i fight with 2 armies:

[eugenioso]

my first army (the one im usually with) is composed of my "field army" so to speak. so this army will compose warriors who are really fast and powerful. who? swadian knights and nothing else.

at the beginning i started like any other swadian vassal, and after 2 months king Harlaus the Cheap gave me some castle near the rhodok border. after garrisoning it with a lot of troops, i had to start my elite army from scratch again. first i hired over 100 swadian peasants and started to train them to Swadian knights. after 1 month fighting and training i have now 25 knights and 25 men at arms, along with a couple footmen.  the army is absolutely devastating in field battles when charging, though they admittedly suffer somewhat to Khergit armies. i usually avoid them anyway. so i try to siege a nord castle, and even though i take it my casualties were astoundingly high, with nearly half my army killed, most of them knights.

so, i went back to the drawing board. i figured that though knights dominate open field, they are too few to use effectively in siege assaults, so i went ahead and recruited 110 swadian peasants, and after a months training period they comprised of 2/3rds swadian sergeants and infantry, and 1/3 swadian sharpshooters/crossbowmen. this army, heavily armored, was taken to siege another nord castle, and casualties, though still somewhat high, were few in comparison, and after getting some more swadian peasants and training more men they were quickly replaced in a week. so the "siege army" was born.

a pattern has risen: my field army destroys enemy armies in the field, as many as can be found as quickly as possible, and my siege army, after most or all enemy armies are killed/routed, sieges the castles.

my greatest success was taking over Sargoth with my siege army, consisting of 70 swadian sergeants and a few infantry and 40 swadian sharpshooters.

 

[killer-blead]

it was fun to read how you found a effective way of sieging castles as a swadian, good job 

 

[knoddy]

biggest problem i believe is that your tryna take on the nords heavy infantry. i found best castle takers are nord infantry and some rhodok sergeants. i have an army with around 50 knights and then anotehr army with around 20 huscarls and 20 rhodoks. the knights destroy in the open field the infantry take castles and towns with relative ease

 

[Fudgynumnums]

I generally have 2-3 armies garrisoned in Suno. One consists entirely of Rhodok Sergents, one of swaiden sharpshooters and one of a mix between Swaiden Sharpshooters, Sergents and Knights. It all depends on what I'm taking/fighting.

 

[RalliX]

You should have put this thread in the duck and Spackle tavern. Your discovery of the fact Swadians are versatile is common to say the least. archers-infantry-calvary they have them all

 

[lovemb]

Is anybody suggesting that at max difficulty, you can siege a town with let's say 100 vs 400 men, compromised mostly of huscarls , or rodhok sergeants and win?

If that is so, please let me know, cause i'm not getting no help from my allies when sieging towns.

 

[Dragon13]

You should have put this thread in the duck and Spackle tavern. Your discovery of the fact Swadians are versatile is common to say the least. archers-infantry-calvary they have them all

So do Vaegirs, who switch Cavalry power with Archer power.

Plus, the 'Versitile' thing makes the infantry and Crossbowmen Weaker. Swadian Sergeants are weaker than Rhodok Sergeants, and the crossbowmen...the Rhodoks win in that, definitely.

 

[ddrake]

Swadian Sergeants are weaker than Rhodok Sergeants...

Actually my tests on the open field show otherwise.
In a siege Rhodocks have an advantage due to longer weapon. Useful at the ladder bottleneck, no matter if they are defending or attacking.

 

[knoddy]

Is anybody suggesting that at max difficulty, you can siege a town with let's say 100 vs 400 men, compromised mostly of huscarls , or rodhok sergeants and win?

If that is so, please let me know, cause i'm not getting no help from my allies when sieging towns.

dunno bout max i play on bout 70% difficulty and yes i can take towns and castles with around 100 men against anywhere up to about 400

Cheers Knoddy

 

[lovemb]

Cool thanks for the tip - i tried it last night and was able to take Tihr with 100 men, mostly composed of knights/rodhok sergeants and huscarls, with about 25 sharpshooters to thin the ranks! Of course, i wasn't awarded the town (grrrr)

 

[Lord Bryggan]

Ugh, Tihr- I still shudder at the memories.

I took over the world with two separate armies.  One was Vaegir knights, and the other was nord huscarls.  I needed an all cavalry army to get around the map fast enough to protect all my holdings.  It was a very irritating way to play the game.  I'd take a castle or city, park my nords in it, run around with a few knights getting recruits to garrison the castle (50 recruits for a castle, 100 for towns), then grab the rest of my knights and gallop full speed to the other side of the map to raise a siege or kill a looting army.  Then lay a beating on 10-15 lords who are getting good sixed armies, then, while they are licking their wounds, grab some nord recruits, head to the last castle I took, switch my knights for nords and start all over again.

The nonstop fighting got a little boring, and I actually quit the game for a few months because of it.  Then I returned revitalized, and finished the rest of the map.  You also have to be a little careful.  I had a lord who kept sieging Asugan castle with his 120 men.  I finally had a chance to go chase him off, and zipped to Khergistan with about 60 knights.  I saw the battle had already started, so I rushed to join the defenders.  I got the shock of my life when I saw it was around 1500 against our 100, instead of the 120 against our 100.  Apparently the entire khergit army was there.  I would love to tell you how we held off the enemy against all odds, but alas...

 

[lovemb]

Ah good one - i love those 1500 vs 100 odds, i thought once i could hold a castle against 1500 swadians, well my party killed about 900 of them, but only 40 left versus the last 500 or so, taught me not to be so cocky even with my big sword!

Playing on the side of a faction (sounds like you went rebel?) is less intensive than your experience, but it's equally annoying to have lords on your side being pretty much useless, as all these castles i took, the enemies have regrouped and taken them back right under our noses, it's kind of interesting though in a way, for a while i thought i'd beat the swadians and nords pretty easily as I took over so much of their territory, but they did something i hadn't seen before, they started to group up to take back their castles...big groups!

Well it's all good fun, thanks for sharing! I took Tihr again (saved game) and again was awarded to another dude, hopefully the next town will go to me, now that I know how to take them after a few tries!

Ugh, Tihr- I still shudder at the memories.

I took over the world with two separate armies.  One was Vaegir knights, and the other was nord huscarls.  I needed an all cavalry army to get around the map fast enough to protect all my holdings.  It was a very irritating way to play the game.  I'd take a castle or city, park my nords in it, run around with a few knights getting recruits to garrison the castle (50 recruits for a castle, 100 for towns), then grab the rest of my knights and gallop full speed to the other side of the map to raise a siege or kill a looting army.  Then lay a beating on 10-15 lords who are getting good sixed armies, then, while they are licking their wounds, grab some nord recruits, head to the last castle I took, switch my knights for nords and start all over again.

The nonstop fighting got a little boring, and I actually quit the game for a few months because of it.  Then I returned revitalized, and finished the rest of the map.  You also have to be a little careful.  I had a lord who kept sieging Asugan castle with his 120 men.  I finally had a chance to go chase him off, and zipped to Khergistan with about 60 knights.  I saw the battle had already started, so I rushed to join the defenders.  I got the shock of my life when I saw it was around 1500 against our 100, instead of the 120 against our 100.  Apparently the entire khergit army was there.  I would love to tell you how we held off the enemy against all odds, but alas...

 

[Saint of Blood]

Once you're level 30-ish, i hired about 100 swadian farmers. Then, I have high-ish training, (8 or 9), and so does one of my companions. I just camp a few days, and after 1 week, most of them are footman-knights. So, try that out. ^^ I personally love knights for seiging castles. I had an army of 90 Knights, and only 3 died sieging a 200 garrisoned castle. I also fought took over a city that had a total of 400 troops in the same day.

Edit:

I also use the thing that puts more than 1 latter on a castle. It puts 2 ladders in a castle, and 3 in a city siege.

 

[Lord Bryggan]

Ah good one - i love those 1500 vs 100 odds, i thought once i could hold a castle against 1500 swadians, well my party killed about 900 of them, but only 40 left versus the last 500 or so, taught me not to be so cocky even with my big sword!


Well it's all good fun, thanks for sharing! I took Tihr again (saved game) and again was awarded to another dude, hopefully the next town will go to me, now that I know how to take them after a few tries!

My knights were absolutely massacred.  Asugan castle is designed for archers, and I had none.  I pulled my guys away from the wall immediately yet still lost a few recruits to their arrows.  I tried finding a decent defendable position near the spawn point, but it was hopeless.  We were swarmed and didn't really cause that much damage.

I did go rebel, and one thing lords are good for is defending your territories.  When I had them, I never used them for sieges, I'd just order them all to patrol border towns and villages.  You get 5 lords circling one village at a chokepoint and not many enemies will get through, or at least will hold them up till you get there.  Also with lords you don't have an enemy lord with 5 men raiding your villages.  I wish the messages I get from villages were a little more detailed, say, tell me how many enemies there are.  Big difference between 10 men and 1500.

 

[captain lust]

This really is a silly thread.

However, I approve of the idea of using two different armies for two different purposes.

It's hardly revolutionary but well done it's right.

 

[Dragon13]

Swadian Sergeants are weaker than Rhodok Sergeants...

Actually my tests on the open field show otherwise.
In a siege Rhodocks have an advantage due to longer weapon. Useful at the ladder bottleneck, no matter if they are defending or attacking.

Well, every time I do an open battle, my Rhodok sergeants own the Swadian sergeants one-on-one.

Not to mention the only top-tier unit in Swadian parties are usually Knights. The other units are usually skirmishers and the next tier one.

 

[killer-blead]

the only downside when having 2 armies is when you have to switch your army with the other which you have stored up in another castle at the other side of the freaken map.

 

[Lord Bryggan]

I also 'misplaced' a lot of troops.  I was training nords when one of my fiefs was attacked, so I parked them in a castle, grabbed my knights and ran off to battle.  After I beat them, I completely forgot which castle I put my nords in.  I didn't find them till much later.

 

[ddrake]

Swadian Sergeants are weaker than Rhodok Sergeants...

Actually my tests on the open field show otherwise.
In a siege Rhodocks have an advantage due to longer weapon. Useful at the ladder bottleneck, no matter if they are defending or attacking.

Well, every time I do an open battle, my Rhodok sergeants own the Swadian sergeants one-on-one.

Not to mention the only top-tier unit in Swadian parties are usually Knights. The other units are usually skirmishers and the next tier one.

Well, tests were done in charge for both armies. No orders from player.
If you order your party to hold ground and stay close you will definitely have an advantage.
Purpose of the test was to see who would come out best in melee. Unit comparison. So no other units were put in.
Of course in game battles are a different story....