The Roguery avenue could be a good way to deal with it, actually. High relations with the gang leader notables could offer an option to bribe them to sneak a portion of your army into the town. We can assume these guys are experienced smugglers and have access to tunnels and other secret ways in and out of town. Maybe by default they can only sneak in 40 or 50 guys, but you could invest in perks that would increase the amount.
Yes that was my line of thinking, a portion could enter. Of course that brings the question, where do the rest go? They have to go somewhere. Dumb path to nearest garrison to wait out? I can see the headaches that can cause lol
Mex gave them a lot of fuzziness when the player is involved. They literally only take into account half of the players strength, which will soon if not already in one of the recent hotfixes will be 1/3 of the players strength. I honestly think most people here got stung by it in previous patches and haven't been attempting to defend sieges recently with all the adjustments. I implore you all to start to try it out in the next patch when we know the new adjustments have been made.
Yes these are good changes! Happy to try them out. But this doesn’t change the fact that a lot of players would not like to risk a randomised part of their party to enter the settlement, however realistic this is, it is hindering gameplay. For testing purposes I would suggest removing this penalty.
It really doesn't hinder gameplay in my personal experience, if anything it turns an obvious choice into one that has consequences and makes you consider if it truly is the right choice (do you have enough for a field battle or do you need the siege defender bonus to win?).
The problem isn't necessarily the losing of 25% of your troops it is that it just doesn't make sense to do so. If you wait and allow the enemy to capture the fief you can just as easily without as much risk retake the fief after they leave due to the small amount of troop they leave as a garrison.
Like I said in my previous post, its given us a choice to make and we happen to come to different conclusions. I see entering a sieged castle as a trap for my enemies and worth the cost to destroy their entire army in that fight with significantly less men then the attackers. You would rather let the enemies army take the fief, letting them lose men in the process and even more men to supply a garrison, and then attack them while they are weak. This is fine and a fair strategy, but I'd argue you probably lost more men in the fiefs militia and garrison then you would have if you sacrificed your troops (if you don't then your strategy is solid).
Sure if you are of equal strength and able to beat your opponent on the field there is no return, but consider if you can't and you need the defensive bonus from defending. As I said in my example pages earlier my force of 240 men would not be able to fight the army on the field successfully, so sacrificing 60 men was an easy choice for me to make to gain the defender bonus and actually be able to defeat them. My point is there are situations where the advantage outweighs the cost, but obviously there are situations where it doesn't make sense.
This is a fair point, perhaps it should be lowered based on difficulty setting. If your troop is wounded while trying to get inside a fief, they are likely dead from being left outside.
This would be cool, perhaps it will come after they finish the sally out scenes, but I would not bet on it.
This would be best, but I'm not going to even fancy in my dreams TW can make something like that work.
I wasn't aware of that. That's a good change. I'd love it if they had that kind of fuzziness in all their battles, tbh.
It has never been hard, just harder than Warband's "stack Trainer and wait seven days for Swadian knights."
A combination of both. If I was ever given a castle (?) I'd let it be taken because I mostly don't care. But towns I'd generally fight in the field. If I couldn't take the army in a full-up battle, I'd launch a battle with some throwaway troops and get my kills, then retreat (the non-cheese way; making all my troops retreat first, then running off the map edge before tabbing out) and repeat until the enemy was whittled down enough.
Legit, you raid them until they can't fight and lose the advantage.
This should be the focus of peoples issue with the game. I really wish they didnt start the rounds off with a guarenteed railroad. Like have them but let the player select which railroads they want their troops to take and let us size the groups accordingly. Let us have some customization of sieges and take off our training wheels.... please we aren't that stupid and if we are and fail we will learn (fun part of games). (i.e. we need a better pre siege interface that lets us split our troops easier and more efficiently with the ability to give them an assignment)
It's not "no reason" though. There's a very clear reason, as Blood Gryphon has detailed. Whether the cost is reasonable is down to circumstances and the player, but there's definitely a reason.
| Troop Type | Original Army | Troop % of Army | Break in Cost | % Lost | % of Break in Cost | Break in Cost if based on Troop % |
| Infantry | 131 | 52% | 19 | 15% | 41% | 24 |
| Archers | 73 | 29% | 12 | 16% | 26% | 13 |
| Cav | 49 | 19% | 14 | 29% | 30% | 9 |
| Cav Archer | 1 | 0% | 1 | 100% | 2% | 0 |
| Total | 254 | 46 | 18% | 46 |
That's not "fuzziness", that's just changing the rules to fit the player. It's an improvement, but it would be better, as said, to have the AI make an evaluation according to a range, with a rather large overlap between "I should keep the siege" and "I should abandon it", so as to add uncertainty and variance to AI choices.
I could see a lot of cool ways to make breaking in a lot more appealing
Yes thank you? ? I have been advocating this solution for a long time, nice to see someone else on the same page
