Massive casualties when entering a besieged settlement

[Smorumladida]

Is it realy a good change that you loose more than half of your army when entering a besieged castle? Basically, if you didn't happen to stay at the settlement the moment it got besieged, there is no way to actually participate in that siege without taking these massive losses before even starting the fight. I get the point, like why would besiegers let enemies just enter the castle, but meeeh... i don't know. Seems realy harsh to me, in about 60 hours (thanks corona) of gameplay, so far i had it happening just one single time that a settlement got besieged while i was waiting in it - all the other sieges were payed with half of my army. Takes a way a lot of fun in my opinion. How do you feel about it?

 

[Pancakelord333]

I've only tried this once but the text suggested to me that your losses should already scale down as your strategy skill scales up?

If I remember right it said: "You devise a strategy to break through the enemy's siege .... you will lose X troops" (Proceed Yes/No)

That suggests to me your losses should already be less than half if you have high strategy skills.
If that's not how it currently works, it's probably a bug, or not implemented yet.

Also, the idea of not losing any troops to break a siege perimeter is nonsensical tbh, you are "sacrificing" men as you punch through their lines, so it definitely shouldn't be removed.

 

[SissiJaeger]

Well ofc the besieging party will not let you in without resistance. Would you like that when you are besieging a holding 3 100 troop parties enter it to defend without that you can do anything about it? Think also about irl, every siege made they cut of the fortress of the outside world to make so that it would be extremely costly to help them.

 

[Crotiz]

I've defended a siege 1 time in my 110 hours of gameplay. One time.

The enemy simply never besiege when i am in a settlement. And if they finally do, then they always, end up leaving. Not fun. Not fun at all

 

[White Ahroun]

Couldn't you just try to break the siege from outside? Don't remember that giving you damage, unless they changed it recently.

 

[blightedscrib]

Stopping the settlement from getting supplies and especially reinforcements is literally what siege is supposed to do.

 

[Smorumladida]

I've defended a siege 1 time in my 110 hours of gameplay. One time.

The enemy simply never besiege when i am in a settlement. And if they finally do, then they always, end up leaving. Not fun. Not fun at all

Sadly this is exactly what i experience aswell. I get the point in the break through casualties, but for me this is actually the only way of defending a siege at the moment and apparently my skill level is not high enough or whatever, but it always takes about 60-75% of my army so the siege won't be fun after all because i got no army. Unfortunate!

 

[Dragoony]

It may be realistic but it also means that I've never been able defend a castle in 64 hours which sucks, I'd rather not murder half my troops just to experience the siege defense, maybe they could add a back door kind of building that you could construct so that you could get it? This is just realism vs fun really

 

[ilanmeiss]

I don't think this should be removed but I think that there are 2 things that can be added to fix the issue
-The ability to flank the siegers from behind while your allies in the castle fight them from the walls or even send out troops to help you and attack them from both sides.
-Adding a watchtower building to settlements that warns you wan an army is on his way to besiege and the more upgraded it is the sooner it warns you.

 

[SissiJaeger]

I don't think this should be removed but I think that there are 2 things that can be added to fix the issue
-The ability to flank the siegers from behind while your allies in the castle fight them from the walls or even send out troops to help you and attack them from both sides.
-Adding a watchtower building to settlements that warns you wan an army is on his way to besiege and the more upgraded it is the sooner it warns you.

This is good suggestion

 

[SissiJaeger]

Since in medieval times almost all wars were waged almost only around sieges there should be depth to ingame sieges and many options how to proceed.

 

[banzaiee]

I think the smaller the army the less losses you should take when trying to break through. A medium or large sized force would be easily noticed, but a band of 5-10 guys would be able to sneak in easily in the confusion of a siege camp. I dunno I saw it in a movie.

 

[John the Roleplayer]

One possibility would be a scene, where a small strike force from your party tries to clear a way to get in, and has to fight some of the besiegers to do so. The idea being, that it's a surprise attack, before the besiegers can muster a larger force. It would have to be balanced along the relative party sizes and also depend on tactics skill. Potential losses would then be taken directly.

This option might become too powerful though, as players could perhaps make disproportionatee use of it, comparedto AI.

I'd also say that castle defenders should join the fight when the besiegers are attacked, maybe arriving with a little delay and starting at another point of the field.

 

[Baradeer]

Sadly this is exactly what i experience aswell. I get the point in the break through casualties, but for me this is actually the only way of defending a siege at the moment and apparently my skill level is not high enough or whatever, but it always takes about 60-75% of my army so the siege won't be fun after all because i got no army. Unfortunate!

Ive had the same experience with over 100 hours, when I break in to help the siege, they just up and leave refusing to fight with a player in the castle. As is the siege mechanic makes it so you will get to be on the receiving end of a siege, you cant even help by flanking them once the siege starts, which I think is dumb.

 

[The_Hussar]

I don't think this should be removed but I think that there are 2 things that can be added to fix the issue
-The ability to flank the siegers from behind while your allies in the castle fight them from the walls or even send out troops to help you and attack them from both sides.
-Adding a watchtower building to settlements that warns you wan an army is on his way to besiege and the more upgraded it is the sooner it warns you.

That's a good idea! They should really improve the UI to tell you which castles are under siege and especially your own fiefs. One time I was besieging a castle while the enemy took my own city and I didn't even realise

 

[vemerce]

Is it realy a good change that you loose more than half of your army when entering a besieged castle? Basically, if you didn't happen to stay at the settlement the moment it got besieged, there is no way to actually participate in that siege without taking these massive losses before even starting the fight. I get the point, like why would besiegers let enemies just enter the castle, but meeeh... i don't know. Seems realy harsh to me, in about 60 hours (thanks corona) of gameplay, so far i had it happening just one single time that a settlement got besieged while i was waiting in it - all the other sieges were payed with half of my army. Takes a way a lot of fun in my opinion. How do you feel about it?

Instead of walking up to the settlement and trying to disturb the siege that way, walk over to the party/army that is sieging the settlement and click on their little camp. Then you can have a field battle with them and take no instant casualties.

But even the one time I was staying in a settlement and it got sieged, I wasn't given an option to fight as the defending party of the castle... My option was to "sally out" and have a field battle.

 

[Smorumladida]

You just have to wait when that happens, the enemy is then just besieging you but has not yet started the assault.
And yeah, you can fight a normal field battle without extra losses, but then what's the point in having castles?

 

[vemerce]

You just have to wait when that happens, the enemy is then just besieging you but has not yet started the assault.
And yeah, you can fight a normal field battle without extra losses, but then what's the point in having castles?

I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be able to fight sieges from the defense point of view. But it does make sense that you would already need to be inside the city when it happens. Even the one time I was inside a city when a siege started, I wasn't given the option to defend from the inside.

 

[qmax]

It was not realistic but it was more fun in Viking Conquest that you had great indication of your castle being besieged and when you got there you could enter easily and help defend it.

 

[Ragemaster9999]

The warband mechanic was stupid where a castle or town fight in progress meant all the lord parties from both sides would all pile in soon as it started. I like the new siege mechanics however garrisons milita and food could use a buff. Most of the time the garrison and milita just starve due to food shortages and you end up with a tiny skeleton crew defending then castles. Also the ai is terrible in siege battles currently your not missing much lol