Total War: Warhammer - Take Those Walls!

It seems we can’t go a week or so without another ‘controversy’ surrounding the upcoming release of Total War: Warhammer. This time, it’s about the new siege system. I’ve said before how I feel it’s time for a shake up of the Total War ‘formula’ in terms of mechanics and that the Warhammer license is a fantastic opportunity to do just that.

But as much as change and innovation is desired, it can also be feared. We’ve seen that repeatedly as more information has emerged regarding various game systems, most notably Regional Occupation and now Sieges. People don’t want the series to grow stale, but they’re surprisingly resistant when the developers attempt to shake up the core formula.

If you’ve read my other posts on this title, you’ll know that personally, I’m very much in favour of shaking things up. I feel the series needs it. That’s why I’m very open to these new systems, these new twists on the formula. Because I hope they’ll provide a unique and fresh Total War experience.

Sieges in Total War have changed dramatically from one title to the next, but they’ve always suffered from similar issues, most notably – AI. Navigating complicated siege maps and correctly utilising siege equipment has always proven troublesome to the siege AI. I think many would agree that the ‘best’ or at least, the most consistent, siege AI of the series was in Shogun 2.

But Shogun 2 was subject to a similar level of criticism upon release regarding its new siege system. Many saw it as a step back from previous titles such as Rome or Medieval 2. This is because Shogun 2 heavily simplified its siege maps and mechanics. Maps were more open, removing many navigation obstacles that might present a problem to the AI. It also gave infantry units an inherent ability to scale walls without the need to build or deploy specific siege equipment.

The result? Siege AI that was, at the time, the most consistently competent of the series. But in truth, the Shogun 2 siege AI wasn’t doing anything particularly complex – the maps and mechanics were simply arranged in such a way that made it much easier for the AI to perform. When Rome 2 increased the complexity of its siege maps, the flaws in the AI were plain for all to see.

I wouldn’t say the siege AI in Rome 2 or, more particularly, Attila, were bad, however. In fact, considering the complexity of the settlements and the addition of barricades, deployable defences and siege escalation, I’d argue the capability of the siege AI in Attila is the best it’s ever been – even more so than Shogun 2. But the fact is, the siege AI has proven to perform and behave at a higher and more consistent level when the obstacles placed before it are reduced.

Which is why it’s not surprising that the sieges in Total War: Warhammer seem to be taking a Shogun 2 style approach in terms of simplicity of design. Instead of multiple walls or gates, we instead have a map with a single wall to assault or defend. The city streets are significantly widened, as are the city walls. And, like Shogun 2, may units possess the ability to climb the walls (with ladders) without the need to build or deploy the equipment.

The intention is to create a new siege dynamic where the battle for the walls is all the more important. In previous titles, including Rome 2 and Attila, it was often sensible to abandon the walls and instead defend choke points within the city. Walls were always a terrible place to fight, most notably due to the lack of manoeuvrability for the units stationed upon them. It was also incredibly easy to punch a hole through these walls, making them rather redundant in terms of city defence.

As much as I enjoyed the sieges in Attila, I wouldn’t argue they gave any great degree of tactical choice. Despite the complexity of the settlements, walls and terrain, they played in a very similar manner to those in the original Shogun or Rome – create an opening and grind your way inside. It seems the intention of the new siege system in Total War: Warhammer is to instead make the walls the focus of the siege and the action.

With city tower range now extending into the enemy deployment zone, sieges should now be far faster paced with the attacker unable to simply sit back and whittle down the walls and defences. Now, they must take the initiative and immediately advance. But city towers must now also be manned to function, making it advantageous for the defender to hold the walls for as long as possible.

It appears units using the ‘magic’ ladders (as they’ve been referred to) will receive a hefty penalty in terms of either morale, attack or defence, meaning siege towers and battering rams (or monsters) will be the preferred way to go. And the reduction of the settlements to a single wall and gate (or two, in some cases) now means that the action is focused entirely on a single location.

This can be seen as a reduction of tactical choice, but let’s be honest – in previous games, even custom battles of the largest city maps – siege battles tend to be fought at only one or two locations anyway, and a good 60-70% of the city goes unused. Because the larger the map, the smaller the action.

The siege maps in Total War: Warhammer appear to quite snugly accommodate a 40 stack army – meaning that in the largest possible siege, every part of the map shall be used. I’ve seen people use videos of ‘epic’ custom or MP siege battles as an example of the tactical variety possible in the complex city maps of Rome 2 or Attila, but these custom set up engagements are in no way representative of the typical siege battles a player will fight during a campaign.

No, siege battles in a campaign will typically only involve a single stack or less. By reducing the map size and simplifying the design, it means these sieges will still feel like important engagements. Especially compared to Rome 2 or Attila, where you’d have very large and complex cities such as Constantinople, but campaign sieges of the city would seem rather small, because the maps dwarfed the typical number of units present in such a battle.

They also didn’t feel very much like ‘real’ cities, as many were just walls surrounding a small number of buildings. In Total War: Warhammer, the playable siege area only represents a single section of the city, and the rest of it serves as an impressive backdrop, creating the illusion of a vast cityscape, but without losing the focus.

And all this sounds good to me. It’s another shake up of the system. It’s taking lessons learned from previous games and applying them with a new twist. That said, there are some concerns I have. The first is the number of city templates. Not every settlement will have a unique layout, which I think is perfectly understandable. But the more map templates – the better. Hopefully they’ll have an extensive selection.

I also hope we’ll see variation between settlement layouts in terms of race. This isn’t a major issue, as the races will each possess unique architecture, somewhat disguising the map design. From what I’ve seen, the human and vampire architecture looks stunning. But the dwarf siege maps do concern me as the ones I’ve seen were very visually flat and poorly detailed compared to the human and vampire maps.

Obviously, new siege maps could be patched into the game over time – as we saw with Shogun 2. I also like the notion that non-capital settlements won’t have sieges but field battles unless the settlement is specifically upgraded – hopefully this will cut down on the siege-fest that plagued the more recent titles.

As I’ve said before, there’s still a lot we don’t know and we’re really just speculating about how a lot of this will play out in practice. But like with Regional Occupation, I do see this new siege system as a potential benefit to the overall experience. A fresh experience. A chance for Total War to shake up the formula and try something new. I understand people may be wary of that, but all we can do now is wait and see.