Users who are viewing this thread
MihailoSRB
See the second question and answer in Frequently Asked Questions Thread (although, you may not like the answer).bomber2 said:yea... doesn't help theres no info there apart that its a beta no eta on next version :/ so many new nations im itching to have a go at them
Edit: no answer? is anybody even alive on this forum
Black_Scythe
Knight
Another source of good income for early game. Excellent! BTW, it would be really amazing to find a solution for placing more loot in inventory... it would make the early game easier, since it is generally the hardest part of the game.
corwin_of_amber
Regular
Cruger said:
What prompted this change? Castle garrisons are already large and castles are difficult to conquer because there is always only one way to conquer them, through main assault via ladder (historically, in the majority of cases castles and cities were conquered with subterfuge rather than brute force). Furthermore, historically castle garrisons were usually not numerous. The strategic advantage of the garrison resided in their castle walls and geography not their numbers.
We've reduced (significantly) the number of days you need to besiege a castle/town to be able to take it by surrender. On the other hand, dunno how much you've played this mod but until now we had basically kept Native's garrisons (with a very minor increase I think, except for the towns) while most factions are way, way larger than Native factions in terms of the quantity of troops they can assemble for a campaign. So we typically had a castle with a garrison of 90-95 soldiers being stormed by armies consisting of eight or nine lords (at least), each one with about 70-90 soldiers, which made a total of around 700 guys (at least)... and the way the AI does it, they just besieged the castle for like two days then stormed it in a matter of hours by sheer superiority of numbers.
I'm yet to do some testing but I don't think taking castles personally with, say, a force of about 100 soldiers, will become much more difficult if you have troops of enough quality.
Glad to know someone actually reads the changelog before asking in other thread btw
I'm yet to do some testing but I don't think taking castles personally with, say, a force of about 100 soldiers, will become much more difficult if you have troops of enough quality.
Glad to know someone actually reads the changelog before asking in other thread btw
corwin_of_amber
Regular
Korinov said:We've reduced (significantly) the number of days you need to besiege a castle/town to be able to take it by surrender. On the other hand, dunno how much you've played this mod but until now we had basically kept Native's garrisons (with a very minor increase I think, except for the towns) while most factions are way, way larger than Native factions in terms of the quantity of troops they can assemble for a campaign. So we typically had a castle with a garrison of 90-95 soldiers being stormed by armies consisting of eight or nine lords (at least), each one with about 70-90 soldiers, which made a total of around 700 guys (at least)... and the way the AI does it, they just besieged the castle for like two days then stormed it in a matter of hours by sheer superiority of numbers.
I'm yet to do some testing but I don't think taking castles personally with, say, a force of about 100 soldiers, will become much more difficult if you have troops of enough quality.
Glad to know someone actually reads the changelog before asking in other thread btw
I see the rationale behind the change. I wonder though, whether the increase in garrison will have a significant effect on the AI. From the player's perspective though, a 65% increase can be significant when it's up to the player to hack half the castle's garrison by himself
. I guess further testing will determine whether this increase is really called for.
Black_Scythe
Knight
In my experience the only way to take a castle without a fight is to be very superior in numbers. The defenders would keep saying they "can hold to these walls until they grow old" or whatever, despite the fact that they had no more supplies. Have you tested guys tested whether that has changed?
Wanted to say that I've finally decided to leave the garrison increase for castles at only the 50%, instead of the originally planned 65%. I've done some testing and I can say I still find most castles perfectly 'stormeable' provided you have a good warparty. In any case we'll see how the majority of players cope with it... honestly I don't think it'll really be a problem.
corwin_of_amber
Regular
Jason L. said:
If one does opt to starve the enemy garrison, will the army morale become abysmal because the bloodthirsty warriors are not getting their fix?
Edit: Also if the the army laying siege runs out of food items, will they be able to send parties to nearby villages or towns to buy provisions without having to break the siege?
MihailoSRB
Read the first post in this thread, and you shall get your answer, young sire.
Similar threads
