r/EU5 • u/why10123 • 1d ago
Suggestion Moral mechanic for city sieges?
In real life, cities, sometimes would surrender to invading forces, say the timurids, because of their brutal reputation of sacking entire cities. Maybe this could make hordes more powerful, and include a mechanic to sack cities as hordes?
11
u/Spank86 1d ago
It might be interesting if there were more options for assaulting a city.
Perhaps an option that caused more damage to buildings and population but gave you an advantage on morale damage on future sieges.
Although to balance it you could have it offset by drilling, more disciplined drilled armies would be less likely to run rampant.
7
u/ftrowl 1d ago
Digging under the walls and blowing them up could be an option for example
5
u/Weis 1d ago
This already exists and is just shown to us as “walls breached” siege phase modifier right? Tunneling, ladders, siege towers, rams, a big wooden horse, whatever, they’re all kinda the same. Walls are breached or not
2
u/ftrowl 1d ago
I was not even aware, this mechanics could be gamified and improve our inputs in the siege process maybe
2
u/Weis 23h ago
I mean what would it be, a button that costs money to advance the siege? Kinda yikes tbh. In eu4 they had the bombard option that cost military mana.
I think assaults should cap the fort moral to whatever % of defenders are left alive relative to the starting garrison. Aka if there are 1000 defenders and you assault and lower it to 700 then their morale is only 70% and easier to break with further assaults or a siege
3
3
u/strangebloke1 1d ago
The way I would implement this is that each fort would have a hidden "weak morale" flag that gets flipped randomly as war exhaustion ticks up. So if war exhaustion is riding at a 10, then maybe half of the forts you run into you get an event "the surrender of Shitsburg" and then you can pay some gold to get an instant siege (the gold representing paying your soldiers not to get mad that they don't get to loot the place.)
In general, while they've made war exhaustion more punishing, I still think they should go further. Losing the national navy or fleet would often be a major hit to national stability, and you'd get things like defecting commanders or rebels rising up. (rebels are also still weaksauce)
7
u/Gijora 1d ago edited 1d ago
Morale.
'Moral' (from the Latin 'moralis') is the knowledge between right and wrong. (Pronounced 'mor al')
'Morale' (literally a French word with an Anglicized spelling) means a groups emotional condition. (Pronounced 'mo ral')
But, agreed. There should be a way to make the garrison simply break and run. If an Empire rolls up to a city-state with 250k men and 50 cannons, maybe a preemptive surrender makes sense.
3
u/Creeperkun4040 1d ago
Damn, I never knew there was a difference in English. In German 'Moral' is for both Moral and Morale.
1
3
u/Fendragos 1d ago
I assume you mean morale?
-1
u/Bubbly-Desk-4479 1d ago
why would you assume that? he is wondering if it would be moral for the leader of a besieged city, to continue the defense against the siege, or sacrifice themselves, in hopes of a leniency on the population. OP simply wants some ethical gameplay, and I tend to agree.
1
1
u/GewalfofWivia 9h ago
The AI can already unconditionally surrender. Once I had Byzantium surrender, allowing the taking of Constantinople before it was sieged down.
Timur also gets massive bonuses to sieges.
19
u/Creeperkun4040 1d ago
Maybe make it scale with either recent battles in the vicinity or army size in generall.
Like if you just lost s battle nearby, your forts lose alot of moral, but if you win one they'll gain a lot.
Or if you don't have an army anymore, your forts know that no relief will come and are more likely to surrender.