Only in Custom Battle have I ever experienced siege defense.
-
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
I works in 1.5.7. Make them think you're weak when you're at your strongest.
I only let them siege so I can put all their prisoners directly in the castle.
I only let them siege so I can put all their prisoners directly in the castle.
But that would waste campaign time to let them build their siege camp, plus it'sall upside for me to fight them in the field. It's very rough to control units in siege map and you miss out on the mobility for Cav/HA of which a have much more then them.But that's not a siege defenseThat's a sally out = field battle
I agree, but it's not really what the thread is about
sositehui
Recruit
add an teleport option? like when enemy started siedge ur caste\town ure be able to tp right in batle. sounds stupid but i fink thats the only way to get alot of siedge experience at defending side
OR
add notification when enemy is on their way to ur property so u'll have enof time to get in and wait to meet dem. make it, like a 100% sure if enemy chose to attack ur town they wont get off that way and change their mind.
yeye cool what a great idea thx to me blqt
OR
add notification when enemy is on their way to ur property so u'll have enof time to get in and wait to meet dem. make it, like a 100% sure if enemy chose to attack ur town they wont get off that way and change their mind.
yeye cool what a great idea thx to me blqt
Last edited:
Death2Tyrants
Veteran
How about fixing the ladders and towers then? I think lots of people take part in the attacking side of things right?
That is not a siege defense.
redmark
Squire
I reloaded a save from just before my last (2nd only) siege defence and ran it through a few times (four more after the original) and whether I got a battle or not seems to depend entirely on the pretty much random choice of what ranged siege equipment the attackers chose to build.
On the original and the last, they built trebuchets, gradually wore down the town's defensive siege equipment, made two breaches in the walls and then immediately launched an attack - this last one, with 965 vs 565 combined (party 247, garrison 129, militia 189).
On the other 3 occasions, they built a combination of ballistas/catapults (on one occasion, plus a single trebuchet), never got an advantage over the defensive equipment and after several days the army started to disband and lifted the siege.
So the siege equipment balance and wall breaches certainly seem to change the calculation on whether an attacker feels to have an advantage or not. I guess if you want more siege defences, don't build siege workshops.
edit: I tried to get one formation of 70 infantry to follow me out of the gate while the others blocked the breaches, but one of them closed the gate behind me and five troops, and I got knocked out before making it back through a breach. Thanks. Without me, eventually lost the battle with the attackers down to 39 men remaining. Replaying it again (test purposes, my game is 200 days further advanced now), leaving infantry in default positions, not getting stuck outside the gate and contributing 14 kills, I won with ~ 156 dead mostly militia, 208 wounded and 226 remaining (no, the numbers don't add up: seem to have gained 25 troops split between garrison and milita just clicking to start the battle).
If it makes a difference, at the time of this battle I'd taken Marunath from the WE not long prior and it was the only town I own, with 3 castles - so there isn't an alternative target of similar value (very high prosperity) that the army might have decided to go and siege instead.
On the original and the last, they built trebuchets, gradually wore down the town's defensive siege equipment, made two breaches in the walls and then immediately launched an attack - this last one, with 965 vs 565 combined (party 247, garrison 129, militia 189).
On the other 3 occasions, they built a combination of ballistas/catapults (on one occasion, plus a single trebuchet), never got an advantage over the defensive equipment and after several days the army started to disband and lifted the siege.
So the siege equipment balance and wall breaches certainly seem to change the calculation on whether an attacker feels to have an advantage or not. I guess if you want more siege defences, don't build siege workshops.
edit: I tried to get one formation of 70 infantry to follow me out of the gate while the others blocked the breaches, but one of them closed the gate behind me and five troops, and I got knocked out before making it back through a breach. Thanks. Without me, eventually lost the battle with the attackers down to 39 men remaining. Replaying it again (test purposes, my game is 200 days further advanced now), leaving infantry in default positions, not getting stuck outside the gate and contributing 14 kills, I won with ~ 156 dead mostly militia, 208 wounded and 226 remaining (no, the numbers don't add up: seem to have gained 25 troops split between garrison and milita just clicking to start the battle).
If it makes a difference, at the time of this battle I'd taken Marunath from the WE not long prior and it was the only town I own, with 3 castles - so there isn't an alternative target of similar value (very high prosperity) that the army might have decided to go and siege instead.
Last edited:
In Warband sieges were pretty lame and boring due to limited choice of approaches, but I "played" defense all the time. I use the term played lightly since usually I just went and made a sandwich or something while a few dozen high tier infantry held the ladder so a handful of elite archers could slaughter literally thousands of enemies.
In Bannerlord sieges are pretty lame because the AI can't handle most of the potential avenues of attack or on the flipside can't handle blocking the main gate (which is where the breakthrough almost inevitably comes) so that the attackers can be pelted with arrows and stones from the murder holes above, opting instead to form a square 20 feet back and allow themselves to be surrounded and slaughtered by attackers pouring in.
My point is, Bannerlord does in fact offer a new experience as sieges suck in novel and counter intuitive ways that give us something to post about when we should be working, so we should be grateful
In Bannerlord sieges are pretty lame because the AI can't handle most of the potential avenues of attack or on the flipside can't handle blocking the main gate (which is where the breakthrough almost inevitably comes) so that the attackers can be pelted with arrows and stones from the murder holes above, opting instead to form a square 20 feet back and allow themselves to be surrounded and slaughtered by attackers pouring in.
My point is, Bannerlord does in fact offer a new experience as sieges suck in novel and counter intuitive ways that give us something to post about when we should be working, so we should be grateful
Bluko88
Sergeant
I'm surprised you haven't had any incidents.
Admittedly it's rare, and if I do partake in a siege defense I usually end up breaking in.
Really when you think about it, you don't want to be stuck in Castle/Town as you've got no where to run. If you can't fend off the attackers you're basically screwed. I think even in most historic examples defenders were basically holding on til a friendly force could relieve them.
You're not missing much though. You might think being a defender, puts you at a big advantage. Unfortunately much like ladders in offense - the A.I. can't figure how to use defensive catapults half the time. They also fall off ledges and do all number of idiotic things. So yeah you might manage to fend of a larger enemy army because their troops only climb one ladder the whole time. But you'll loathe siege A.I. all the more.
The A.I. is always wish-washy about attacking, unfortunately I'm guessing that's a balancing thing. Because if A.I. Armies never abandoned sieges you'd have real snowballing issues.
What I don't get is why Sieges have to play out in such a scripted fashion. The A.I. just cannot seem to handle anything that "doesn't go according to plan".
It doesn't seem like it should be that hard to program. You literally just have 3 static points to attack/defend. What's strange is Archers have no problem going to sensible firing positions. But my lord, melee Troops may as well all be inebriated.
What I don't get is why formations don't focus on their objectives sensibly. The Ram/Gate formation should be entirely focused on breaking down the gates, even if the ram is destroyed. You know hack 'em down with your weapons. Likewise each Ladder/Tower formation should be entirely focused on their section and only abandon their objective if their equipment is destroyed.
I think Ladder/Tower formations need some kind of queue. As is to me it looks the A.I. is trying to user ladders as a "path" to the enemy (Which is fine for ramps, but not ladders.) Which is why they get stuck so much. I mean surely units in these formations must have some sort of number assigned, otherwise how is that I'm able to transfer them and how are they spawned in with larger battles? Why can't Unit #1 go up the Right Ladder, while Unit #2 goes up the Left Ladder, then #3 goes up Right, etc. etc. etc. And the only reason Units shouldn't be going up the ladders is if their morale breaks.
I get there is some added complexity in that the Ladder formations need to defend themselves, but the way the maps are that really shouldn't be an issue. Maybe Ladder formations need to be more "tone deaf". I dunno just seems like it shouldn't be that outstanding of an issue.
Yep makes sense just like all the other things we actually do in game all of which means we never get to participate in a siege defense.
I mean you can see an enemy army coming. 9 times out of 10 if they continue to try to siege you, even with you in the settlement, your probably going to lose unless your setting have you and your armies only taking 1/3 damage or something. So instead of waiting you run away and likely just come back after the siege and retake it from the 100 or so men they leave to defend it.
Then we have the same issue with breaking in to help. You have to willing give up 25% of your army to do it and if you enter with enough troops to actually have a high likelihood of winning, you find that you gave up 25% of your army for nothing because the enemy army will just abandon the siege. Of course if they don't abandon the siege then you probably just gave up your whole army plus a bunch of your loot because the only way the enemy army will stick around is if it has a high chance of winning despite you being there. So best not to break in. Just like the last scenario, wait until they capture and leave and just take it back form the 100 or so defenders they leave. Still no siege defense.
That is the entire point of this thread. Some of us want to actually participate in a siege defense while still retaining a fair chance of actually winning the battle.
I wiped them out on hardest setting with only loosing like 2 or 3 units (because of crappy AI changes). The AI can't fight.
Same thing here. Hundreds of hours in the game and multiple campaigns where I've painted the map but I have never seen a siege from a defensive position. I'm not sacrificing more men than I would lose in the battle itself just to get to the battle.
EDIT: Since I just wrote about it in another thread concerning war declarations, I will also note it here. I think this is also part of a bigger issue of the AI being too smart. It actually leads to less enjoyable gameplay and to much less intuitive/natural decisions by the AI that it's always trying to be so damn smart about everything. I would love to see TW focus less on making the AI try to always beat the player and instead focus on making it act in ways that improve the player's playthrough.
EDIT2: The AI will lose regardless, after all.
Last edited:
redmark
Squire
Yes, the AI has to be smart enough to make stupid decisions sometimes - as did kings and generals in history. A valiant party leader, at least, should sometimes attack a stronger opponent. A calculating one should maybe risk a siege at less than ideal odds, against a valuable target.
sositehui
Recruit
yeye historicaly realism blah blah. but we wanna get gad dem siedge experience on def side! like diversify the gameplay n shiet
gad dem i wanna shoot dem bastards from tower with big аss ballista
yep, that's where traits should shine, they should affect the AI behavior both in the campaign map and in battles, some lords would be more cautious, others aggressive, others would try to outsmart the enemy and so on
If you have to play in a counter-intuitive manner that should hamper you and only works because of meta-game, to even experience what should be a significant part of the normal game, then I'd say it's a pretty telling sign that there is a big problem in the design.
Or maybe that being able to reinforce a besieged fortification is a dumb design to begin with, and it only exists because TW didn't fix the core problem that people never end up experiencing a siege ?
On the one hand, I'd love to have the rogue disguise logic to be used to sneak in to help defend a castle.
On the other hand, no matter how high, it wouldn't be the full player army able to sneak in even if that is done. I can see why the current implementation of breaking a siege to reinforce will indeed result in losses. Compared to warband the siege defense drops a ton.The blasted RNG of what is lost that always bites worst for me. However I can't say if it is rather siege defense is seen too little or rather previously it was too easy to aid in it.
Being able to waltz in without restrictions I don't think best, but I feel a better implementation can be possible.
On the other hand, no matter how high, it wouldn't be the full player army able to sneak in even if that is done. I can see why the current implementation of breaking a siege to reinforce will indeed result in losses. Compared to warband the siege defense drops a ton.The blasted RNG of what is lost that always bites worst for me. However I can't say if it is rather siege defense is seen too little or rather previously it was too easy to aid in it.
Being able to waltz in without restrictions I don't think best, but I feel a better implementation can be possible.
Its not that they're smart, its that they have perfect information about the enemy's strength vs. their own. They have much better info then the player does. Even though we can look at the enemy troop roster, our brains aren't very good at calculating the actual strength, so at most we have a very rough estimate of the enemy's actual strength. With big armies you can't even see the whole troop roster so you're essentially going in blind. The AI on the other hand just sees a number that they compare against their own number and get a pretty accurate assessment of the relative strengths. I think they should add a fuzziness to the AI's knowledge so that instead of seeing exact strength numbers, they see it as a range and then they can make mistakes by sometimes attacking a stronger force or running from a weaker one
