Sieges and pillaging

[Alex-C]

But surely in the definition of the term "siege" its just occupying space? And if you occupy every space around a city, you are indeed "all around a city", stopping them from going to those tiles and forcing them to stay in the city. I fail to see any valid point in any arguement you try to make in this thread.

[Trifna]

Siege: beeing a round a city and stopping anything from passing. As they did so many times (Troyes, Byzance, Rome...).

It would mean, with let's say a few units, to be around the city and stop all. The number of units needed are depending of which city, simply.

[Alex-C]

Originally posted by Trifna
Siege: beeing a round a city and stopping anything from passing. As they did so many times (Troyes, Byzance, Rome...).

Well thats exactly the situation when u surround a city in Civ, hence "Siege"

[Sollos]

Well, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Sieges were accomplished through passive and/or active hostility. Passive = blockade. Active = violent assault.

In ancient and Medieval times, a besieging army would often use both methods. On average, 90% of the time would be focused on blockade, during which the besieging army would be doing the following:

1. dying of disease, suffering desertion, etc. (and other force degradation).

2. raiding the countryside for provisions, ransom figures, loot, and slaves.

3. Parleying with the besieged, trying to utilize spies and 5th columns, and doing all sorts of like things to demoralize and/or trick them.

4. Reinforcing, sapping, counter-walling, creating engines, or painstakingly bringing up artillery.

5. And generally building up for the big assault. Ideally, a wall would be sufficiently reduced or scaled so that a crack force could penetrate swiftly.

Romans, Hellenes, and Crusaders were great at besieging. Goths and Mohammedans sucked. Italians and Normans made great fortifications. North European 'Free Company' artillery mercenaries were great at blowing them down.

Once artillery became highly mobile (re: Napoleonic age), fortifications could not be trusted to save you your city.

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Alex-C


Well thats exactly the situation when u surround a city in Civ, hence "Siege"

They BLOCK!!!! Puting ure units all around when it does nothing is not very intelligent, you'll just attack.


See Sollos post that is so complete:

Well, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

Sieges were accomplished through passive and/or active hostility. Passive = blockade. Active = violent assault.

In ancient and Medieval times, a besieging army would often use both methods. On average, 90% of the time would be focused on blockade, during which the besieging army would be doing the following:

1. dying of disease, suffering desertion, etc. (and other force degradation).

2. raiding the countryside for provisions, ransom figures, loot, and slaves.

3. Parleying with the besieged, trying to utilize spies and 5th columns, and doing all sorts of like things to demoralize and/or trick them.

4. Reinforcing, sapping, counter-walling, creating engines, or painstakingly bringing up artillery.

5. And generally building up for the big assault. Ideally, a wall would be sufficiently reduced or scaled so that a crack force could penetrate swiftly.

Romans, Hellenes, and Crusaders were great at besieging. Goths and Mohammedans sucked. Italians and Normans made great fortifications. North European 'Free Company' artillery mercenaries were great at blowing them down.

Once artillery became highly mobile (re: Napoleonic age), fortifications could not be trusted to save you your city.

[Alex-C]

Yes they do block, they block things going in/out of the city but u seemed to wanna argue that. And yes anyone of intelligence WILL just attack the city. My point is that you can besiege a city just just blocking it off with units, whether u bombard or attack is up to you.

Obviously you can't do all the tricks mentioned because the nature of civ is an Empire building game, not something like "Stronghold". But you CAN besiege a city.

[Trifna]

Blocking would mean that I come with three units, I say "siege it" and all incomes from tiles around the city would be blocked, trading and trading revenues also. Units in the city could, if they wish, get out and attack outsite of the walls. Or they could wait some rescue or the siege to stop for some reason (they're attacking, have problems...).

Alex-C, what I think is that I wasn't understood very well... Someone, close this thread!

[Craig P.]

In Civ3, if you have the city surrounded, I don't think it will have the strategic resources available, which would go partway to killing trading revenues.

[Trifna]

In Civ 3, can you, let's say with 3 or 4 units, be next to a city and make it so:
- Trading will be off
- Exploiting tiles outside of the city will be impossible
- Revenue from commerce concerning this city will be off
- Troops cannot enter nor get out of the city without attacking the enemy


Are these 4 things in Civ 3?...

[Alex-C]

Yes, but depending on terrain and technology you may need more units than that Anyway im tired, lets just agree to disagree huh?

[Trifna]

Of course! The number of units you need is depending on a few things. At last I got myself understood.

And I do accept your peace treaty for I guess I made my point enough

[Alex-C]

Well i hope the treaty lasts longer than mine ever did in MOO2

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Trifna
In Civ 3, can you, let's say with 3 or 4 units, be next to a city and make it so:
- Trading will be off
- Exploiting tiles outside of the city will be impossible
- Revenue from commerce concerning this city will be off
- Troops cannot enter nor get out of the city without attacking the enemy

Typically, more than three or four units are required, depending on the location of the city relative to the coast (and naval units might be required to enforce a naval blockade). For the second item, it's necessary to also occupy the tiles that are to be unexploitable, surrounding the city is not sufficient.

With sufficient units, though, all but the third (revenue concerning the city will be off), yes, those are all in Civ3. The civ owning the city will still be able to spend their money there to rush production (or they can take money out by selling off improvements). Then again, since exploiting tiles is off at this point, there won't be a whole lot of commerce revenue left (just the city tile itself plus whatever bonuses there might be).

[Trifna]

Yeah... you have to occupy all while in reality you'd only have to occupy around the city. And it doesn't cut alot (nor trade, not commerce...), and your units can get attack one by one and it brakes the thing... etc. Would you also accept a treaty?...