Does Anyone Else Tweak Siege Towers?

[estevesbk]

Hello!

So, I find it a little unbalanced that at 10 Engineering you take only 2 hours to build ladders, and 30 hours to build a siege tower.

It's like: 1 Siege Tower = 15 Ladders

I believe that there should be castles or towns harder to invade but this difference is too much IMHO.

So I reduce to half of the time, which would take 15 hours at 10 Engineering.

I don't feel good Tweaking because sometimes it seems it would disrupt the "normal" game difficulty, but this is the only tweak that I cannot avoid doing.


Am I alone or someone else feels that way too and also tweak Siege Towers? 

 

[Alfredthegreat]

I had tweaked siege tower once, but my game crashed right after that.

 

[blainedeyoung]

I like to think it just makes those castles especially hard to take, so I mostly avoid places that require siege towers. 

 

[MickDick]

I would be fine with it if it also affected the AI sieging... but it doesn't.

 

[estevesbk]

I had tweaked siege tower once, but my game crashed right after that.

Never crashed for me... Maybe when you start a new game you can try again? I've tweaked only the time needed but not the speed, etc.

I like to think it just makes those castles especially hard to take, so I mostly avoid places that require siege towers. 

Yes but 30 hours on 10 Engineering seems a little too much... When I try to conquer my first faction to found my new Kingdom, I first capture a ladders castle and fortify it with troops. Then when I have lots of troops to occupy other garrisons, I do a really quick strike, never stopping... And I begin with the Siege Tower Castles because on them there wouldn't be too many lords so they would be easier... If I leave them to the end almost all the lords will be there garrisoning and recruiting troops... And I like to think I can be able to capture a Siege Tower Castle in 2 strikes at most.

Even reducing by half of the time, it's a real PITA still... But at least I can afford this PITA 

I would be fine with it if it also affected the AI sieging... but it doesn't.

That's also my point. I reinforce the castles that I needed Siege Towers to capture with extra troops so they are less attractive for the AI. It's unfair.

 

[blainedeyoung]

Yeah, there was one time I left Chaulbuk Castle (or one of those way north out of the way Nord castles) until the end of the game and discovered that there were more than 100 Huscarls in the castle.  It was unbelievably hard to take.  I finally did it with an army of 150 Huscarls and just took 'em man for man.  Basically the same thing will happen with Rhodok castles with sharpshooters and sergeants.  They'll get dug in like a tick. 

 

[estevesbk]

Yeah, there was one time I left Chaulbuk Castle (or one of those way north out of the way Nord castles) until the end of the game and discovered that there were more than 100 Huscarls in the castle.  It was unbelievably hard to take.  I finally did it with an army of 150 Huscarls and just took 'em man for man.  Basically the same thing will happen with Rhodok castles with sharpshooters and sergeants.  They'll get dug in like a tick.

Nords are in fact the first faction I take over to make my Kingdom. With proper tactics, they are not that hard to take over. And Jelbegi Castle is at a good location, close to many Swadian villages and not that far from the Rhodok ones.

The basic strategy on ladders always works: attack with infantry/knights, hide behind them on a line, get a bow, shoot all the archers, retreat, attack again until they run out of archers. Then bring the sharpshooters to hold a line and fire and see their infantry fall as they try to throw stuff on them.

Siege Towers are much more bloody. The only thing that can save is a very high surgery. But in the end, is a very good and well protected land.


Rhodoks I tend to leave for last. This is the time when you as king and marshall calls for ALL your vassals and hope that numbers beat them. On siege towers at least. On ladders, you can get a troop of Vaegir Marksmen and do the hit-and-run that hopefully they will beat those sharpshooters because they fire faster.

 

[blainedeyoung]

I never tried retreating after taking out the archers.  That sounds like a good idea, but I'd complain about the game time it takes to build new ladders.  Obviously you couldn't do that with siege towers. 

The Nords have a serious problem with sucky archers but superior infantry so that makes sense to me, but I always leave who goes first to a matter of convenience.  Whoever attacks my empire first is the first to go.  I don't usually start wars.  I just finish them. 

I always align myself with the Swadians before I start an empire, so they're always hostile to me from the beginning.  Swadian knights are the most feared soldiers in the game, but they're not that impressive on foot. 

But I'm not sure leaving Rhodoks till last is a good idea.  Dealing with top-tier Rhodoks in sieges is the worst. 

 

[estevesbk]

The time is minimal. I go directly from mercenary to King. That's right, no vassal. I just attack Jelbegi Castle when it's the right time. It's usually around days 200-250 but depends on the game.

Some of the advantages of doing that:
- Your personal relation with other factions (except the one you attacked in this case the Nords) will be your Kingdom's relation. So if you helped 10 Emir out of jail along the way when you were just a mercenary passing through towns e,g,, your Kingdom's relation with the Sarranids will be 20 which would make it easier to sign at least a non-agression treaty.
- All the previous time will be spend building your and your companions gear and levels, and also Enterprises so you can indeed finance a great attack. I believe if you become a vassal you waste too much time garrisoning your towns and attending to matters of the realm.

The ladders strategy of holding position with an infantry/cavalry, hiding behind, taking all the archers, retreating, attacking again, etc. is a must.

I usually go with 50% Knights and 50% Sharpshooters. The ones I place above will be the ones that spawn more. So if e.g. on my party screen I place the Knights above the Sharpshooters, they will be the ones that most will spawn.

Then when they've ran out of archers I place the Sharpshooters above the Knights, just holding near the ladders and firing and they can easily beat the nords.

The Achilles' heel of the nords is that despite their infantry is strong and with strong shields, they try to throw stuff at your Sharpshooters holding position and firing. The act of lowering the shield to throw something makes them very vulnerable

But of course, Siege Towers is different. Lots of food for morale and surgery skill involved

 

[Rhodok Sergeant]

What I want to know is, how long did it take to build a siege tower in the middle ages? At least a simple one like in M&B.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The ones like in mount and blade didn't exist. If the walls were that short you'd just use ladders.
Most of the time however siege engines were built at the beginning of a campaign and taken to their destination along with the army. If you relied on the forests of your enemy for siege equipment, you'd be vulnerable to a scorched earth.

 

[Rhodok Sergeant]

I've read a bit about medieval warfare and I recall at least some instances where the siege towers were only assembled at the site, with the materials prepared beforehand, or for example taken from ships if any were nearby. Actually hauling complete towers over long distances seems excessive.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Obviously they were sort of ikea'd and then assembled (a day's work), but the point I'm making is that they'd usually be built as early as possible in a campaign. It's the one thing that's bothered me about the total war games. I don't see how a siege engine would slow down a (large) army either, considering it'd be carried on a cart or on pack animals with the rest of the supplies.