enemy sally, and steals all my arrows?

[Lance Tankmen]

why is it if an enemy choose to sally I lose all my arrows, my entire army gets 50 arrows between them yet, the enemy army gets a full quiver to shear through my army? calling complete and utter bull**** on that.

 

[Roberto3371]

You and everyone else who experiences it, no idea why it does that, makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Default Username]

To prevent the utterly despicable act of players trying to spam archers to capture a castle without any casualties on their side. One of my favorite features.

 

[Roberto3371]

To prevent the utterly despicable act of players trying to spam archers to capture a castle without any casualties on their side. One of my favorite features.

Nope still doesn't make any sense a sallying force usually has infantry and cavalry with shields that will give you casualties. All this does is give an overwhelming advantage to any defending force that has some archers as well. 

At any rate the only thing to do is to show up with a force that looks like it's strong enough to take the castle and the enemy won't sally. (Meaning you can still you use those 100 archers you brought to take the place with little casualties).

 

[deftech]

Nope still doesn't make any sense a sallying force usually has infantry and cavalry with shields that will give you casualties. All this does is give an overwhelming advantage to any defending force that has some archers as well.

I don't think they were talking about fighting sallying forces. Probably the old siege, let your archers fire until dry, abandon the siege, then repeat routine. Which is indeed lame.

 

[Yozzer]

Nope still doesn't make any sense a sallying force usually has infantry and cavalry with shields that will give you casualties. All this does is give an overwhelming advantage to any defending force that has some archers as well.

I don't think they were talking about fighting sallying forces. Probably the old siege, let your archers fire until dry, abandon the siege, then repeat routine. Which is indeed lame.

I agree, it is probably a way to prevent small forces containing a lot of archers taking a castle by "skirmishing" tactict,s. Me, I take the castle any way I can    especially early in the game, as I think the loss of arrows is a little over the top, as melee troops should be able to balance the odds in a sally out without "stealing" the arrows as well.

 

[noosers]

Your army composition is checked. If you bring too many archers for the good old attrition abuse people will sally forth and catch your archers with their trousers down and quivers empty.

Just bring more infantry and storm the breach proper like good men at arms should do and cease whining, ye ol´ *****.

A quick search had revealed the deeper game mechanic magicks behind that issue. Prepare for a few other closed well known and even more abused loopholes.

If you dislike it that much, simply stick with native. Or mark it down as an Epic Vaseline Moments. Everyone had one of those.

 

[Attila7]

The penalties for abandoning a siege are now severe enough that skirmishing is no longer viable.

Having said that, I find the morale loss due to failed sieges is too severe and is not balanced by morale gain by winning the siege.

If I need 3 attacks to take a castle, the last one may just be against 50 men and my force will end up with a massive net loss of morale, to the point where I will lose some of my best men to desertion before I can get to a friendly town and spend 10K+ to bring morale back up.

This mechanic makes no sense. There should not be [such a big] morale penalty if I am the last one standing, furthermore, I should not have to commit suicide -- being the last one alive -- just  to withdraw from the siege without the loss of honor on top of everything else.

 

[Roberto3371]

Since when do archers wander around without their arrows? If anything you'd have given them all and extra 2 quivers and brought a Fletcher with you cause damn if you don't just hit that magic moment in every single siege battle where you wish you had another 30 arrows. (Which is why I edited all quivers up to 60). Heck wouldn't be such an issue of wanting to get knocked out so you could start round 2 if they just included something like 10 siege ladders rather than everyone trying to get through a 2 person gap and getting hit by 10 guys at a time on the wall.

 

[Filou]

The penalties for abandoning a siege are now severe enough that skirmishing is no longer viable.

Having said that, I find the morale loss due to failed sieges is too severe and is not balanced by morale gain by winning the siege.

If I need 3 attacks to take a castle, the last one may just be against 50 men and my force will end up with a massive net loss of morale, to the point where I will lose some of my best men to desertion before I can get to a friendly town and spend 10K+ to bring morale back up.

This mechanic makes no sense. There should not be [such a big] morale penalty if I am the last one standing, furthermore, I should not have to commit suicide -- being the last one alive -- just  to withdraw from the siege without the loss of honor on top of everything else.

You can avoid the Retreat penalties in an offensive siege by walking to the edge of the map and leaving by pressing 'F', ideally with all your troops following you. 
After pressing F the prompt will ask to confirm if you want to 'Leave Area' instead of retreating, and you only get the morale for the troop losses so it usually balances out if you killed enough of their guys.  From there you can join another attack or rebuild the ladders/tower.

 

[bobmunger]

I can see the logic, but kinda useless for the player if they are archer / crossbow spec

 

[bobknight]

This puts an effective base on how many troops you need to defeat a castle/town - due to the fact that you need a minimum number of infantry to ensure that sally out does not happen.

Or you can just equip your troops with meltine arrows.