Siege attacker position after successful attack

[Sithrain]

Siege camps are positioned a long way from the actual settlement, and when you win the siege battle that's where your army is left on the campaign map. This has been driving me crazy because half the time I besiege a settlement enemy parties will just collect in a swarm between me and the settlement. They don't have the numbers to attack me and they don't interfere when I launch my assault, but then after I fight a successful battle (where my troops are holding the walls at the end of the battle... I seen em do it!) this swarm is free to attack me in a field battle as I march the army into the settlement that I should by rights now be defending. I think that after a successful siege the attacking party should be moved into the settlement so they can make use of the defenses that they have just captured (I seen em do it!).

 

[PcolaTy]

+1 to this; I found it to be equally annoying as well.

 

[Sithrain]

Sorry for shameless bump but this continues to annoy me to no end.

 

[CalenLoki]

I'd rather see that swarm joining siege battle on your back.

And/or allow leaving siege camp with some of the troops without dismantling the camp to get rid of the swarm before the assault.

And/or allow those small parties to try sneaking into the castle and join defenders.

Also from logical point of view your troops are indeed already on the walls, but your baggage train (all the horses, loot, wounded troops and prisoners) is still outside.

 

[andycott]

✌The problem is when a castle is captured, it is automatically given to a leader of a faction and is considered his property until he's given it away via vote/leader's will. And if you have bad relations with him, you won't be able to enter a fief. I think it's the main reason, why it is done so.
So at the moment if you would implement appearing immediately in castle walls, you should also change the current relationship system. Not to do so a suggestion below.

Possible Solution
How it must be done instead to fit in the current system and it also be 99% the way you wanted from the start.
Attacker should appear in front of the conquered fief's gates. More specific: The place you appear on the map when you leave a fief.
And only then if the attacker has good relationship with faction leader he can immediately enter without wasting a single moment of in-game time. If he can't enter, than OK, it's already an another story.

+ to this thread, because I fully agree!
No logic in attacker's party/army appearing so far away from the place after a successful siege.

 

[Sithrain]

✌The problem is when a castle is captured, it is automatically given to a leader of a faction and is considered his property until he's given it away via vote/leader's will. And if you have bad relations with him, you won't be able to enter a fief. I think it's the main reason, why it is done so.
So at the moment if you would implement appearing immediately in castle walls, you should also change the current relationship system. Not to do so a suggestion below.

Possible Solution
How it must be done instead to fit in the current system and it also be 99% the way you wanted from the start.
Attacker should appear in front of the conquered fief's gates. More specific: The place you appear on the map when you leave a fief.
And only then if the attacker has good relationship with faction leader he can immediately enter without wasting a single moment of in-game time. If he can't enter, than OK, it's already an another story.

+ to this thread, because I fully agree!
No logic in attacker's party/army appearing so far away from the place after a successful siege.

Yep, this would mostly fix the issue, although I agree it would be much more fun if the swarms joined the battle for the settlement. I think they ignore the strength of the garrison when deciding if they can fight you.

 

[Wulfger]

✌The problem is when a castle is captured, it is automatically given to a leader of a faction and is considered his property until he's given it away via vote/leader's will. And if you have bad relations with him, you won't be able to enter a fief. I think it's the main reason, why it is done so.
So at the moment if you would implement appearing immediately in castle walls, you should also change the current relationship system. Not to do so a suggestion below.

Possible Solution
How it must be done instead to fit in the current system and it also be 99% the way you wanted from the start.
Attacker should appear in front of the conquered fief's gates. More specific: The place you appear on the map when you leave a fief.
And only then if the attacker has good relationship with faction leader he can immediately enter without wasting a single moment of in-game time. If he can't enter, than OK, it's already an another story.

+ to this thread, because I fully agree!
No logic in attacker's party/army appearing so far away from the place after a successful siege.

I think this would be a huge improvement over how it is now, but I still think it makes more sense for you to stay inside the captured fief following a siege. Even if you have poor relations with the faction ruler and wouldn't normally be allowed in you literally just stormed the walls and took the place, you're already inside. The game picks up again the moment the siege ends, does your party just leave once the garrison is slaughtered and then knock politely on the gate they just battered down asking to be let in? I think it makes way more sense for the game to pick up again with you already inside the fief, if you leave you might not get back in but I don't think it makes sense to immediately be kicked out.

 

[andycott]

I think this would be a huge improvement over how it is now, but I still think it makes more sense for you to stay inside the captured fief following a siege. Even if you have poor relations with the faction ruler and wouldn't normally be allowed in you literally just stormed the walls and took the place, you're already inside. The game picks up again the moment the siege ends, does your party just leave once the garrison is slaughtered and then knock politely on the gate they just battered down asking to be let in? I think it makes way more sense for the game to pick up again with you already inside the fief, if you leave you might not get back in but I don't think it makes sense to immediately be kicked out.

I 100% agree with you and the same was from the very start when I first read the thread.
Again I already wrote why I suggested these certain things.
But maybe it's even better to rethink this whole relationship thing.

 

[Hopalong]

First time to the forums, made an account specifically to post about this issue. I'm glad to see others are as upset as I am about the situations this currently causes.

andycott:
Attacker should appear in front of the conquered fief's gates. More specific: The place you appear on the map when you leave a fief.
And only then if the attacker has good relationship with faction leader he can immediately enter without wasting a single moment of in-game time. If he can't enter, than OK, it's already an another story.

This, I think, is a really good way of not messing with the current relationship system of not being allowed to occupy a fief owned by a faction leader you are not friendly with. The core issue for me is that I have to run past a giant blob of enemy troops after storming the walls of the city/castle. By dropping the player army right at the gate (close enough to not have to 'travel' to it), we could enter to defend as long as our leader allowed us entry into their fiefs. If you don't have a good enough relation with your leader, you would take that into account when the smaller groups of nobles really start to pile up while you are building your camp/engines. On that note:

CalenLoki:
I'd rather see that swarm joining siege battle on your back.

And/or allow leaving siege camp with some of the troops without dismantling the camp to get rid of the swarm before the assault.

And/or allow those small parties to try sneaking into the castle and join defenders.

Currently the enemy parties that come to aid the besieged settlement can do one of three things:

1. Nothing. Literally stand around to watch you build your camp, siege the castle/city, then run away from your army after you win.

2. Cause a sally out. With enough smaller parties outside, the garrison comes to meet your army and you fight both groups at once. This is likely to be a bad situation for the attacking army since the defenders should wait until they have a decisive advantage. (Probably also only in beta 1.3)

3. You lose, even if you win. Exactly what we're talking about here happens. Even if you take the settlement, your army is destroyed outside the gates and you are taken prisoner (after just having fought for 15 minutes to get inside).

I suggest replacing options 1 and 3 with options that allow the supporting party to meaningfully interact with the siege. Sally out is a great example. If you let too many groups build up on your flank, both the garrison and the supporting parties attack you. Giving the parties the option of attempting a 'sneak in' option like the player gets makes total sense. Not that it would be a great option for them considering the numbers of troops they're bound to lose, but it's more effective than current option 1 and not as crippling/frustrating as option 3 and the subject of this thread.

Splitting troops off to deal with defending parties would also make a lot of sense. You wouldn't want to pull too many troops away from your besieging army, but enough to effectively fight off the other party. This would result in some of those troops returning wounded or not at all (dead), thus also weakening the attacking army and lowering the advantage they presumably have.