HotPie
Regular
So I've been wondering if anyone has noticed a difference in difficulty when besieging different settlements. Pretty much all of them follow the same pattern/layout, I know not all the settlements are unique from one another yet but it seems to be the pattern across every culture which makes sieging tedious. (Let us assume siege AI works for the sake of this discussion).
Warband was very diverse with its castles to the point where you would dread having to besiege certain ones. Culmarr Castle in the Rhodok lands for instance was a blood bath for the attacker. But it stood as the gateway to invading the Rhodoks for Swadia. Even though warbands siege mechanics were very basic it still added a lot of depth to the game because I'd dread the day I'd have to go to war with the Rhodoks, they were easy enough to defeat in the field but absolute tanks in castles and that wasn't just due to their archers and heavy inf, but the actual design of their castles.
Bannerlord needs some sort of diversity when it comes to this. I mean sturgia have some of the best layouts for a solid defense, when you break through the gate your troops are funneled into a tight corridor flanked s by walls which archers could use to decimate your army, but they never do.
I'd like to visit a town or castle prior to a war and think about a strategy "troops would be too compact on this side of the wall so I'll deploy a siege tower on the other side" or "this castle will be a killing field I'll need to knock down the walls".
Or maybe in the future (with mods lets be honest) have multiple points to land an attack, focusing a larger force on one side and a smaller on the other to split up the defenders, but I'm getting ahead of myself their.
The broken siege AI is simply the surface problem with sieges atm, once it's fixed we'll only realise how mundane sieges can be.
(I don't want to be another doomer in this forum, I love this game and its brought be hundreds of hours of enjoyment I just wanted to say my point)
Warband was very diverse with its castles to the point where you would dread having to besiege certain ones. Culmarr Castle in the Rhodok lands for instance was a blood bath for the attacker. But it stood as the gateway to invading the Rhodoks for Swadia. Even though warbands siege mechanics were very basic it still added a lot of depth to the game because I'd dread the day I'd have to go to war with the Rhodoks, they were easy enough to defeat in the field but absolute tanks in castles and that wasn't just due to their archers and heavy inf, but the actual design of their castles.
Bannerlord needs some sort of diversity when it comes to this. I mean sturgia have some of the best layouts for a solid defense, when you break through the gate your troops are funneled into a tight corridor flanked s by walls which archers could use to decimate your army, but they never do.
I'd like to visit a town or castle prior to a war and think about a strategy "troops would be too compact on this side of the wall so I'll deploy a siege tower on the other side" or "this castle will be a killing field I'll need to knock down the walls".
Or maybe in the future (with mods lets be honest) have multiple points to land an attack, focusing a larger force on one side and a smaller on the other to split up the defenders, but I'm getting ahead of myself their.
The broken siege AI is simply the surface problem with sieges atm, once it's fixed we'll only realise how mundane sieges can be.
(I don't want to be another doomer in this forum, I love this game and its brought be hundreds of hours of enjoyment I just wanted to say my point)