SP - General Longer siege-preperation time needed for the AI

[Zorion_no]

So I got tired of playing defense for my faction(I'm on 1.41 stable)
My town had "issues" (-5 prosperity really for mountainbandits.. thats excessive when you cant micromanage it, or why do cant the governor fix this?)

So I traveled from place A) in the middle of nowhere where the frontlines was, to my town B) then I travelled back to A), which took a total of 6 days ingame.

In this time the faction we where at war with had retaken 2 towns, 3 forts, and where on the verge of sieging 3rd town(which I twarted).

Really in 6 days, they steamroll that hard?

Normally in rl sieges would take quite alot longer to build up/set up etc.
Imo it may be excessive but it would stop the steamrolling if the siege build up was at the very least 3-6 days pr siege.
That would give defenders a real chance of mounting a defense.
Specially in the case where the factions is very "long" and not centered into a block(Aserai and Sturgia).
Godun makes an army at Tylal to defend Neverask Castle from Vlandia, by the time he have reached Takor Castle, Vlandia is now sieging Varcheg
(not to mention they got Kranirog castle on the pitstop)

Seems like you dont really have taken into account traveltime for the armies when placeing the factions as you have, or that the mount-heavy get too much of a speedbuff when travelling across it.
Ideally remove mounted bonus to speed on the worldmap aswell while at it, or atleast let it have less impact.

 

[CptData]

Timescale of M&B Bannerlord is different. A year is only 90 days. So if you say a siege should last 3 - 6 days - scaled to Bannerlord it is still only 1 - 2 days. That's pretty much what you see ingame.

Also larger armies with more heroes skilled in Engineering are faster constructing their siege camps and siege engines. That may explain why smaller armies need more time to set up a proper siege while large armies "steamroll" everything. A major factor denying a full steamrolling campaign however is the influence / army system. Large armies tend to lose cohesion quickly and sometimes even can't finish a siege before breaking apart. Sometimes an army loses food supply faster than the town / castle it is besieging. This is one of the reasons why I never call my army in the middle of the realm I'm a vassal of but close to the town or castle I wanna take. AI lords love to form their army and march all the way from the mainland to their destination - and once they're there, cohesion is zero. Without further influence, the army simply breaks apart before dealing any damage.

And: not every siege lead to an assault on a town: the favored outcome was an unconditional surrender of the town under siege due lack of food. This mechanic isn't implemented yet. If you're lucky the local lord leads an breakout attempt - which nets you the town if they lose. But for that you need to do a siege with inferior forces, otherwise those lords won't do that.

 

[Zorion_no]

I know about the timescale.

But the clue is that in rl for immersion and or stop the crazy steamrolling, a siege would easy take 3-4 weeks to set up (note that often when it was fully set up, the town would as you point out surrender typically).

A siege of towns in medieveal times would often take several months.

Thus I'm thinking it would be more realistic ingame it shoul be reflected by abit higher set up period.
Kind of wonky that as I say, you "stop guarding" the stuff, and boom they have taken so much of our lands.

Just dont feel the formula is right(and I know it will be adressed in some way later down).
This imo would be a bit better reflection on historical accuracy + counter the snowballing effect we see in the game.

I agree thats an issue that you point out they will start the forming of the army, and before they have come 50% they have lost cohesion.

I know its in EA but its "frustrating" that its not quite "there yet".