Keep Fights after Sieges - Good Idea, but

Users who are viewing this thread

Defensive sieges (to my knowledge) follow the same ruleset as offensive ones. It is the same mission. But yes, I would also say that the defensive siege experience provides less value to players currently in contrast to offensive sieges because it happens much less frequently - and it would be nice if we could find a balanced solution that would allow players to experience them more often. (We have already made some such tweaks throughout EA - such as having the AI take player strength into account less strongly when they calculate a siege target or an assault action.)
I would again advocate for taking control of your governor in a defensive battle, this would highly increase the importance of governors and your bond with the characters, this will increase the amount of defensive sieges the player will be able to play without wasting time by sitting idle in a castle or a town.
 
I haven't tried 1.6.1 yet, but to me it's truly mindboggling that they didn't think about letting you pick who gets to go.... I mean seriously?

For how long was that a major problem with hideouts before they finally implemented that feature? and it's basically the same thing, you're going in to face a number of enemies with a limited number of allies.

Come on TW...

I would again advocate for taking control of your governor in a defensive battle, this would highly increase the importance of governors and your bond with the characters, this will increase the amount of defensive sieges the player will be able to play without wasting time by sitting idle in a castle or a town.

That's a great idea.
 
As the player, it could be a strategic option to retreat to the keep if it takes the attacker extra time before he is ready to assault. This would give an army marching to defend the settlement/castle more time.(not sure if this is already the case)
 

Shaxx

Squire
Keep fights are set up to favor attackers
Sieges in general seem to favor attackers. I cannot remember that last time I lost an offensive siege, less numbers, trash troops, no siege equipment? Not a problem. It's like a field battle but I don't have to do anything, I just win.

The issue is that using ladders to attack the walls is very effective, most troops get to the top of the wall unassailed by missiles, and then just plop down on the wall in front of defenders fairly easily. In Warband the amount of troops lost to missile fire at that stage was usually quite high, and upon reaching the top, your troops actually setting foot on the wall was a hotly contested IF statement and most got brained as soon as their head poked up over the ladder.
If a few players are to experience a particular feature rarely, it becomes less worthwhile to pursue than a feature that more players are likely to experience often - all else being equal.
It is only "rarely" because of other imbalances in the game, mainly that it is easy, and you rarely need to be on the defensive.

If there was more reason or even an imperative for us to sit in castles/settlements we would have more opportunities to take part in siege defenses. A resting/fatigue system like the example from the I'm Tired mod could help with this. In addition to lowering troop wages when in a settlement like in Warband, but instead tie it to how many hours rested in a settlement that day rather than a boolean 'were you in a settlement when the wage tick happened' which was easily exploitable by the player back then.

If you are wondering how the AI will handle a fatigue system and that it would take too long, or it would be too complicated, just make it player only, the game is too easy to keep giving the AI the same hurdles as the player. And the ImTired mod actually heavily modifies the AI to use the system; so it can be done, and done by one person, and inside a short time window.
 
Last edited:

Dreed89

Sergeant at Arms
I would again advocate for taking control of your governor in a defensive battle, this would highly increase the importance of governors and your bond with the characters, this will increase the amount of defensive sieges the player will be able to play without wasting time by sitting idle in a castle or a town.
I really like this idea.

The cost of implementing it should not be that high and it would bring an immediate gain by making defensive sieges more accessible without tweaking more numbers to favor the player.

Playing as different characters with their specialized skills would be cool too.

For instance I might prefer creating a governor skilled in bows, and another one in 2H weapons.

@Duh_TaleWorlds , what's TW's take on playing as another character? Is this suggestion by nature out of the table or might it make it to an internal ideas meeting?
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
I really like this idea.

The cost of implementing it should not be that high and it would bring an immediate gain by making defensive sieges more accessible without tweaking more numbers to favor the player.

Playing as different characters with their specialized skills would be cool too.

For instance I might prefer creating a governor skilled in bows, and another one in 2H weapons.

@Duh_TaleWorlds , what's TW's take on playing as another character? Is this suggestion by nature out of the table or might it make it to an internal ideas meeting?
Considering they won’t let us fight as troops once you get downed in a battle should tell you all you need to know.
 
To get a bit more back on topic - A question to those that are interested in defensive keep fights. Would you feel that the current offensive set up would offer an enjoyable defensive experience to you? That is to say - no control over your troops, no reinforcements for your side and generally a mission that you are quite likely to lose (or, well, are intended to lose - since another challenge may be players exploiting the terrain to simply 1on1 200 bots and basically mean that no siege has to be lost anymore... encouraging that very approach). If not, how do you imagine it should work?
I'll never choose a line of play that puts me at any disadvantage or risks more troop loss. For me to ever consider allowing an enemy to complete a siege camp, let alone a secondary battle, the advantage of defending would have to be immensely greater then it is. IME there is in fact no real advantage to being a defender and I always sally out because being able to position and move troops freely in open battle always benefits me 10X more then the AI, even when greatly out numbered.
or, well, are intended to lose - since another challenge may be players exploiting the terrain to simply 1on1 200 bots and basically mean that no siege has to be lost anymore... encouraging that very approach)
For sure, people already have videos of doing this stuff with normal siege defense. Although it's unlikely for me to ever be in that situation I'll 100% fight tooth and nail to defeat the AI, even retreating troops so they don't die while I use the the bad pathing of the enemy to punish them.
 
The issue is that using ladders to attack the walls is very effective, most troops get to the top of the wall unassailed by missiles, and then just plop down on the wall in front of defenders fairly easily. I
I don't know what kind of sieges you have been in. but ladders and sometimes even siege towers are literal meat grinders for the attackers infantry.
the ai walks up to the very top before attacking, by then they've had many opportunities of getting hit by wall defenders. and they now have to push forward enough while exposing their entire body to 5 guys that are all hacking at him. most units die before they complete a single successful attack.

Personally i think the number of ladders should be based on the number of troops of the attacker, up to maybe 6 per side. even when you build siege towers.
But also to increase useful archer posts on the wall so they get to shoot people more before they mount the wall.
 

Dreed89

Sergeant at Arms
Considering they won’t let us fight as troops once you get downed in a battle should tell you all you need to know.
It might have different design reasons such as not wanting to make the player character feel like it could be expendable, or to increase odds the battle will be lost after player dies, etc.

But on the other hand playing as defensive governors will immediately unlock a new gameplay area that's long-sought.

Let's just hope this idea at least gets a comment and evaluated. If not implemented after, well, we keep going as usual.
 
I'll never choose a line of play that puts me at any disadvantage or risks more troop loss. For me to ever consider allowing an enemy to complete a siege camp, let alone a secondary battle, the advantage of defending would have to be immensely greater then it is. IME there is in fact no real advantage to being a defender and I always sally out because being able to position and move troops freely in open battle always benefits me 10X more then the AI, even when greatly out numbered.
But that's contrary to the spirit of the game, and relies on exploits. Now if those exploits were removed and the game was fixed, you'd get very different and more intuitive rationales for doing stuff. Of course it's much better to defend behind walls and chokepoints than to go to the field, as Warband sieges proved and it should be the same in Bannerlord.
 
But that's contrary to the spirit of the game, and relies on exploits. Now if those exploits were removed and the game was fixed, you'd get very different and more intuitive rationales for doing stuff. Of course it's much better to defend behind walls and chokepoints than to go to the field, as Warband sieges proved and it should be the same in Bannerlord.
Well, flank and spank isn't really an exploit but the AI certainly could be improved to attack in a more intelligent way and use a counter attack with it's own mounted and ranged, rather then just kinda look'n at you funny while you kill them. I agree about warband siege and chokepoints, it was certainly advantageous and could help you slim down an enemy faction to take them out in a defensive siege. In addition the chokepoints warband also deployed the ranged much more effectively for defense, having 100 rhodok sharpshooter's and like 30 infantry would hold back most siege forces with little losses. In bannerlord the ranges is just deployed in a skimpy and un effective manner, and the infantry just kind trades blows at the ladders and doesn't really feel like a chokepoint advantage at all.

So yeah, by all means TW should improve AI and troops balance and improve siege deployment and AI. Bring it TW 🤡 💪 Make me want to hide in a castle.
 
Defensive sieges (to my knowledge) follow the same ruleset as offensive ones. It is the same mission. But yes, I would also say that the defensive siege experience provides less value to players currently in contrast to offensive sieges because it happens much less frequently - and it would be nice if we could find a balanced solution that would allow players to experience them more often. (We have already made some such tweaks throughout EA - such as having the AI take player strength into account less strongly when they calculate a siege target or an assault action.)
Why are keep battles only for attacking player
 

MostBlunted

On probation
yes, give the defenders a change to hold out until a relieve force arrives.
Also add winged hussars as troops please :wink:

About the keep fights as a attacker:

I´ve played 4 of them now and they´re fun. But I see them getting as repetitive as the hideouts pretty soon. But I also have not really an idea how to make them more interesting.
 

Danny5

Sergeant at Arms
Also add winged hussars as troops please :wink:

About the keep fights as a attacker:

I´ve played 4 of them now and they´re fun. But I see them getting as repetitive as the hideouts pretty soon. But I also have not really an idea how to make them more interesting.
Perhaps being able to break down doors, where defenders would wait. But yes it will be repetitive, unless if there's always new scenes, unlike hideouts, where we're stuck on the same scenes.
 
I´ve played 4 of them now and they´re fun. But I see them getting as repetitive as the hideouts pretty soon. But I also have not really an idea how to make them more interesting.
Random traps and cave-ins? Extra defenders springing from cupboards and chests? Undisciplined troops running off to loot instead of fight?
 

Artem1s

Sergeant at Arms
WBVC
I´ve played 4 of them now and they´re fun. But I see them getting as repetitive as the hideouts pretty soon. But I also have not really an idea how to make them more interesting.
The thing about hideouts is, that you have to partake in the mission, whereas if you don't feel like storming the keep you can just send your troops to do the job.

Random traps and cave-ins? Extra defenders springing from cupboards and chests? Undisciplined troops running off to loot instead of fight?
That would be hilarious, but it's too complex™ to be added to the game I think. A nice middle ground would be barricades that you have to knock down, whilst the enemy archers pick you off one by one and some sort of randomization regarding chokepoints.
 
Top Bottom