v1.1.0 sieges are completely broken now

[Jarl Baller]

So I'd just gotten back into playing Bannerlord after a bit of a break from the game and was excited to see what the new 1.1.0 patch was bringing to the table. Everything was fine for the first couple of hours of playing but after some time I started to notice that the faction balance was back to its old "one faction steamrolling over the others" self, the Western Empire had almost practically disappeared in the first hours of gameplay and the Aserai had been halved by Vlandia. It's only later that I realized that the cause of this lack of power balance was probably due to how the new sieges work.

For the sake of clarity I'll give a personal example of a siege defense and what I think is wrong with the new system:

So I'm defending the city of Amprela with a good garrison of Battanian Fian Champions and Imperial Legionaries from my own personal party. Our forces number around 230~ and the besieging army of Khuzaits around 400~. It all goes as it usually does and we wait for them to finish building their siege towers and battering ram before going in for the assault. The siege starts and I take control of one of the catapults on the walls to destroy one of their towers and the battering ram to give ourselves a better chance of defending without being swarmed by their superior numbers. They take about 40 soldiers worth of casualties and decide to retreat. Now here's the kicker, in the previous patches they'd just pull back to go for another coordinated attack, but now what they do is go back and continue building their siege engines again.

So the AI now basically goes in with an army, loses 10% worth of its forces and decides to build everything again from scratch. So what you end up doing is waiting for about 10 minutes for them to launch another assault only to do the same thing after losing about 30 soldiers again.
Now I don't know about you guys but I just don't have the patience to spend 2 real life hours to get through a siege...

The old system worked fine wherein they could pull back if they wanted to but were stuck in assaulting the walls instead of going back to the campaign map to continue their siege which now takes forever. An easy fix for this would be to give them the option to abandon the siege if they wanted to after retreating.

What I think causes this loop to happen is the sudden loss in morale after they take some casualties and lose 2 siege engines and no longer think assaulting the walls is doable. But if the option to keep them to fight is to simply nerf ourselves and not get involved in destroying their engines and risk suffering heavy losses or potentially even losing the siege then the new design is poorly executed.

Are we basically being punished for playing well?



----------

On another note the new female animations are absolutely horrendous, they look exaggerated and unnatural.

 

[Underuse2307]

The developers will go to great lengths to punish you for just playing.

They cannot fathom anyone actually having a good time playing this game.

Anything that may make your experience more rewarding or fun gets nerfed, modified or broken.

And no, I am not being sarcastic. The proof is in the pudding. They want you to be miserable.

 

[Jarl Baller]

The developers will go to great lengths to punish you for just playing.

They cannot fathom anyone actually having a good time playing this game.

Anything that may make your experience more rewarding or fun gets nerfed, modified or broken.

And no, I am not being sarcastic. The proof is in the pudding. They want you to be miserable.

I don't know if I'd go as far as saying that they're trying to make the game intentionally less fun, to me it feels more like an attempt to make things more balanced or realistic by trying out new concepts which don't always work as intended. Like a process of trial and error, see which stuff works and which doesn't.

But when it doesn't work it needs to be pointed out by the community, and in this case the new siege mechanic really doesn't work well in my opinion...

I just hope some of the devs see this thread and do something about it

 

[Sir Frederic]

I will take advantage of this thread to present the problem in a different way.

The new system is almost fine. It's fine with me that the troops withdraw and rebuild everything, if a siege can last even an hour of real life.

The biggest problem is the following, after each battle, one should be able to capture wounded enemies, as well as claim loot from those wounded soldiers and dead troops. Two things happened to me, losing a siege defense, because with each wave of attack we lost a lot of militia and the enemy didn't, 200 soldiers were wounded, half of whom were ready to fight for the next wave. The second is to fight multiple waves, greatly reduce their forces, and have them lift the siege, leaving the player without loot or prisoner rights.

Regarding the first problem, it is worth mentioning that the catapults cause injuries and not deaths, if you are a good doctor and have the ability to take a medical oath and reduce the chance of death in sieges, your troops will almost never kill anyone. You will only make your enemies get stronger and stronger in each wave, or gain time to wait for a second army to come to support them.

With the new system two things will happen, either you lose the siege or you probably won't win anything from that battle, beyond the emotion and experience.

If after each battle you could claim wounded and loot, the whole mechanism would be perfect. Something that bothered me before was having several waves, where from the third I had to defend the walls from the reckless attack of a horde of recruit soldiers.

 

[Sir Frederic]

Are we basically being punished for playing well?

I think that is the motto of the company.

 

[Jarl Baller]

If after each battle you could claim wounded and loot, the whole mechanism would be perfect. Something that bothered me before was having several waves, where from the third I had to defend the walls from the reckless attack of a horde of recruit soldiers.

That's why my suggestion is that the attacking army should have the option to abandon the siege altogether if they lost too many troops.

And yes, you should be able to capture the wounded troops and get the loot from fighting them as well because it's just not fair to waste your hard trained soldiers if you don't get anything from it.

In the previous versions you did end up getting the wounded troops after successfully defending the fief but you would only get the loot from the last wave of peasants that the enemies threw at you, and would lose all the gear you would have otherwise gotten from those 500 elite cataphracts and legionaries you killed in the first couple of waves.

But I seriously do not have the patience to slog through wave after wave if their strategy is to just retreat every 40 soldiers or so.

 

[Rush09]

That's why my suggestion is that the attacking army should have the option to abandon the siege altogether if they lost too many troops.

Don't they do that though? I do notice the AI tends to abandon sieges if their numbers start getting near the number of defenders in 1.1.0 but it might just be that there is some other settlement more appropriate to their new number of soldiers to siege and they just move from it. In your case maybe that other settlement didn't exist?

 

[Jarl Baller]

Don't they do that though? I do notice the AI tends to abandon sieges if their numbers start getting near the number of defenders in 1.1.0 but it might just be that there is some other settlement more appropriate to their new number of soldiers to siege and they just move from it. In your case maybe that other settlement didn't exist?

My bad, what I meant was that if the situation is that bad that they had to retreat while attacking the walls then they should be wise enough to just abandon the siege altogether. Not try again for the millionth time without success.

And yes, in that save file there isn't any other fief in my kingdom with a garrison smaller than 400 units so that explains why they're so insistent on taking Amprela.

 

[Pedder]

Agree broken with latest patch. Even Playing "custom battle siege" as defender and the attackers abandoned after I destroyed one Siege Tower and killed 10 enemy with AI count of 1000. Please revert to old "aggression" levels for attackers - this was one of my favourite "drop in for a quick 10 minute game and now it seems lucky if it lasts 2 minutes! Cheers

 

[Rush09]

My bad, what I meant was that if the situation is that bad that they had to retreat while attacking the walls then they should be wise enough to just abandon the siege altogether. Not try again for the millionth time without success.

And yes, in that save file there isn't any other fief in my kingdom with a garrison smaller than 400 units so that explains why they're so insistent on taking Amprela.

Yeah I get what you mean, it seems that the minute an army is created, the AI needs to do something and since it prefers to attack than defend in the latest patch, it goes straight to the "weakest" link. Given that it doesn't have an alternative, it gets stuck there. Don't know if that's what's happening but it sure does feel like it

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Regarding the first problem, it is worth mentioning that the catapults cause injuries and not deaths, if you are a good doctor and have the ability to take a medical oath and reduce the chance of death in sieges, your troops will almost never kill anyone. You will only make your enemies get stronger and stronger in each wave, or gain time to wait for a second army to come to support them.

Blunt damage (and starving out defenders) not killing anything is a really stupid mechanic that has caused issues since warband, but its ridiculous here. A catapult or the naptpthththa things you throw cause 500 damage on a direct hit, which should pass some threshold of "yeah he's dead". Add that to the method for training medicine where you hit your own guys with mangonels and you have a recipe for madness.

 

[Sir Frederic]

That's why my suggestion is that the attacking army should have the option to abandon the siege altogether if they lost too many troops.

I can confirm that this is no longer a problem, this weekend I defended a castle twice, both times we dealt a lot of damage in the first wave and caused them to give up the siege altogether. The problem persists that you do not earn anything. It can be said that the AI has intelligence not to insist on lost sieges. Perhaps if this does not happen to you, it is because there is an army on its way to provide support and it is taking a long time to arrive or circling the map chasing an enemy with 10 troops.

"yeah he's dead"

I think so too, there should be a threshold of damage, maximum and minimum for everything. It doesn't matter that I have 330 medicine and medical oath, if an enemy gets an arrow through the head that does 400 damage, it should be guaranteed lethal damage. Same as the other way around, I understand that a soldier can bleed out in battle, but it seems ridiculous in comparison to kill a cataphract with a last slash or thrust that deals 3 damage. In other words, lethal damage must have a minimum % value.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Thats a good point lol, I never thought about how chance of death is only decided by the last weapon to hit them.

Gameplay aside its funny how blunt damage isn't lethal at all, when real blunt damage to the head or even chest can very easily kill you instantly. Then you have maces and other "blunt" weapons designed to tear flesh apart but all they do is put you to sleep. I get that it's this way for aesthetic puposes but it become very silly with artillery and dropping rocks on people. It's 1940s Cartoon logic.

 

[Jarl Baller]

Thats a good point lol, I never thought about how chance of death is only decided by the last weapon to hit them.

Gameplay aside its funny how blunt damage isn't lethal at all, when real blunt damage to the head or even chest can very easily kill you instantly. Then you have maces and other "blunt" weapons designed to tear flesh apart but all they do is put you to sleep. I get that it's this way for aesthetic puposes but it become very silly with artillery and dropping rocks on people. It's 1940s Cartoon logic.

I think blunt weapons should have an increased probability of wounding enemies but should still have the chance to kill them. Something like a sword having a 10% chance of wounding instead of killing and a mace a 40% chance, and the threshold would only increase with your medicine skill.

I can confirm that this is no longer a problem, this weekend I defended a castle twice, both times we dealt a lot of damage in the first wave and caused them to give up the siege altogether. The problem persists that you do not earn anything. It can be said that the AI has intelligence not to insist on lost sieges. Perhaps if this does not happen to you, it is because there is an army on its way to provide support and it is taking a long time to arrive or circling the map chasing an enemy with 10 troops.

That is good to hear, I finally decided to torture myself with that save file and see what would happen if I toughed wave after wave, they were finally defeated after enough lords from my kingdom gathered around the besieging army and engaged them in open field combat after their 4th failed attempt on the walls of the city.

 

[Sir Frederic]

become very silly with artillery and dropping rocks on people

Another stupid detail is that the catapults in the campaign mode do kill, in direct combat they don't. When destroyed, kills the user. Unless in a party you only have family or companions, no one gets hurt (I know because I'm doing the family-only ms. chiken challenge and I conquered two cities with the power of family! It takes a week to camp and 2 days by catapult, with 16 very determined people, but it is necessary if you do not want them to fall in combat before reaching the walls)

That is good to hear, I finally decided to torture myself with that save file and see what would happen if I toughed wave after wave, they were finally defeated after enough lords from my kingdom gathered around the besieging army and engaged them in open field combat after their 4th failed attempt on the walls of the city.

The one we all do, and perhaps the worst, is to destroy all siege weapons. The AI no longer falls into that trap and doesn't let its troops die in a bottleneck. The best thing in the first wave is to allow the enemy some advantage, like keeping a siege tower and breaking their battering ram, so they have the confidence to continue sending troops, enough for the first wave to be very damaging, the only problem is that this Also don't reduce your strength, so you don't end up losing more than them at the end. It all depends on what rules you have in your game. If your victory depends on the garrison or the militia, you're screwed.

 

[Jarl Baller]

The one we all do, and perhaps the worst, is to destroy all siege weapons. The AI no longer falls into that trap and doesn't let its troops die in a bottleneck. The best thing in the first wave is to allow the enemy some advantage, like keeping a siege tower and breaking their battering ram, so they have the confidence to continue sending troops, enough for the first wave to be very damaging, the only problem is that this Also don't reduce your strength, so you don't end up losing more than them at the end. It all depends on what rules you have in your game. If your victory depends on the garrison or the militia, you're screwed.

It's exactly what I've done, I know that the enemies never try to attack the outer gate if they have no battering ram so I intentionally left one siege tower intact so I could focus all my troops on one point to not be spread out thin. But they just abandon it on the field and leave even when it's at full health. It's just beyond me.

 

[Sir Frederic]

It's exactly what I've done, I know that the enemies never try to attack the outer gate if they have no battering ram so I intentionally left one siege tower intact so I could focus all my troops on one point to not be spread out thin. But they just abandon it on the field and leave even when it's at full health. It's just beyond me.

I remember that problem of abandoned siege machines in the beta, now I really don't know if it persists. Leaving a siege tower would be the most convenient, since you can in extreme cases, destroy it with your bare hands to end a battle.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

If after each battle you could claim wounded and loot, the whole mechanism would be perfect. Something that bothered me before was having several waves, where from the third I had to defend the walls from the reckless attack of a horde of recruit soldiers.

Sounds like a pretty solid system from what you've described; I think if the wounded and loot issues are fixed, it'd be a solid siege game all around. I do wonder if the A.I. takes advantage of the ability to keep weapons in reserve until they're all done (I've rarely defended cities/castles to know their patterns). If they don't, they ought to, since otherwise it's an unfair advantage for the player.

 

[Sir Frederic]

Sounds like a pretty solid system from what you've described; I think if the wounded and loot issues are fixed, it'd be a solid siege game all around. I do wonder if the A.I. takes advantage of the ability to keep weapons in reserve until they're all done (I've rarely defended cities/castles to know their patterns). If they don't, they ought to, since otherwise it's an unfair advantage for the player.

It seems pretty bad to me that ranged weapons are built right in the line of enemy fire. It would be better that where you build the ranged weapons it had a switch mechanism, instead of a square, where the weapon is built is a rectangle, the weapon is built in a safe area and you can push it to the firing area, to Except for the Trebuchets, which, being a ranged weapon, should be able to shoot from the safe zone, and which is a weapon designed for that.

Maybe then the AI could build the siege weapons and do a coordinated attack like the player does or just go all out on the battlefield. It's bad enough when you're in an army and you see how they keep spamming catapults that can never get past the siege weapons of the defense and all they do is waste time and troops. Also, creating them from a safe zone would also not happen that it receives a mandatory attack from all enemy weapons before you put it in reserve, 4 lucky hits leaves it with 25% life.

Lastly, while ranged weapons are in the safe zone, they could be repaired. So if you make 4 catapults, put them in attack mode and they take a lot of damage, you can return them to the safe zone and wait for them to repair. the weapons of the city would also have a repair system, while they are not under attack they are repaired. I think a pretty interesting minigame could be made there.

Anyway, everything depends on many factors, lately I have not seen challenging sieges, with that insane system of wars, easy rebellions, it is normal for cities to be in such a state of ruin that they cannot have a militia, garrison or siege workshop. In my current game, I'm only using family and companions, I conquered all 5 battania cities from rebels, using a 16 person party. Marunath was so destroyed that the garrison did not come out to stop me, they preferred to starve to death than face 16 people who were at the city gate forbidding people to enter.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

It seems pretty bad to me that ranged weapons are built right in the line of enemy fire. It would be better that where you build the ranged weapons it had a switch mechanism, instead of a square, where the weapon is built is a rectangle, the weapon is built in a safe area and you can push it to the firing area, to Except for the Trebuchets, which, being a ranged weapon, should be able to shoot from the safe zone, and which is a weapon designed for that.

Maybe then the AI could build the siege weapons and do a coordinated attack like the player does or just go all out on the battlefield. It's bad enough when you're in an army and you see how they keep spamming catapults that can never get past the siege weapons of the defense and all they do is waste time and troops. Also, creating them from a safe zone would also not happen that it receives a mandatory attack from all enemy weapons before you put it in reserve, 4 lucky hits leaves it with 25% life.

Lastly, while ranged weapons are in the safe zone, they could be repaired. So if you make 4 catapults, put them in attack mode and they take a lot of damage, you can return them to the safe zone and wait for them to repair. the weapons of the city would also have a repair system, while they are not under attack they are repaired. I think a pretty interesting minigame could be made there.

I think if the A.I. simply held their weapons in reserve before deploying them all at once, it'd be a huge improvement by itself. As it stands, they tend to waste time rather than really accomplish anything with them since they haven't figured out the trick that we did that makes sieges much easier. Alternatively, they could do the opposite and forbid holding weapons in reserve so that the process of bringing down the walls is much harder--I actually wouldn't mind that since that's actually how I did it before I realized I could just hold them all in reserve before I could deploy them. Before I knew the trick, sieges would often last 1-2 seasons whereas afterwards I don't think they even last a week. In terms of results, I think sieges ought to take longer and be more risky for the attackers so I'd prefer it impossible to hold weapons in reserve than to let be as it stands, but a satisfactory change would simply be to make A.I. smart enough to reserve them before deploying them all at once.

Anyway, everything depends on many factors, lately I have not seen challenging sieges, with that insane system of wars, easy rebellions, it is normal for cities to be in such a state of ruin that they cannot have a militia, garrison or siege workshop. In my current game, I'm only using family and companions, I conquered all 5 battania cities from rebels, using a 16 person party. Marunath was so destroyed that the garrison did not come out to stop me, they preferred to starve to death than face 16 people who were at the city gate forbidding people to enter.

That's crazy. I haven't had anything like that happen, but I've only completed one playthrough on 1.0.3 so who knows what may have changed since. Perhaps you just got lucky that circumstances aligned so well; perhaps the A.I. needs a brain check; perhaps both lol.

In general, I usually besiege cities with 100 militia and 100 (or so) soldiers, and the result tends to be that with at least 500 troops victory is assured with minimal (single digit) casualties if you simply do the Trebuchet trick (I wouldn't want them to be even more effective than they already are--the other weapons need more desirability, or durability specifically, since I've had no real results with them I couldn't have gotten better and faster with Trebuchets). I think it'd be much better if sieges were much harsher for the attacker, so that you'd ideally outnumber them 6-1 to get the kind of easy steamrolling results I'm describing. 100 total troops ought to be roughly equal to 500 and armies ought to regularly be huge 1000+ stacks to topple your average city/castle. I think as long as it remains cost-prohibitive to have more than 1-200 soldiers in a city/castle, this numeric balance could work.