Analysis of the impact of map design in regards to sieges

[Kipsta]

I have tested every single siege map the game offers in custom battle with the following settings:
400 Defenders
500 Attackers
Level 2 Walls
Four ballista for defender
No siege weapons for attackers
One tower, ram and ladders
Factions were mostly based on proximity of castle or mirror match
I excluded Battania from testing (kept one result in) since they get Battanian Heroes in custom battle who are beyond op in sieges and have an unfair advantage against the other factions.
Vlandia&Sturgia were set to 50% archers and no horse archers to keep the infantry, archer(50:50) ratio intact.

Spoiler: Table of Data

Fortification​	Attacker​	Defender​	Result for A​	A-D Death Ratio​	Negative Observations​	Positive Observations​
​	​	​	​	​	​	​
Ain Baliq Castle​	Empire​	Aserai​	Win​	278-390​	Archers on major tower broken, barely shoot; Medium towers aren't properly manned; Inaccessible ballista on one tower; Gate killzone archers have trouble shooting; Many bots get stuck on gatehouse stairs;​	Plenty of stones to throw;​
Argoron​	Sturgia​	Empire​	Loss​	438-119​	Infantry doesn't properly defend against siege tower, keeps running away from it and returning;​	Good ballista placement and use; Decent archer utilization besides bugged window archers​
Baltakhand​	Empire​	Khuzait​	Win​	355-390​	Initial formation placement is bad; Only uses five control groups; Very few archer positions, some that make sense aren't even unused; Defenders don't block the gate; Boring straight wall section​	​
Car Banseth​	Vlandia​	Battania​	Loss​	329-56​	Both gate ballista weren't used;​	Nearly all archer positions filled and properly used; Awesome design​
Chaikand​	Empire​	Khuzait​	Loss​	414-238​	Only uses five control groups; Towers and gatehouse top don't have archers; Infantry does not properly defend against ladders on right side (always defender perspective); Boring straight wall section; Attacker archers just blob up in front of walls​	​
Galend​	Empire​	Vlandia​	Loss​	486-363​	Unused inner wall section on right side; Hill offers op archer blob position;​	Awesome design, especially the staggered wall section;​
Hakkun Castle​	Empire​	Khuzait​	Loss​	484-339​	Same as Baltakhand&Chaikand​	​
Lyakis​	Empire​	Aserai​	Loss​	456-289​	Attacker archer fortifications too far away to properly engage walls; Right side tower not properly manned;​	Good design; Defenders actually block the gate;​
Jaculan​	Empire​	Vlandia​	Win​	377-384​	Defenders don't block the gate; Archers perform very badly​	​
Lageta​	Vlandia​	Empire​	Win​	284-381​	Defenders don't block the gate; Archers perform very badly;​	​
Lianoc Hen Castle​	Vlandia​	Empire​	Win​	​	Awful fps unplayable​	​
Lycaron​	Vlandia​	Empire​	Win​	414-385​	Defenders don't block the gate; Archers perform very badly;​	​
Makeb​	Empire​	Khuzait​	Win​	442-384​	Defenders don't block the gate; Archers perform very badly; Blobs on wall​	​
Pen Cannoc​	Empire​	Empire​	Loss​	450-150​	Defenders don't block the gate;​	Awesome design, best archer placement I have seen yet; No blobs on walls; Infantry moves from cover to engine sections only once they arrive, no pointlessly getting shot on the wall before that; Attacking archers don't have serious advantage​
Qasira​	Aserai​	Aserai​	Loss​	441-165​	Defenders don't block the gate; Nobody defends against right side siege tower;​	Decent archer setup, no wall blobs;​
Quyaz​	Aserai​	Aserai​	Loss​	461-234​	Bugged wall section leading to stuck troops;​	No op archery blobs in front of castle; Well designed attacker approach; Defenders properly block the gate;​
Seonon​	Sturgia​	Sturgia​	Loss​	491-166​	Defenders don't block the gate;​	Great design; Good archer placement for both the attacker and defender;​
Sibir​	Empire​	Sturgia​	Win​	225-398​	Defenders don't block the gate; Too big to defend; Complexity remains unused and becomes a disadvantage​	​
Simira Castle​	Sturgia​	Khuzait​	Loss​	444-126​	Defenders don't block the gate; Some of the fortification for attacking archers are a little too far away;​	Good design; Plenty of manned attacker fortifications;​
Tarkor Castle​	Empire​	Sturgia​	Win​	356-376​	Blobs on wall; Archers don't man inner wall and gatehouse top; Attackers don't use archer fortifications, just blob; Infantry doesn't properly defend against siege tower left side and ladders right side;​	Awesome design; Defenders actually block the gate;​
Talivel Castle​	Empire​	Vlandia​	Win​	185-375​	Op archer blob right in front of wall; Archers blob on wall; Many archer positions unmanned; A literal death trap;​	​
Thractorae Castle​	Empire​	Empire​	Loss​	436-211​	Defenders don't block the gate; Archers blob on wall; Unmanned archer positions;​	​
Ustokol Castle​	Vlandia​	Sturgia​	Win​	158-372​	Only four control groups; Massive archer blob on wall --->almost entire castle remains unmanned(archers) due to blob; Massive enemy archer blob on the left side;​	Good use of attacker fortifications; Gate properly blocked;​
Varnovapol​	Vlandia​	Sturgia​	Win​	356-399​	Attacking archers too close to wall and too blobby; Literally nobody managed to climb up the siege tower right side;​	Plenty of attacker fortifications; Awesome gate killbox; Defenders actually block the gate;​
Verona Castle​	Empire​	Empire​	Loss​	465-344​	Attacking archers too close to wall and too blobby; Boring straight wall section; Defenders don't block the gate;​	​

I have identified multiple problems which stem purely from bad design practices which should be easily fixable.

1. Lack of using control groups properly

Why are control groups important? In every siege there are three melee troop groups. One for the gate and for each wall entrance (ladder or tower). It seems that level designers have control over the positioning of each group and especially for the wall entrances there seems to be an option to keep them in cover until the equipment has actually been deployed which is when they'll move to their defense position(which does not always actually line up with the equipment on some maps). All other groups are used for archers. This is obviously important, because archers are key to winning a siege defense or losing it. How does the previous mentioned system work for archers? I don't know for sure! All I know is that there is an option to split defending archers into at least six groups to spread out around the castle. These groups each have a "reserve" which is where archers who do not currently occupy a designated archer position remain. Having more groups in different secure locations makes it easier to replace fallen archers quickly and keep up fire, the best examples are Car Banseth and Pen Cannoc . The opposite of this is having archers in a single or two massive groups who just wait for their assignment somewhere on the wall, examples for this are Ustokol Castle and basically all maps where I have noted low control group count. Obviously archers will have to go a long way to get to an archer position to occupy it and giant blobs of units are easy targets for attacking archers, this is doubly true when the "reserve" has been placed somewhere on the wall in the line of fire. For one they will be easily killed without offering much resistance and secondly it may lead to massive blocking on the walls preventing units from where they want to go.

2. Bad positioning of control groups

The reasons for this I discussed above. Many maps also suffer from this in two other regards which are the gate troops and both wall troops. On way too many maps the defenders are too far away from the gate to stop the enemy from pouring in once it has been breached. This negatively impacts the utility of murderholes in gatehouses and scrutinizes the defense of the walls which will easily be swarmed by the gate attackers who are going to charge in. On some maps the wall defenders have trouble for two reasons: One they are placed in a bad position from the beginning where they can be shot upon or are stuck and two they do not defend at the right location which would be right in front of the siege tower or ladders. They'll honorably wait for their enemies to scale the walls and engage them somewhere on the wall while allowing the enemy to clean out archers in the opposite direction.

3. Aggressive placement of attacking archers and BLOBS

Paradoxically on many maps the attackers spawn with their archers close to the walls ready to shoot while defenders actually have to go to their designated archer positions. This is compounded by some maps putting defenders at an absolute firepower disadvantage. This is what I mean:

Spoiler: firepower disparity problem

The defending archers face an overwhelming force at all time. This leads to nonsensical siege scenarios where the defenders either trade 1:1 or do worse than the attackers. Optionally it gets even worse when the attacking infantry waits for the assault to begin in front of the attacking archer blobs and thereby absorb most of the ranged fire with their shields. Most maps are like this, but there are positive example on how to do it better which are Pen Cannoc, Quyaz and Seonon. Archers are farther away from the wall reducing deadliness, but there are many fortifications with assigned archer positions for the attacker improving the atmosphere by a lot.

Spoiler: Screenshots of this problem

4. All windows are useless

Some castles have up to 50% of their important archer positions indoors firing from a slit window position. They are just broken. Archers will not shoot through the tiny windows most of the time, only when all stars align will a bot even attempt to do so for once.

5. Lack of archer positions

To wrap this up another short point: Many maps seem to lack archer positions where they make sense, for example on top of the gatehouse, looking down the murderhole or some towers.



After posting negatively about sieges I wanted to get the whole picture and went ahead testing them extensively. My results actually surprise myself as I wasn't expecting map design to have this much of an impact on the enjoyability of sieges. While all of this has nothing to do with attackers being unable to climb ladders effectively I no longer think that having them do so will make sieges automatically good. In fact it will exasperated existing problems of badly designed sieges which weren't properly tested. There is a world of difference between fighting a siege at Car Banseth or Pen Cannoc to Baltakhand or Ustokol Castle. Level designers have a lot of control over how a siege plays on an AI level, so I am really looking forward to the modding tools being released soon.

 

[guiskj]

Thank you for the analyses. I hope the devs responsible for this part of the game can chime in with their perspective.

 

[svelok]

I'm very interested in what we can see about the scene design in the scene editor of the existing siege placements.Things like archers not being assigned to places you'd expect them to be, etc, won't require loading up a siege manually looking around. Anyways, interesting summary.

 

[sabatonsky]

gotta show this to mexico....
EDIT: how did you found the placement of the troops itself? like the little groups you ought to place? cause in my experiance it was rather.... terrible.... hard to place the troops where you want to

 

[StewVader]

Thank you for the analyses. I hope the devs responsible for this part of the game can chime in with their perspective.

I hope they do too.

 

[Kipsta]

gotta show this to mexico....
EDIT: how did you found the placement of the troops itself? like the little groups you ought to place? cause in my experiance it was rather.... terrible.... hard to place the troops where you want to

I didn't move any troops at all to simulate how the AI would start the map if you attack. I didn't intervene in the siege at all, just observed and I doubt Mexxico can say much about this since it isn't his field.

I forgot to mention this in the OP, but what irks me the most about these results is how often the attackers won. I do not think it should be an easy thing to win under the conditions I set up, but the results speak for themselves.

 

[sabatonsky]

and I doubt Mexxico can say much about this since it isn't his field.

well he can pass the word onward....

 

[Lusitani 5th Empire]

I wasn't expecting map design to have this much of an impact on the enjoy-ability of sieges

That's what happens when you have one team of devs for design and other for ai, with little interaction between them. Designing scenes and maps in games is not a matter of looking good, the priority should be creating something that perfectly fits how the ai interacts with the surroundings, in a scripted and limited way, so that you don't have problems like this.

 

[cyberonn]

Very important thread. I appreciate your hard work on this. Defending is too difficult in the game. When I create a custom siege battle, I think like give attackers 3 times men than defenders but attackers win so easily in that condition which I think shouldn't happen. AI changes and some additional advantages for defenders are required.

 

[AfLIcTeD]

The defenders really have the short end of the stick. Even with the attackers barely functioning, they still lose most of the time. When the attackers climb the walls, run to the gates and open them from the inside and the gate defenders do **** all. Sometimes I can do that and just stand at the gatehouse killing anyone who tries to close the gates until my troops storm it.
The defenders will just stand at the gate in a group and just get surrounded. Once the gates are breached it is over for the defenders.

They are supposed to be reworking them anyway to have it so the defenders pull back toward the keep, defending certain points on the way. Some maps look to be set up like this.

 

[bestmods168]

Looks like you agree with me.
Modding tool = let modders fix seiges

 

[StewVader]

The defenders really have the short end of the stick. Even with the attackers barely functioning, they still lose most of the time. When the attackers climb the walls, run to the gates and open them from the inside and the gate defenders do **** all. Sometimes I can do that and just stand at the gatehouse killing anyone who tries to close the gates until my troops storm it.
The defenders will just stand at the gate in a group and just get surrounded. Once the gates are breached it is over for the defenders.

They are supposed to be reworking them anyway to have it so the defenders pull back toward the keep, defending certain points on the way. Some maps look to be set up like this.

Yeah i'll believe that when I see it.

 

[guiskj]

It is quite upsetting to have such a major part of the experience being this faulty and not have any words from the devs.

@Callum could you provide some details about TW's plan when it comes to sieges or ask the corresponding devs to hop here for a quick chat? Things such as:

• What does TW see as the most pressing problems with sieges
• What is the vision for Siege defenders tactics
  • What is the ratio goal of attacker/defenders for a 50% success chance (ballpark is fine)
  • Is this a per scene ratio (as in, different Towns/Castles are easier to defend than others) and how is it planned to communicate this to player or even AI
  • Is how currently untits are placed how you want or is it due for substantial changes
• What are the next, say, 3 things that TW wants to complete when it comes to Sieges. (I'm not even asking for timelines...)
  • Are sieges something that TW is even working on right now

Please and thank you.

 

[StewVader]

It is quite upsetting to have such a major part of the experience being this faulty and not have any words from the devs.

@Callum could you provide some details about TW's plan when it comes to sieges or ask the corresponding devs to hop here for a quick chat? Things such as:

• What does TW see as the most pressing problems with sieges
• What is the vision for Siege defenders tactics
  • What is the ratio goal of attacker/defenders for a 50% success chance (ballpark is fine)
  • Is this a per scene ratio (as in, different Towns/Castles are easier to defend than others) and how is it planned to communicate this to player or even AI
  • Is how currently untits are placed how you want or is it due for substantial changes
• What are the next, say, 3 things that TW wants to complete when it comes to Sieges. (I'm not even asking for timelines...)
  • Are sieges something that TW is even working on right now

Please and thank you.

+1 - A fair and reasonable set of questions, I also would like know what TW plans for siege development.

 

[SGT_Night]

It is quite upsetting to have such a major part of the experience being this faulty and not have any words from the devs.

@Callum could you provide some details about TW's plan when it comes to sieges or ask the corresponding devs to hop here for a quick chat? Things such as:

• What does TW see as the most pressing problems with sieges
• What is the vision for Siege defenders tactics
  • What is the ratio goal of attacker/defenders for a 50% success chance (ballpark is fine)
  • Is this a per scene ratio (as in, different Towns/Castles are easier to defend than others) and how is it planned to communicate this to player or even AI
  • Is how currently untits are placed how you want or is it due for substantial changes
• What are the next, say, 3 things that TW wants to complete when it comes to Sieges. (I'm not even asking for timelines...)
  • Are sieges something that TW is even working on right now

Please and thank you.

They are aware of the A.I issues on sieges, not sure if all issues that were stated here, but on the past lives (I think the Map editor one) some ppl asked them,A.I not climbing ladders is more of a scene problem.

They talked about their process of doing the scenes, testing, etc and stated that sieges are being worked on and will be a long process (Making new scenes for each castle siege, testing, reserch, etc).

Very good thread btw, these are some really important points that TW need to look into.

 

[black_bulldog]

I have tested every single siege map the game offers in custom battle with the following settings:
400 Defenders
500 Attackers
Level 2 Walls
Four ballista for defender
No siege weapons for attackers
One tower, ram and ladders
Factions were mostly based on proximity of castle or mirror match
I excluded Battania from testing (kept one result in) since they get Battanian Heroes in custom battle who are beyond op in sieges and have an unfair advantage against the other factions.
Vlandia&Sturgia were set to 50% archers and no horse archers to keep the infantry, archer(50:50) ratio intact.

Spoiler: Table of Data

Fortification​	Attacker​	Defender​	Result for A​	A-D Death Ratio​	Negative Observations​	Positive Observations​
​	​	​	​	​	​	​
Ain Baliq Castle​	Empire​	Aserai​	Win​	278-390​	Archers on major tower broken, barely shoot; Medium towers aren't properly manned; Inaccessible ballista on one tower; Gate killzone archers have trouble shooting; Many bots get stuck on gatehouse stairs;​	Plenty of stones to throw;​
Argoron​	Sturgia​	Empire​	Loss​	438-119​	Infantry doesn't properly defend against siege tower, keeps running away from it and returning;​	Good ballista placement and use; Decent archer utilization besides bugged window archers​
Baltakhand​	Empire​	Khuzait​	Win​	355-390​	Initial formation placement is bad; Only uses five control groups; Very few archer positions, some that make sense aren't even unused; Defenders don't block the gate; Boring straight wall section​	​
Car Banseth​	Vlandia​	Battania​	Loss​	329-56​	Both gate ballista weren't used;​	Nearly all archer positions filled and properly used; Awesome design​
Chaikand​	Empire​	Khuzait​	Loss​	414-238​	Only uses five control groups; Towers and gatehouse top don't have archers; Infantry does not properly defend against ladders on right side (always defender perspective); Boring straight wall section; Attacker archers just blob up in front of walls​	​
Galend​	Empire​	Vlandia​	Loss​	486-363​	Unused inner wall section on right side; Hill offers op archer blob position;​	Awesome design, especially the staggered wall section;​
Hakkun Castle​	Empire​	Khuzait​	Loss​	484-339​	Same as Baltakhand&Chaikand​	​
Lyakis​	Empire​	Aserai​	Loss​	456-289​	Attacker archer fortifications too far away to properly engage walls; Right side tower not properly manned;​	Good design; Defenders actually block the gate;​
Jaculan​	Empire​	Vlandia​	Win​	377-384​	Defenders don't block the gate; Archers perform very badly​	​
Lageta​	Vlandia​	Empire​	Win​	284-381​	Defenders don't block the gate; Archers perform very badly;​	​
Lianoc Hen Castle​	Vlandia​	Empire​	Win​	​	Awful fps unplayable​	​
Lycaron​	Vlandia​	Empire​	Win​	414-385​	Defenders don't block the gate; Archers perform very badly;​	​
Makeb​	Empire​	Khuzait​	Win​	442-384​	Defenders don't block the gate; Archers perform very badly; Blobs on wall​	​
Pen Cannoc​	Empire​	Empire​	Loss​	450-150​	Defenders don't block the gate;​	Awesome design, best archer placement I have seen yet; No blobs on walls; Infantry moves from cover to engine sections only once they arrive, no pointlessly getting shot on the wall before that; Attacking archers don't have serious advantage​
Qasira​	Aserai​	Aserai​	Loss​	441-165​	Defenders don't block the gate; Nobody defends against right side siege tower;​	Decent archer setup, no wall blobs;​
Quyaz​	Aserai​	Aserai​	Loss​	461-234​	Bugged wall section leading to stuck troops;​	No op archery blobs in front of castle; Well designed attacker approach; Defenders properly block the gate;​
Seonon​	Sturgia​	Sturgia​	Loss​	491-166​	Defenders don't block the gate;​	Great design; Good archer placement for both the attacker and defender;​
Sibir​	Empire​	Sturgia​	Win​	225-398​	Defenders don't block the gate; Too big to defend; Complexity remains unused and becomes a disadvantage​	​
Simira Castle​	Sturgia​	Khuzait​	Loss​	444-126​	Defenders don't block the gate; Some of the fortification for attacking archers are a little too far away;​	Good design; Plenty of manned attacker fortifications;​
Tarkor Castle​	Empire​	Sturgia​	Win​	356-376​	Blobs on wall; Archers don't man inner wall and gatehouse top; Attackers don't use archer fortifications, just blob; Infantry doesn't properly defend against siege tower left side and ladders right side;​	Awesome design; Defenders actually block the gate;​
Talivel Castle​	Empire​	Vlandia​	Win​	185-375​	Op archer blob right in front of wall; Archers blob on wall; Many archer positions unmanned; A literal death trap;​	​
Thractorae Castle​	Empire​	Empire​	Loss​	436-211​	Defenders don't block the gate; Archers blob on wall; Unmanned archer positions;​	​
Ustokol Castle​	Vlandia​	Sturgia​	Win​	158-372​	Only four control groups; Massive archer blob on wall --->almost entire castle remains unmanned(archers) due to blob; Massive enemy archer blob on the left side;​	Good use of attacker fortifications; Gate properly blocked;​
Varnovapol​	Vlandia​	Sturgia​	Win​	356-399​	Attacking archers too close to wall and too blobby; Literally nobody managed to climb up the siege tower right side;​	Plenty of attacker fortifications; Awesome gate killbox; Defenders actually block the gate;​
Verona Castle​	Empire​	Empire​	Loss​	465-344​	Attacking archers too close to wall and too blobby; Boring straight wall section; Defenders don't block the gate;​	​

I have identified multiple problems which stem purely from bad design practices which should be easily fixable.

1. Lack of using control groups properly

Why are control groups important? In every siege there are three melee troop groups. One for the gate and for each wall entrance (ladder or tower). It seems that level designers have control over the positioning of each group and especially for the wall entrances there seems to be an option to keep them in cover until the equipment has actually been deployed which is when they'll move to their defense position(which does not always actually line up with the equipment on some maps). All other groups are used for archers. This is obviously important, because archers are key to winning a siege defense or losing it. How does the previous mentioned system work for archers? I don't know for sure! All I know is that there is an option to split defending archers into at least six groups to spread out around the castle. These groups each have a "reserve" which is where archers who do not currently occupy a designated archer position remain. Having more groups in different secure locations makes it easier to replace fallen archers quickly and keep up fire, the best examples are Car Banseth and Pen Cannoc . The opposite of this is having archers in a single or two massive groups who just wait for their assignment somewhere on the wall, examples for this are Ustokol Castle and basically all maps where I have noted low control group count. Obviously archers will have to go a long way to get to an archer position to occupy it and giant blobs of units are easy targets for attacking archers, this is doubly true when the "reserve" has been placed somewhere on the wall in the line of fire. For one they will be easily killed without offering much resistance and secondly it may lead to massive blocking on the walls preventing units from where they want to go.

2. Bad positioning of control groups

The reasons for this I discussed above. Many maps also suffer from this in two other regards which are the gate troops and both wall troops. On way too many maps the defenders are too far away from the gate to stop the enemy from pouring in once it has been breached. This negatively impacts the utility of murderholes in gatehouses and scrutinizes the defense of the walls which will easily be swarmed by the gate attackers who are going to charge in. On some maps the wall defenders have trouble for two reasons: One they are placed in a bad position from the beginning where they can be shot upon or are stuck and two they do not defend at the right location which would be right in front of the siege tower or ladders. They'll honorably wait for their enemies to scale the walls and engage them somewhere on the wall while allowing the enemy to clean out archers in the opposite direction.

3. Aggressive placement of attacking archers and BLOBS

Paradoxically on many maps the attackers spawn with their archers close to the walls ready to shoot while defenders actually have to go to their designated archer positions. This is compounded by some maps putting defenders at an absolute firepower disadvantage. This is what I mean:

Spoiler: firepower disparity problem

The defending archers face an overwhelming force at all time. This leads to nonsensical siege scenarios where the defenders either trade 1:1 or do worse than the attackers. Optionally it gets even worse when the attacking infantry waits for the assault to begin in front of the attacking archer blobs and thereby absorb most of the ranged fire with their shields. Most maps are like this, but there are positive example on how to do it better which are Pen Cannoc, Quyaz and Seonon. Archers are farther away from the wall reducing deadliness, but there are many fortifications with assigned archer positions for the attacker improving the atmosphere by a lot.

Spoiler: Screenshots of this problem

4. All windows are useless

Some castles have up to 50% of their important archer positions indoors firing from a slit window position. They are just broken. Archers will not shoot through the tiny windows most of the time, only when all stars align will a bot even attempt to do so for once.

5. Lack of archer positions

To wrap this up another short point: Many maps seem to lack archer positions where they make sense, for example on top of the gatehouse, looking down the murderhole or some towers.



After posting negatively about sieges I wanted to get the whole picture and went ahead testing them extensively. My results actually surprise myself as I wasn't expecting map design to have this much of an impact on the enjoyability of sieges. While all of this has nothing to do with attackers being unable to climb ladders effectively I no longer think that having them do so will make sieges automatically good. In fact it will exasperated existing problems of badly designed sieges which weren't properly tested. There is a world of difference between fighting a siege at Car Banseth or Pen Cannoc to Baltakhand or Ustokol Castle. Level designers have a lot of control over how a siege plays on an AI level, so I am really looking forward to the modding tools being released soon.

Very interesting, we knew there were issues with sieges but not this pervasive. It sounds like TW has some serious work on their hands to get this fixed, thanks for your hard work.

 

[Stromming]

Lolwat?
Nice findings.

I think there is NO WAY an attacker should be able to win with only 25% more troops.
Attacking fortifications should be alot more costly than this.

 

[MostBlunted]

+1 - A fair and reasonable set of questions, I also would like know what TW plans for siege development.

Which won´t get answered at all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If we´re lucky we may get the usual generic "We are looking into it answer.".

 

[jipped]

I think there should be an option to scale the numbers a bit. Last i saw, you can have around 2k units figjting at once as long as none are cav as horses count as a unit.

It could be over 1k attackers vs however many defenders this way

 

[Dionaea]

2. Bad positioning of control groups

The reasons for this I discussed above. Many maps also suffer from this in two other regards which are the gate troops and both wall troops.

Wait is this why your normal: 1 infantry 2 ranged 3 cavalry menu is completely messed up during sieges and why all your infantry and ranged are split up in tiny groups?

I wonder/hope that taleworlds will find a way to add the option of disabling this feature.