Recent content by Sir Frederic

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

Although I've never played Crusader Kings (console peasant, at least until I have enough money to poke into PC gaming lol), I definitely sympathize with the roleplaying aspect of the game since, really, I don't see much of a point in doing anything in Bannerlord if you don't ascribe motivations to your characters and attempt to think within the context of the world.

Considering how sloppy the game is despite being officially released, or how there's now a "post launch development cycle," I sympathize with your frustration. As it is, I believe Bannerlord's niche is being a strategy game with a complex tactical side for battles, so that's what's most important and things like human relations are important for the strategy side since, well, strategy is basically guys with feathered fans playing mind games with each other lol. And I'm less tolerant; I see dirty banners and shields and I decide I'd rather wait indefinitely for it to be fixed because it aggravates me that TW would consider that an acceptable state for them to be in and it actively harms my immersion and ability to enjoy the game. I can tolerate the smooth-brained character dynamics and memetic relationship system; I cannot tolerate dirty banners, purple snow, constant crashes* (*that may have been fixed, but ironically I could tolerate it alongside SAVE CORRUPTION), women having clipping issues in women's clothes (why is it crossdressing men are the ones getting attention for the matter but not actual women? At least it's fixed, regardless of backwards priorities) etc. altogether. Or, at the very least, dirty banners and shields is enough to put me off.

If I were around since the beginning of Early Access, I have no doubt I would have expected more than what's officially released. I've been a fan of long standing franchises only to see them decay and degrade with time and I've been in the unfortunate position where, as far as it seems, the games are no longer being made with my audience in mind or the developers are simply too incompetent and apathetic while the producers too greedy and immoral to actually make the quality games they used to (etc.). In other words, I can understand and sympathize with the frustrations with Bannerlord since although I greatly enjoyed Bannerlord, it's definitely a far cry from what it could have been when compared to ideas that have been publicly shared for years and it's a dirty, buggy mess to boot.

All I can be is thankful that I like what actually is and thus my greatest priority for TW is to just clean it up before they inevitably decide the game is "complete." Anything else are nice extras, hopefully not as sloppily done as the new Fog of War system, but my number one priority at this point is a clean, playable game rather than one I have to do weird things as protective measures against save corruption and crashes. It's nice save corruption doesn't appear to be an issue anymore, and maybe crashes have gotten better, but the old issues have been replaced by new issues and that's why I've ONLY completed a single playthrough; I feel like a sucker if I just play now as opposed to wait indefinitely for the "finished" version.

Click to expand...

A lot of things that I'm glad to read, shows that I'm not the only nut with this feeling and thought about the decline in quality in video games. I consider videogames an art, and they are, as an art that encompasses the narrative and audiovisual, there should be a better commitment to quality, on the part of the company as well as the programmer. It is very normal to find out that such a movie or such a series ended in failure due to changes in directors or the production company hurrying up an unfinished job. The video game market seems not to learn from its neighbors, a market that, after creating an iconic game, has a product that will sell for 10, 20, 30 years.

The problem of civilian clothing for women also ruins me a bit, or that the shoulder armor is always floating, which I have solved by always looking for them to use coarse bear skin, which looks very cool with everything. The noble transvestites, god, it's incredible that they never fixed that, that's been going on for over a year.

I stopped playing for a while and decided to come back, I always do the same, really after this game I'll have to put this aside. unless you are 100% finished and start a game by installing all the mods you need.

About CK, I played the 2 base that is free on steam, I have to see if I can buy the 3 and play it. The game is overwhelming in the beginning, but it's really great and fun when you get a hold of it and learn to control it. As I said in one of the recommendations "there is a lot of sex, and sex is fun" you can do anything stupid, like a king I had who slept with a lot of women and then legitimized his bastards (good father, lousy husband). I had an empress (who was heterosexual) who invited a lot of lesbians to her court and then seduced them to be her lover, I got to have about 13 lovers in her (as these romances do not generate children, there were never scandals) . I didn't spend a life expanding territory and declaring war, I spent a life of peace and quiet, hunting lovers. If bannerlord had 10% of what CK offers, it would be one of the best open worlds the market has to offer.

But hey, we can only dream or forget. I will try to forget and avoid obsessing, again lol

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

Why did I think you didn't? Gotta re-read... I guess I just inferred that lol, but since you have then unless there were significant changes since then you ought not have had issues enough to be livid about. Well... I say that, but it's not like you can't be mad that something that bothered you in the past remains in the game despite the beta phase or something new bothering you, so I guess I just made a mental conclusion without sufficient evidence to back it up.

Click to expand...

I am a person who tolerates a lot, bad graphics, ridiculous bugs, I don't mind spending more than a year playing this game with the characters without eyes in their thumbnail images, or that now there are several cities that appear with the blue floor. What I cannot tolerate is that this game, over time, has shown zero progress in mechanics such as the lack of diplomacy, the lack of personality of the AI, the lack of roleplay mechanics, the total lack of texts. And this game could have all that, it shows that it can have it and suggests that there is or was that intention, he wants to cover many things and fails in all of them.

Some time ago I played Crusader Knights 2, and if you've played it you'll understand me, the amount of both conquest and roleplay mechanics are enormous, there isn't any of that here and I could have a large part of them. You don't have the AI trying to destroy you, much less when you're powerful, which happens here in bannerlord. You can be aggressive or passive at will as long as you do the right things and you can do fun things with mechanics that were put into the game for that.

I have played a lot of Kenshi, a brutal game against the player and also not as brutal as bannerlord, because if you are good at the game and know how to use your knowledge well, you can create a good group of characters or just a character that is a demigod. It is an open world quite empty of mechanics and likewise it fulfills more than bannerlord.

Now in bannerlord I am playing with 26 characters and I am experiencing the same difficulty as my games where I made a family army of 1500 soldiers. With nephews and sisters-in-law who treat me like friends, because there are no mechanics to recognize these family ties. With brothers and wives who, upon entering a kingdom as a mercenary, began to treat me as if only I were the mercenary and they were in the kingdom before. In other words, apart from an absence of gameplay mechanics, there is an absence of mechanics and texts in roleplay, or worse, that ruin the roleplay. And I adore roleplay, I married Svana and she died giving birth to our 3rd child, I had preserved her combat sword, which was also a civil weapon and I put it as a civil weapon for our eldest daughter so that she would have a memory of her mother (that's how insanely immersive I am and I love that about me)

What annoys me is seeing the wasted potential of this game and now I'm in belligerent drunk mode, I don't want to suggest or bargain, just complain like a spoiled child.

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

Sure. Go ahead and do that if you're confidant about it. Ultimately, I know I've managed to do something a lot of people have problems with so I must have some understanding they lack in order to accomplish what I've accomplished, regardless of misunderstandings and misconceptions I've developed along the way. In other words, what I know correctly must outweigh what I'm wrong about in order to unite the continent on the hardest difficulty without save scumming (except for my first character's marriage).

Click to expand...

I don't know if you're talking about a recent or old game. I achieved a global conquest a long time ago, where I practically did the same thing, I did not execute many people and it lasted a great number of years. But you did not achieve anything if you should have executed someone, I'm sorry but if you executed people you took away the attack power of your enemies, you made the easy way! Also, a game of forty years, you didn't notice in 40 years the AI constantly hitting you hard

The AI is programmed yes to balance power thresholds. Play as a mercenary and help a kingdom become great, make sure you are strong. When they have 2-3 strong enemies at once with 0% peace will, leave the kingdom and wait. If not instantly, the next day they will make peace. Why does that happen? Because you have stepped out of that faction's equation and the game must balance the strength that faction is now dealing with. I did it for many games, play as a mercenary and leave to balance the power temporarily and be able to continue advancing.

After that last comment of mine, I entered the game, executed some aserai nobles, do you know what happened? what I described to you was going to happen, the Western Empire declared war on me, there were defections that were solved by reloading the game, in one of those reloads, simultaneously 3 women from my clan got pregnant (I hope not in an orgy). Then I executed more Aserai nobles, guess what happened? northern empire declared war on me. Now all that's missing is the southern empire, which will soon declare war on me, it's a matter of heads (you get it, heads haha). By the time there is no kingdom or clan left to declare war on us, desertions will begin with more force. I only hope that I have destroyed the other barbarian kingdoms so that they emigrate to the empire.

Another detail for the notorious lack of mechanics, I executed Corein, who married an aserai, her sister Merag, my sister-in-law, zero loss of relationship, even my friend, her father caladog, no loss of relationship, he is still my friend. The Kin are not friends with each other, therefore you only lose relationship according to the trait, I could execute the daughters of Caladog, Melindir, Garios (nobles without honor) and they would not care.

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

I'm not surprised that becoming an internationally hated and controversial figure has caused rebellions lol

Click to expand...

It is that you do not understand, that DOES NOT EXIST in bannerlord, that mechanic does not exist, as well as in another post that we talked about, there is no such thing as merciful nobles being better people than those who are not. The only mechanic that exists is the balance of strength, I did not start having rebellions because that, I am only a vassal in a kingdom of 20 clans, the rebellions appear because the AI needs to balance the level of difficulty. Now as soon as you kill a few more people, the northern empire will declare war on me again.

I achieved almost a triple alliance between battania, vlandia and sturgia. the West is ours. but simply the game, the AI, coordinating all the other kingdoms, they don't let me advance. Do you understand what a city with 800 prosperity is, which passes from hand to hand every 5 minutes of my game, because my allies can't spend 5 minutes taking care of it, or that I can't at least put policies to increase loyalty because nobody He supports me and the militia has not fought for years unless the city rebels.

I see the same thing recurring in your comments, you assume mechanics that are not implemented in the game. In fact, with the executions, we managed to reconquer cities and castles, and with a -100 relationship with a clan, which did not want an alliance before, I managed to convince them to join vlandia, a clan that recently executed a nobleman (it was a battanio clan with 2 women, I killed one and was about to kill the other when I saw that she got married and had 3 children, I asked her if she wanted to change sides, I convinced her, it cost a million denars, for a clan with two nobles, a million It's not because he hates me, it's because they ask for more and more, the next one will be 1.2 million). Now the more Aserai and Kusait I execute and the more territory we take in our possession, the more clans will be available to change sides, that they hate me only makes it difficult, not impossible, and they only accept the change of sides up to a certain number of clans, then they will They will deny again with the classic phrase that they are comfortable in their kingdom. Of course, as soon as the enemies take our territories, or we destroy the enemy force a lot, these clans change sides, but it is not due to a mechanic of interests or loyalty, it is a balance of force, the only mechanic of the AI.

The only smart thing I can do now, as I said before, is to destroy the other barbarian kingdoms to consolidate that only the empire can be my enemy, if people change sides at this stage it doesn't matter, they will go to the empire that will eventually come back to us in the end. Then I'll be the best guy in the world, defeating nobles of the empire and letting them go so that everyone will love me again, as if nothing had happened *hides his bloody executioner's ax with subtlety*

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

While I sympathize with your struggles, I can vouch from personal experience that overall victory is very possible and I'd be happy to give advice if you want it and will withhold it if you don't.

Click to expand...

enlighten me please because I hardly see any way out. have 100% chance of not escaping and drag 300 nobles in my inventory around the map? It would take hours only for eventually all progress to be lost because my allies want us to declare peace.

Without wanting to insult, but I think I know much more about how the game works than you, I'm just too hard-headed to accept that I should have abandoned this a long time ago, even though I like a lot of things about it.

Something that I did not clarify is that now that I am executing enemies, reducing the difficulty power of the AI, there began to be more frequent rebellions in my kingdom.

I have played many hours and many games to be able to visualize the real problem that the game has, which is what clarifies so many times, the AI seeks to level the difficulty towards the player, always causing, due to the inability to be everywhere at once or control allies, at a total disadvantage.

I share my recent frustration and what will be my last game, after this the truth is that I uninstall and forget about this game.

Mr. Chicken launched a campaign of only using family and companions in campaign mode and I decided to emulate it. It is a game that has been waiting for a long time, because you need to have many children and nephews, then wait for them to grow up.

In that wait I see how 5 kingdoms devour battania, Vlandia ends up conquering all battania, but having the law of currency devaluation, its stability is zero. the 5 cities of battania are revealed, I independent with 16 characters conquered the 5 cities. Now yes, I dedicate myself to waiting for years, meanwhile I dedicate myself to restoring the disaster they made in Battania, Marunath mainly, totally devastated.

By the time my oldest nephew was almost 18 years old, I decided to take sides. Vlandia, w. empire and kusait are dominant powers. sturgia dying, battania dead, n empire with a castle, s. empire dying, aserai resisting with difficulty.

I join vlandia, between wars and peace treaties, we end up with sturgia, southern empire ends up defeated by w empire and kusait. Northern Empire remains peaceful with its only castle. I dedicate my fortune to recruit nobles from battania and sturgia, I end up creating the old alliance that fought against the empire in the battle of pendriac, quite ironic.

But then the ****ty whirlpool starts, the AI mechanics, the stronger I make my kingdom, the more difficult it throws at me. I couldn't recruit all those from Battania and Sturgia because they are comfortable with their current king, they should change that dialogue to "at this moment you are already very strong, TW does not allow me that you can be stronger than the enemy".

Kusait, northern empire and aserai at direct war with us. kusait attacking eastern sturgia. aserai attacking the west of their territory and the western empire from the center. 3 front lines for me to defend, or hopefully my allies get something done. Hrs of game losing and conquering the same lands. Also, the AI not happy with the high difficulty starts making the nobles I recruited and made rich switch sides, so I was constantly saving and reloading. The funny thing is that this happens when a mercenary clan decides to unite, the AI is like "oh no, a lot of power, have a clan leave the kingdom with the properties".

I got tired of all that ****, now I am at war with aserai and kusait at the same time, it is worth mentioning that I should be at war with the western empire to achieve the barbarian victory, but the AI does not want to give me a truce. So I started the executions, now I'm in aserai, where I cut off a lot of heads and I intend to cut off more, leaving them with a minimum of clans. And later I intend to do the same kusait walk, destroy a couple of clans to be left with no ability to fight, whatever it takes to have a calm and slow conquest of the empire.

The path of diplomacy is idiotic, the best I can do in my game is to finish destroying the barbarian kingdoms by executing everyone and wait for the barbarian victory, the clans of the empire finally being defeated have no choice but to ally themselves with the only one kingdom that would remain standing, which would be Vlandia. Hopefully I will only need to destroy a clan of battania and sturgia, aserai and kusait I will have to exterminate them completely.

Considering the roleplay, a Battanian chief uniting the old alliance to subjugate the empire by exterminating the kusait and aserai traitors looks good. In the game, you are a criminal hated by most for executing "friends" of your "friends" or for executing "honest" nobles.

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

Ironically, this is actually a good thing

Click to expand...

I think you didn't understand me. you kill all the nobles of vlandia, the game announces that vlandia no longer exists, your peace-weary nobles vote to declare war on vlandia, now you are at war with a nation that does not exist. In the war window the gray face of the last ruler of Vlandia appears. TW never fixed this, they didn't program what to do with the game when you destroy the enemy kingdoms, because they don't expect you to, I guess.

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

Sounds like what I've read of Huscarls in the original Mount and Blade lol. However, I've not had that kind of OP effect with fians on PS4 with the 350 troop limitation so I suspect it only works consistently if you can field all your fians and not have to worry about enemy wave reinforcements. However, having said that, just 16 guys and taking down ~100 militia? Yeah, I can imagine that--unfortunately--lol. They really are that bad after all. Never mind an army of top tier troops (forget fians--ANYBODY can make militia look bad!) lol. I'd hate to try it only to discover it works...




It's irrational from a national and strategic perspective, but perfectly rational from a tribal/clan perspective. Like, to use a hypothetical example, if it's me and 3 other clans (like... dey Folcun, Banu Sarran, and fen Uvain or something) with a single retinue each participating in a siege of Ortysia, who among them will actually acquire the city after the theoretical blood, sweat, and tears? The Khergits, that's who, because they own the nearest castle or city and thus have first dibs on it while the other guys each have large territories of their own (or enough to be disadvantaged next to proximity bonuses) and absolutely no shot at it even if they do all the work. Therefore, to compensate for themselves, it makes sense they steal everything that isn't nailed down and present a big "F U" to whoever actually does get Ortysia since it's not going to be them and they (theoretically) know it lol.

Of course, it's completely irrational to raid a country you'll be ruling/governing yourself in just a few days; but, morality aside, it actually is rational to enrich yourself at the expense of others. There's no federal police or oversight committee or anything resembling "war crimes" control for this behavior, and the lack of national/faction loyalty means there's no reason to be thoughtful like that.

I think a potential way to "fix" this problem would be more Traits to carry more value in morals. As far as I know, Merciful lords do not pillage unless forced to (like as part of an army) so this fix theoretically already exists. And, if more Traits were assigned a diminished probability of raiding, it probably wouldn't change much since the many psychopaths would continue anyway in their place lol. Furthermore, in the absence of some kind of "commoner reputation system" or SOMETHING to give A.I.s reasons to be ethical or brotherly with each other, it's just a thing that will always be. It DOES have some rationality to it though--and a final "justification" is as an insurance against a failed take-over; who's to say they'll take Ortysia? Maybe King Derthert will show up with a huge army that utterly crushes the attackers or quickly retakes the city. Devastating the land spites the new/restored authority and weakens their ability to maintain the land (or otherwise benefit from it) while, again, compensating the people who fought to take it in the first place.

Click to expand...

When you go to war, you are supposed to have a plan of conquest, looting is strategic, because you need to starve your enemies, not yourself. That is why the sites existed, you did not destroy the fields or villages, because instead of looting or destroying, you ate that food. A looting as presented in Bannerlord is the one that is done to destroy a source of resources, fields, houses are destroyed, people are killed. It is the type of looting that you need to destroy the village so that the enemy can not advance, it is a looting that they should do in the enemy zone away from the main conflict zone. Make it difficult for them to get food and troops.

The faction leaders ask you by mission to do just that, it's almost ironic that the AI doesn't do it, it doesn't do it because they don't know how or don't want to correct it.

Finally, traits have no effect on this decision, merciful will loot, hunt villagers or caravans regardless of their trait, I seem to remember that I even saw a merciful army leader devastate a city. There is no behavioral AI. the traits only serve to improve or hinder the interaction with the player. I think that's why it bothers me so much, the looting is indiscriminate, even looting villages of their own nation, or worse, looting the villages that were even theirs initially, like seeing someone from the Dey Arromanc clan, looting the Arromanc village.

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

Is it the tactic that involves having archers shoot from behind shields, like in Warband? Yeah, I can imagine it being very effective--especially against fiefs lacking sentries

Click to expand...

A shield soldier is one less fian in the party, just fians. f1+f3 and they will go up the stairs cleaning everything. If you call some allies to the siege better, just to improve the balance of power and reduce the difference of troop numbers in the battle, most likely 95% of the troops will be your fians, since the AI hardly use tier 6 troops Try one day a hero focused on being a good captain of archers and only uses fians, it's broken, any battle you enter will be doing more than half the damage, very profitable.

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

Yeah, improving the quality of militia is probably what they ought to do. I think in the troop encyclopedia there actually is a troop tree for Militia, going up to 3 tiers, I think, so there's probably already the pieces necessary to make them improve with experience (etc.) there already--it just needs to be configured properly.

Click to expand...

A stronger militia would prevent what I commented above, or me conquering 5 cities with 16 characters. The only slightly decent militia is Vlandia's, because they use crossbows and can do significant damage with them. The militia categories only apply to one of the policies that make them appear, but it is a policy that, as I recall, has many negative points, it is very difficult to apply if you enter a kingdom and it does not significantly improve the militia either. . A strong militia could prevent the cities from falling easily, because even if the city was conquered, the battle would do enough damage for the army instead of going after another conquest, to concentrate on recovering and taking care of what they conquered. Letting the player can enjoy the game, mainly offering exciting sieges.

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

I don't think opportunistic raiding of fiefs you're about to conquer is that irrational

Click to expand...

It seems irrational to me, mainly because apart from generating almost no profit, it makes the newly conquered city have no food, you cannot replenish troops, it becomes a dead zone for days that causes the armies to end up without food. Most of the problems we talk about here stem from that senseless destruction. poor cities that are not a challenge to conquer, poor enemies that are not a challenge on the battlefield, all for a few extra coins.

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

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.

Click to expand...

In these conditions I even build something, as soon as the camp is finished I attack. i usually use fians and have good medicine, my brutality has no consequences for my troops.

And unfortunately at least in my game, that's the most common type of siege I have, the one that's not worth building anything, just charging at them. Only in quite late games, in cities super isolated from the war, usually in Aserai or Vlandia, can you get the challenge of using machinery first.

Without a doubt, it would be better, as you say, that the sieges demand a lot. They should consider improving the militia, in equipment and skill, as well as having a strong initial recovery, or the wounded militia cannot be captured, return to the militia. That the garrison improves in experience more strongly, that a city has 200 soldiers, but cat 5, some impact. that the AI capture and take care of the newly conquered and avoid the daily change of hands, that the nobles stop looting villages that do not need to be looted, mainly the city that they are already besieging (it will be yours shortly, stop doing that!) Everything takes a coordinated job of improvement that they should do.

Yoshioki Ouchi said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Jarl Baller said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Although it is an interesting idea. It is necessary to consider that the currency in calradia that is used with gold coins. It doesn't matter if the coin is Imperial with Raghaea's face or a Vlandian gold coin with Derthert's face, the dealer will take out his scale and weigh the coin to consider its gold value. In addition, for years the most dominant and advanced nation was the Empire, it is very likely that over the years all have assimilated their currency as the best exchange tool. Just like we do with the US dollar today.

Although I like the idea of having your gold "physically" in the game. Let an enemy defeat you in battle and then see how your inventory looks, surely you will stop considering this as a good idea.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

become very silly with artillery and dropping rocks on people

Click to expand...

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)

Jarl Baller said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.