big fan of buying troops mid-battle, survival style. The tower an barricade system already gets complaints of being to gamey. This doubles down on it. I could however see things like ammo refills and vigour restoration be a thing. 

Race specific defenses would ofc be the GOAT.

Combined with the current buildables, this system would be too strong. There's also a lot more variance between the strength of different units, compared to the strength of the current buildables, so it would be touch to balance.

That said, this made me think that if the current siege-battles were completely replaced with a Domination-style battle instead, that would be more enjoyable.

There have been many discussions on this issue and sadly i think there is no pleasing everyone.

On one hand we have people who don't like sieges, and love the fast pace of the game as is(yet complain their campaign is over by turn 20). And on the other, we have people who want traditional sieges, with slower campaign pace, and more difficulty.

Sieges "should" be more traditional, but I fear they won't be as popular as the crowd screaming for nothing but pure land battles and 90% autoresolves. 

​

LennoxPoodle#1380 wrote:

Personally I'm not a big fan of buying troops mid-battle, survival style. The tower an barricade system already gets complaints of being to gamey. This doubles down on it. I could however see things like ammo refills and vigour restoration be a thing. 

Race specific defenses would ofc be the GOAT.

Yeah, I see your point. Perhaps if you can only build your army before the battle begins. 

​

Rocktype#4476 wrote:

Combined with the current buildables, this system would be too strong. There's also a lot more variance between the strength of different units, compared to the strength of the current buildables, so it would be touch to balance.

That said, this made me think that if the current siege-battles were completely replaced with a Domination-style battle instead, that would be more enjoyable.

Would be tough to balance. IIRC they tried the domination style field battles in Rome 2 and it was almost universally hated.

Isn't this like a thousandth thread about sieges? 

CA do not sound bothered about Siege changes lol They want to do "what they can". That speaks for itself lol...I am expecting very underwhelming changes, reasonably.