This isn't an accurate picture of siege warfare at all. Sieges were filthy, filthy affairs in which the attackers waited for the defenders to die of horrible diseases because the sanitation in those places was terrible. It wasn't a cakewalk for the attackers, either, but at least their supply lines weren't cut, so they had access to something other than well-water and pickled crap. The attackers would launch dead animals over walls to infect the defenders. The defenders would get killed just the same by sniping bowmen. Sure, in modern times we have flushing toilets and canned peaches which help out in a bombshelter, but our ancestors had no such advantage. In a battle of attrition, the defenders of a fortification will always lose if they just stay put. Simply put, the attacker has a means of getting supplies and the defenders do not.

In that respect, the amount of damage a catapult can do to soldiers in a siege is sort of irrelevant. They're not there to kill people (though they can), just to take down walls. Disease is the real killer.

On a gameplay standpoint, why would you punish the sieging army by giving defenders a fortification bonus when they sally forth to attack an enemy? That's quite odd. To me, this makes as much sense as giving the attackers a bonus when assaulting a fortress. You're going onto enemy controlled territory, you don't get a  bonus. I'm not suggesting a penalty either. It just seems odd. I also imagine this getting exploited: With what you are suggesting, it's in the defender's best interest to always retreat to a fortress, then when the enemy lays siege, to sally forth for the fortification bonus. How is this balanced? How does this make sense?

Magicwilnz i have this to say. While their sallying out their Bowmen and Their balista or other armaments are firing from behind their backs down on their enemies also its their land they know it better then the opposition and ontop of that whom say's they'll sit inside and wait? what if they have men all over the area in small posts and in bunker like positions or foxholes waiting and then attack on all sides?

Different tactics=Different bonuses that could be decided by whom is fort commander.

Uh... I don't really get exactly what you are trying to say but the drift I get is that the defending army should get a bonus because they know the terrain better and because of entrenchments and secret bases outside of the castle. Personally, I don't really see that. This was not the time of widespread fortifications, bunkers and entrenchments. I assume military forces outside of castles would be town guard and I don't really see them as elite strike force. That being said, bonuses from terrain familiarity seem more like a unit ability rather than a bonus from having a fort in the area.  If a player wants to invest in elite strike forces that destroy siege engines and can sneak in terrain I don't see this as a problem but I don't think it should be a bonus from having a castle.

Fortifications are useful as a base of operations and for tying up the enemy in sieges while the defender's forces rally a relief force. Using them offensively in a way that you suggest I think is neither realistic nor balanced. What you're suggesting reminds me of the preparations the British made for a possible invasion from Germany, though guerrilla action like that was designed just to harass German occupiers and not stop them, and definitely not appropriate for medieval warfare. Hit-and-run tactics would work, but this should be simulated in the tactics used in battles and not as a bonus.

What you are talking about are basically supply lines. Armies cut off from supplies should suffer attrition. Well supplied armies should not. Well supplied attackers should not suffer attrition for no reason. Attrition for the defenders is inevitable.

If hostile denizens are such a problem, why not just have sporadic revolts? I guess there are possibilities of "incidents" where soldiers get randomly murdered by townsfolk (but I think more likely is that the soldiers randomly murder townsfolk) but I'm not sure this should be simulated as "attrition" from a gameplay standpoint.

I don't really like the idea of "zones of control" because it basically makes areas impassible for no reason other then the enemy has a unit parked there. The only way past is to attack that unit which doesn't make sense cause it's like if the enemy has a fort on the mountain next to a valley why do I have to scale the mountain and attack fort in order to go through the valley?

It gives to much power to defending units as they get all the bonuses of their good defensive position while forcing the enemy to engage. Not only is it unrealistic it's not a very good implementation of a strategic element.

The point of having key fortifications at strategic points was as a staging point to keep a fighting force well supplied to counter advancing armies. So like in the example above if someone wanted to pass through the valley next to the mountain fort the defenders could choose to let them pass or they could come out of the fort and attack them. They didn't force the invaders to attack them by being there and they curtaining didn't prevent them from passing by. The invading forces were often more concerned with getting flanked though as if they left that force behind them when they were engaged in a later battle those forces in the fort might follow them and hit them hard.

The other point of those forts was if the invaders didn't take them then their advancing army would be cut off from supplies because the fort's defenders could easily launcher attacks on any supply convoys enroute to the invading forces. This as well as the flanking threat is what I think they originally were trying to show in Civ and other games that have done zones of control. The problem is the mechanic is very cumbersome and doesn't do a good job of implementing it.

Rather then doing zones of control I think a much better approach would be to have a "patrol" option for your units. Any enemy unit that moves from one adjacent space to another adjacent space next to the unit on patrol gives the unit the option to attack that enemy unit. In order to balance things out the unit on patrol should have at least 1 movement space left so they don't try to abuse it by moving as far as they can to land next to someone and potential get a free move out of it.

furthermore, area of control means that the defending unit has the opportunity to attack, not necessarily that the attacking army has to invade the fortress.

Nevertheless, after the defenders attack and route your army, they immediately return to their fortress.

No what he refers to is defensive units cannot attack at a distance or even harass invaders.

Also Rock Paper Scissor's is a rather stupid dynamic to use for real strategy sure pikemen are good against calvary and sure bowmen are good versus pikemen or swordsmen but they don't always trump eachother...i never liked those dynamics.

And in RL most raiders and sieges were stopped or impeded by defenses placed at strategic locations and soldiers whom utilized their knowledge of the land defensive moral advantages and the fact that they had access to large stockpiles of supplys whereas invaders needed supplylines.

Often times a small band of raiders or bandits could impede a wareffort by cutting off the supply chain for even a week.

not only this but calvary were often used defensively to intercept enemy supplylines with quick hit and run attacks and raids.

^ This, exactly.

Defensive units are bad not because they're actually "bad units", but because defending anything that isn't a city in your standard TBS is useless. You can't stop me from simply going around your defensive units. In order to stop me, you have to attack, at which point *I* am the defender and I get the defensive bonuses in the engagement. Forts in particular are largely pointless because unless you somehow get lucky with a map with a natural choke point (or in Elemental you create one that I can't undo for some reason), I've got no reason to ever attack the fort. With that in mind the best defenders outside of a city are actually strong attacker units.

ZoC lets you create a defensive garrison at a fort that is actually capable of defending the surrounding territory. With a reasonably sized force you should be able to exert a ZoC over a 5 tile radius, which makes going around possible but drastically less practical (and if I build enough forts and garrisons i can protect my entire trade route).

Rock, Paper, Scissors is one of the fundamental concepts of gaming and nearly every good game that has any kind of strategy element is based on its concept. The only alternative is a linear progression and that is boring since it's simply a matter of bit the unit that is better then all others.

I think the problem is your misunderstanding the concept. Rock, Paper, Scissor is an example of the concept in most extreme form and often used as a reference when referring to the basic concept. And that concept is that everything is strong against something while being weak against another. Thus everything has a counter in which equal numbers will win out. So like in the case of Calvary vs Pikemen with a battle of 1v1 the Pikemen will win. But if the odds change to 2v1 then the extra Calvary could turn the battle in their favor. Also other things like terrain, flanking, and etc can be added to the mix. But the premise still remains in a normal 1v1 fight the Pikemen will come out on top.

The smaller the gap in terms of advantage one unit has over another means picking the right unit becomes less important. And thus strategy in the game becomes less important and things degrade into a simple matter of numbers. Which side has more units wins rather then which side executes a better strategy to counter the other person's strategy. And if it comes down to nothing more then the number of units it's an exercise in better economy management not warfare.

That's true. The forts exist in the game, but the mechanics to make the forts useful don't exist. So they're generally a waste of time. People want stuff like ZoC to fix the waste of time part, and because there's no way in most games to automate defending your territory very effectively. You can't take 500 units and say "hey defend this border", because they'll stand in a tile or two and guard that.

In that sense, it doesn't matter how accurate to RL it is. It's a game solution to a game problem.

 This has been an interesting read, topic and discussion.  Gonna throw my hat into the flames.  I had a chance to visit and go to school in England for a time.  Of course, enjoying fantasy and all that stuff I really loved exploring the castles and keeps.  The town I stayed in had a very small tower keep in roughly the center of town.  This is in Guildsford.  It was placed there by William the Bastard AKA The Duke of Normandy AKA William the Conqueror AKA William 1st King of England.  You can read a decent amount of material about him in wikipedia.  It was one of the first, but not the first fortification that he built and would continue to build throwout his lifetime.  Most of the castles in England built by William were for one purpose only.  To demoralize and break the surrounding inhabitants into complete and total subjugation.  They were built to intimidate.  They succeeded overwhelmingly.  There might of been a couple tough fights in parts of Wales. 

  So what I think is that there were castles built with ZoC(like the ones above that William had created).  They were used in a more offensive role than maybe some other castles built in europe or elsewhere for defensive purposes.  Castles became less of a measure of subjugation and more of a center for administration when the town or outlying areas they protected or covered turned into cities.  The little Keep of Guildford is now very much hidden from view because of the large surrounding city that engulfed it(it is still wonderful to check out if you go there).  Its also next to the Lewis Carrol museum.

  Anyways, I think the idea of a ZoC mechanic or some method of devising a sphere of influence around a castle of fortress is a great idea.  I don't have anything to offer better than the previous posters on this subject for now..