Even when they attack 1500 vs 500 they always abandon the siege. Im still waiting for the day i can defend a siege from the top of my walls. Didnt happen yet in 800 hours of gameplay.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Still havent defended a single castle siege yet.
- Thread starter Yukmouth++
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Just wait outside of one until the siege battle starts and then go join it.
redmark
Squire
I think I've had two; the second earlier today. I had a good level party/garrison combined 400 or so, plus a little over a hundred militia - besieged by ~720. They built trebs and knocked out my defences easily (recently taken, level 1 siege workshop/level 2 fortifications). I didn't expect them to maintain the siege unless the army had reinforcements coming, but they attacked when they'd made two breaches in the walls. They piled through the breaches and my greater proportion of high tier units won out, though with some losses (20% or so dead, 25%-30% wounded) as they did have some decent troops.
edit: reloaded an old save to check, and the attacking army had 950 rather than 720. On that load, they didn't build trebs and the army dissolved after a few days - maybe a couple of parties left it on the first playthrough to drop to 720.
edit: reloaded an old save to check, and the attacking army had 950 rather than 720. On that load, they didn't build trebs and the army dissolved after a few days - maybe a couple of parties left it on the first playthrough to drop to 720.
Last edited:
and lose half my army just to break through ?
Its not half, just did it with an army of 240 and lost 60 troops which is about 25%. Ended up with a 270 (my 180 + 90 garrison/millita) vs an army of 600, was an awesome fight that was down to the last 40 men on my side. If I had autocalc'd the battle it would have been a slaughter and I probably would have barely lost any men in the fight, but thats no fun.
Its still a lot of guys to lose just to get to the battle. Its enough of a deterrent to make a lot of players avoid siege defenses altogether, which is a real shame because what should be a very fun game mode goes unplayed. There's got to be a better way to handle siege defenses than just deleting a good chunk of your army as the price of admission.
Idk I've always felt it was a moderate price to pay to gain a massive advantage on a numerically superior force. If you don't feel the need to gain that advantage then just attack the camp and the castle will sally out while you sacrifice no men (eventually we will get actual sally out battle scenes).
As far as waiting in the castle for a defense if you are doing it with 500 men then you block out most AI armies because they have to consider the autocalc results (something like 3x1 odds) when choosing a target. They have already made adjustments so that the AI ignore a large portion of the forces of the players while in a castle.
Last edited:
With the amount of players who have never experienced a siege defence, I reiterate the suggestion to fight as your governor (only clan member) this gives them more purpose as well. And if you don’t like this feature, you don’t have to use it.
loosing out on a big chunk of gameplay warrant some changes.
would help with bug testing as well
loosing out on a big chunk of gameplay warrant some changes.
would help with bug testing as well
Me too, but this isn´t a new "problem".
And as like all problems, TW doesn´t care, they already have their siege videos.....so they can show those awesome scripted sieges to the console crowd.
Sure you can prevent it if you suck like Blood Gryphon sais.....
But if you play the game like you want to win....no defensive sieges....
And as like all problems, TW doesn´t care, they already have their siege videos.....so they can show those awesome scripted sieges to the console crowd.
Sure you can prevent it if you suck like Blood Gryphon sais.....
But if you play the game like you want to win....no defensive sieges....
Last edited:
Attacking the camp doesn't count since its just a regular field battle. I'm not worried about how to stop an invading army, I just want to experience siege defense battles. Sacrificing all those troops to get in might be fair, but if the cost is scaring players away from playing a pretty significant game mode, then there's a problem with it as a game mechanic since all the work that's gone into it becomes a wasted effort.
It would be interesting if there were actual statistics about how many players are actually playing siege defenses regularly since forum threads like this are self-selecting so you can't get an accurate picture. It might be that most players also feel the cost is fair and pay it without regrets, but I have the feeling the average player sees the cost and says no thanks.
If it wasn't for peace being declared I would have had my first, but I still think they need to work on food supply in armies, they begin sieging and wastefully keep building stuff as it gets destroyed till they are out of food and leave.
Defending was a fun thing in Warband, sad it's been a year and we aren't there yet with Bannerlord
Defending was a fun thing in Warband, sad it's been a year and we aren't there yet with Bannerlord
redmark
Squire
In theory, losing 25% of your troops and fighting with a garrison and militia, plus the defences of the town or castle, should be preferable to fighting an open battle. I suspect many players (as I did when 'learning' the game) will reload to get the city first, instead - then the attacker gives up the siege target, starts starving on the way to the next and the player picks off the enemy in a weakened state and/or gets additional parties to join the army first. And then the player can complain they never get to fight siege defences...
Nope, there is a problem with this. You do that and you lose 1/3 of your troops before you even begin to fight. Not a fun mechanic at all.
I'd drop the "In theory" part, it is preferable (look at my example above) but clearly people are too attached to their troops in order to choose the logical thing. I'm not quite sure what people are expecting happens when you attempt to enter in a fief that is under siege, I guess that the enemy would just let you waltz in?
Maybe I'm more accepting of the current loses because in the past it was actually closer to 50% and I helped convince TW to lower it down to its current rate. Since that change I have defended a ton of sieges, always sacrificing men because I run around with too big a party to sit and wait inside castles so as Redmark said the AI just packs up and leaves (I typically do this when I don't actually want to defend sieges and want their army to ping pong back and forth until they starve).
For those that haven't defended a castle before, let me let you in on a secret. You are going to lose a majority of your troops defending a castle because castle defenses suck and are not properly designed to give the defenders an appropriate advantage (only a 2 to 1 advantage instead of 3 to 1 like autocalc). The only real advantage is that you as a player is involved and can take advantage of siege weaponry and most importantly the exploding pots that can clear out a force behind a siege ram in 3-4 pots. You all just need to learn to accept loses of your troops, if you are too scared then you miss out.
Gotta take off your floaties to get the cookie my friends.
Read my other post and what I wrote above.
All this said, I'd still prefer a method like Viking conquest where the attackers had to build a blockade to stop people from freely entering or leaving. This way if a player is close enough to new siege they can get in with no issue as the enemy is not yet "prepared" to put up a fight.
That would be interesting.
Also for those of you still worried about getting to defend while waiting inside a castle we should see changes there in the future as well.
Ok I added below addition and will try to send it with a hotfix (will not be at today's one) It will add a additional 0.7x constant to all parties strengths which is currently at player's settlement. So player party strength will be counted as 0.35x instead of 0.5x and others will be counted as 0.7x instead of x.
Last edited:
bbaydogdu
Sergeant
I know why people don't
I think I know why people avoid defending besieged settlements. They don't want to sacrifice their knights, noble troops just for defending some castle. I wouldn't want to sacrifice even one of my hard trained knights. So here's my suggestion. If your settlement is near to besieged settlement go quickly and leave your elites to garrison. Then get some regulars and break into besieged settlement. If your settlements are far away or if it's your settlement that besieged then, well, idk... Maybe it would make sense if TW adds an option to temporarily leave your troops in an ally garrison
Last edited:
This guy gets it. I sure do miss the personal camp feature from Viking Conquest.I know why people don't
I think I know why people avoid defending besieged settlements. They don't want to sacrifice their knights, noble troops just for defending some castle. I wouldn't want to sacrifice even one of my hardly trained knights. So here's my suggestion. If your settlement is near to besieged settlement go quickly and leave your elites to garrison. Then get some regulars and break in the besieged settlement. If your settlements are far away or if it's your settlement that besieged then, well, idk... Maybe it would make sense if TW adds an option to temporarily leave your troops in an ally garrison
