First of all, lets make it clear that Sieges should always be worth fighting because waiting until opponet runs out of food is boring. But they should also be much harder.
So i am aware multi level sieges are something devs want to add, and that would be brilliant. I hope it makes sieges harder for attacker. I want that because in many ways i think sieges are too easy at the moment. Just bring larger army than defenders and it will usually also be of higher quality and that will be enough. Its not hard at all. On strategic level defending seems harder, you need to scatter you forces as garrisons and try to prevent enemy raids and somehow still have enough time and men to ride to aid of defenders and end the siege. I appreciate that there are difficulties like that, but defending does not really seem worth it when you could just go on offensive yourself.
Its not the worst, defending still has some advantages, its not major game breaker like it is in some games. Defending a castle is incredibly fun. But when i go on offensive, it seems to be too easy to attack. In Warband there were more situations where i would be surprised by how strong the defense is and loose the battle - but that is also largely because i am more experienced player now, its not hard to attack when you have enough Huscarls and Rhodock sergeants.
I think attacking is so easy because battles are so short. Even massive battles are not very long at all. In longer battles defenders would have lot more time to bombard the attackers with arrows from multiple directions. How to achieve longer battles is easier said than done. Movement speed seems to be fine, perhaps little too fast when you have high athletics. Missiles are little too strong/armor little too weak, i propose giving small buff to armor and small nerf to arrows but double the number of arrows per quiver to make archers more useful in longer battles and not just in current short ones. Not sure if defenders in sieges use arrow buckets, but if they do number of arrows is ofc not important in siege battles.
Another thing that helps is having more dramatic effect on city's prosperity and population longer the siege is. People should also hate the conqueror, longer and more destructive the siege is, more people should hate the conqueror. If you are re-taking city that was taken from you in the same war and especially if culture is the same, penalties to relations should be much smaller.
Also in multi-level sieges, once defender has retreated to where ever they make their last stand, number of defenders who fight to the death should depend on number of casualties they have inflicted on the enemy. This would give strong incentive to fight for every part of the city and not just immediately fall back to the keep (or where ever you make your last stand). You should only fall back to the keep if you don't have enough men to defend rest of the city. Keep ofc should be either easier to defend or just smaller than outer walls of the city/castle, so you should be able to mount defense with much less men.
Choosing when to keep fighting and when to retreat would be really interesting tactical decision to make. Also, where do you want to retreat? Just short distance to the streets, or to another wall if that exists? Or all the way to the keep? Defense in depth only works if you manage to inflict enough casualties in process, and static defenses/last stands will only work if defenders are not overwhelmed. Defenders should always want to inflict losses to enemy before they make their last stand.
So i am aware multi level sieges are something devs want to add, and that would be brilliant. I hope it makes sieges harder for attacker. I want that because in many ways i think sieges are too easy at the moment. Just bring larger army than defenders and it will usually also be of higher quality and that will be enough. Its not hard at all. On strategic level defending seems harder, you need to scatter you forces as garrisons and try to prevent enemy raids and somehow still have enough time and men to ride to aid of defenders and end the siege. I appreciate that there are difficulties like that, but defending does not really seem worth it when you could just go on offensive yourself.
Its not the worst, defending still has some advantages, its not major game breaker like it is in some games. Defending a castle is incredibly fun. But when i go on offensive, it seems to be too easy to attack. In Warband there were more situations where i would be surprised by how strong the defense is and loose the battle - but that is also largely because i am more experienced player now, its not hard to attack when you have enough Huscarls and Rhodock sergeants.
I think attacking is so easy because battles are so short. Even massive battles are not very long at all. In longer battles defenders would have lot more time to bombard the attackers with arrows from multiple directions. How to achieve longer battles is easier said than done. Movement speed seems to be fine, perhaps little too fast when you have high athletics. Missiles are little too strong/armor little too weak, i propose giving small buff to armor and small nerf to arrows but double the number of arrows per quiver to make archers more useful in longer battles and not just in current short ones. Not sure if defenders in sieges use arrow buckets, but if they do number of arrows is ofc not important in siege battles.
Another thing that helps is having more dramatic effect on city's prosperity and population longer the siege is. People should also hate the conqueror, longer and more destructive the siege is, more people should hate the conqueror. If you are re-taking city that was taken from you in the same war and especially if culture is the same, penalties to relations should be much smaller.
Also in multi-level sieges, once defender has retreated to where ever they make their last stand, number of defenders who fight to the death should depend on number of casualties they have inflicted on the enemy. This would give strong incentive to fight for every part of the city and not just immediately fall back to the keep (or where ever you make your last stand). You should only fall back to the keep if you don't have enough men to defend rest of the city. Keep ofc should be either easier to defend or just smaller than outer walls of the city/castle, so you should be able to mount defense with much less men.
Choosing when to keep fighting and when to retreat would be really interesting tactical decision to make. Also, where do you want to retreat? Just short distance to the streets, or to another wall if that exists? Or all the way to the keep? Defense in depth only works if you manage to inflict enough casualties in process, and static defenses/last stands will only work if defenders are not overwhelmed. Defenders should always want to inflict losses to enemy before they make their last stand.
