Search results for query: *

Haven't had the opportunity to test it yet, but as soon as I see another situation meeting the same conditions as described I'll be sure to give it a try and see.

Sir Frederic said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Sir Frederic said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Rush09 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Sir Frederic said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Underuse2307 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

uçanbiblo said:

Hey, i have forwarded the info to the QA team. Thank you for reporting it in and sorry for the inconvenience.

Click to expand...

It's not that big of an inconvenience, but thank you!