Summary: I observed several sieges, where big armies attacked castles or towns with relatively low garrison. If so, they tend to rush with the assault for some reason without waiting until siege tower and ram will be ready. I've never seen attackers using catapults as well. This ignorance ends up with troops climbing on walls by ladders and being extremely vulnerable due to low "bandwith" of these simpliest siege engines. They manage to win though, but the losses are enormous. Lords just don't care about their losses, although they could avoid it by waiting another day for ram and tower.
In the example below there were 810 attackers against only 198 defenders. It was the siege of Car Banseth, which has plenty of Battanian archers. Neither ram or siege tower were done, although the projects were in progress before King Dethert ordered to assault. As you can see, brave battanians managed to kill 1/3 and wound 1/3 of Vlandian army before defenders lost. 198 men caused casualities of over 500 men.
I totally agree that attackers should take large casualities when assaulting the walls, which is the basic purpose of the castle walls. But at the meantime AI does not make efforts to minimize their losses.
How to reproduce: Observe big armies attacking relatively weak garrisons.
Media:
Version: 1.4.0 Beta
In the example below there were 810 attackers against only 198 defenders. It was the siege of Car Banseth, which has plenty of Battanian archers. Neither ram or siege tower were done, although the projects were in progress before King Dethert ordered to assault. As you can see, brave battanians managed to kill 1/3 and wound 1/3 of Vlandian army before defenders lost. 198 men caused casualities of over 500 men.
I totally agree that attackers should take large casualities when assaulting the walls, which is the basic purpose of the castle walls. But at the meantime AI does not make efforts to minimize their losses.
How to reproduce: Observe big armies attacking relatively weak garrisons.
Media:
Version: 1.4.0 Beta
