Keep Fights after Sieges - Good Idea, but

[dannazgu]

Yeah, anything that doesn't throw troops away in clunky, un-mangle bot on bot fights is good. It be a cool flavor too if some lord personalities, if in the besieged fiefs, would challenge you to a duel at certain time of building siege camp, if you lose it sets back the siege camp progress and you lose moral, but if you win the lord parties won't fight in the siege... or something. Also small sally out skirmishes would be cool too, like in warband where only if they have beyond a excess in the fief and a lord, will they attack with a small portion. Like at night certain lords-types will try and sneak attack on your camp

I hope they take in consideration, after all duels is already implemented.. idk how code, but if they could in hideouts they can do on Sieges, that's my logic.
I just want few things actually on the vanilla, the rest I dont mind if I have to pay dlcs for it, like the biggest feature I'd love see was culture change of clans, settlement, the world wouldn t be static.
but would be a nice feature as well if they add like ck3 doing, royal court features, and death during sieges, I dont mean battles but when you're bombarding the walls with trebuchets and catapults the residing people, like wife, brother, even the child could be killed since it means you well, bombarding the castle or keep with deadly engines

 

[CrazyElf]

Having said that, I'm sure people will take into account any feedback given on them as we go forward - and they may very well come up with solutions that I can't

I think that a case could be made for some form of "last stand" for both the defender and attacker.

In other words, the attacker will most likely win, but it will be a very costly Pyrrhic victory. On a strategic level, losing many troops to a siege might leave a faction's army vulnerable to a counterattack or an effort by the existing faction to recapture their settlement.

Oh it sounded like you had already posted/submitted the suggestions. If you haven't formulated them, it may be best to write them down, yes. You can easily reach me/us on the modding discord as well.

I would love to see Taleworlds and the Realistic Battle Mod team collaborate closely together.

@Philozoraptor - would it be possible for the RBM team to ask to work with TW on armor and combat mechanics at some point as well? I think at least some of the features of RBM should be added to the base game.

 

[camdenkatz]

I think this is a great balancing feature, because when defenders get chased into the keep they will inevitably accrue more kills on the attackers, even if they lose. This means there will be less of that constant castle/city swapping due to the extra manpower required to take even poorly defended fiefs. Good for stopping countries from becoming steamrollers and good for slowing them down if they do.

 

[KingEroc1st]

constant castle/city swapping

that is due to the game mechanic where AIs don't and can't react to enemy aggression until the enemy army is already at their gates. gathering a defensive army and marching against that just never makes it in time, and they end up just sieging it back after the enemy has already all left.

I constantly observe the game in cheat mode by teleporting around the map. and i'd say most casualties are incurred during sieges rather than field battles. and the vast majority of the field battles are besieging armies being caught during their camp.

i've never seen a situation where 2 kings declare war against each other. raise the biggest armies they can, and duke it out in a huge open field battle at the border of their kingdoms.
And I think most people would LOVE to see that happen.

 

[Philozoraptor]

I think that a case could be made for some form of "last stand" for both the defender and attacker.

In other words, the attacker will most likely win, but it will be a very costly Pyrrhic victory. On a strategic level, losing many troops to a siege might leave a faction's army vulnerable to a counterattack or an effort by the existing faction to recapture their settlement.




I would love to see Taleworlds and the Realistic Battle Mod team collaborate closely together.

@Philozoraptor - would it be possible for the RBM team to ask to work with TW on armor and combat mechanics at some point as well? I think at least some of the features of RBM should be added to the base game.

We have started direct communication.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

We have started direct communication.

Promising...very promising. Good work guys. ?

 

[CrazyElf]

Oh it sounded like you had already posted/submitted the suggestions. If you haven't formulated them, it may be best to write them down, yes. You can easily reach me/us on the modding discord as well.

Good luck - I really hope this works out.

Also - I wanted to say thanks for working closely with the RBM team on this.

We have started direct communication.

That is some of the best news I have heard in a long time. I wish Marnah, you, and the rest of the RBM team the very best of luck in helping make the base game closer to RBM. I know not every feature/module in RBM can be implemented in the base game, but if the armor, mechanics, and AI improvements are even partially added, it would be a huge step forward for the game.

Thanks for your efforts with RBM and please send my thanks to the rest of the team - especially Marnah.

 

[vonbalt]

We have started direct communication.

That's the most exciting thing i've heard for a good while about the game, really hope this is the beginning of some much needed improvements to armor formula and battles in general.

 

[Mad Vader]

We have started direct communication.

I really hope they will listen to people who know what players want.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

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?

If there we're to be a goal to the keep battles. Right now there are little benefits to doing them yourselves. They are incredible fun, I've played most of them earlier on. But the outcome is a given. Troops run forward, outpace you, get ahead and you stand with your mini-me in hand.

I like keep battles, they're really beautifull and add an extra layer onto a siege. But after a while their added value disappears, for the player they become nothing more then added (and skippable) effort.

An end-boss (1v1 lord/garrison captain?) a la Hideout style or guaranteed capture of a residing lord, perhaps a treasure with an added time limit (which only Player could get on time) would be an incentive and reward for the added input.

 

[niekdegrijze]

An end-boss (1v1 lord/garrison captain?) a la Hideout style or guaranteed capture of a residing lord, perhaps a treasure with an added time limit (which only Player could get on time) would be an incentive and reward for the added input.

I like the idea of giving players incentives for added input and engaging with game systems but also make it skippable for players with limited time.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

I like the idea of giving players incentives for added input and engaging with game systems but also make it skippable for players with limited time.

Sure! The incentive wouldn't have to prove vital to the siege.