Siege retreat - dead realism

[MostBlunted]

It's not "easy" to avoid using exploits when the alternative is a boring grind with crappy mechanics. If I'm given the choice between making 4 javelins or killing 10000 looters to make the same amount of money, guess which one I'll pick.

There are more than enough ways to earn money right now. I´ve never used the exploit and still never had any issues with money, even without smithing (which I also don´t use).

I´m having a lot of issues with the game right now but this exploit isn´t an issue. You don´t need to exploit the game to get enough money to do whatever you want.

If you only fight looters I can understand that you struggle with money, but that´s not the only option the game offers right now to get some money. Looters are just in the game for the early game in my opinion and that´s fine. If you struggle to get money if you´ve reached like 50 troops then you´re doing something wrong.

When it comes down to difficult I would rate this game 3/10 right now.

 

[mujadaddy]

I'll just say, in Warband, you lost troops every time you retreated.

 

[vonbalt]

Save scumming is my weakness, I'm glad that they put in ironman mode so I don't have the choice.

Same, i love when games implement an ironman mode and i always use it cause i can't help myself from save scumming, my mind always creates some fancy excuse that will make that mistake/death unfair so i'm justified to reload lol

 

[Apocal]

If the game is boring enough then sure, why not?
Personally I find the vegas casino of smithing quite a lot of fun, but if I didn't I would 100% be using the console to cheat myself money.

huh, I didn't expect that.

I guess I've been biased because I hate it.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Don't get me wrong I think it's unbelievably stupid, but alongside wholesale genocide of lords, cheesing the glaive and letting allies get massacred, the thing that gives me the most sick pleasure is skipping the entire early game by cheesing 2hand swords. It wouldn't be nearly as much fun if it was just on its own. The fact that I'm basically speedrunning the game is what makes the cheese fun,

 

[Nogand]

I was about to complain about this very situation. I found it completely by accident and decided to put it to its best sue by spamming boulder throws onto the clusters of foes behind siege towers and rams. So far I've leveled up 3 times.

The point of it is that it would take you into the inner section of the fort. Right now if you siege someone else you will have to fight in a second scene inside the halls and rooms of the main fort building if any enemies routed.

Retreating shouldnt be a costless move, though there's a simple fix.
You know how when you're confronted with raiders or attempting to enter a sieged settlement you can sacrifice a small number of troops to get away/ get in respectively? Apply the exact same penalty to retreats and it will be enough.

Warband had retreat casualties. IMO now that keep battles are implemented retreats on defense should just skip you straight to the keep battle. There should be a place for the retreat cheese in field battles to simulate hit-and-run tactics, but some cost like casualties or morale should come with it so it doesn't seem like a cheat code.

Personally I only used this cheese in a siege defense once, there was a large allied army waiting next to the attackers to I just pretended they peeled the attackers off of me long enough for the defense to regroup.

 

[Akka]

While I agree that this should be "fixed" in some way he still has a point. Would be different if this wasn´t a singleplayer game.

No, it's just stupid.
A single player game has not the same pressure to be "balanced" than a multiplayer one obviously. That doesn't mean absurd mechanisms are acceptable. You say it yourself : it should be fixed. That answers the point.

Retreating should be a part of the game, and it should have logical consequences. I should not have avoid a basic feature because it's broken. Such idiotic reasoning basically justifies everything being left to rot.

 

[Shaxx]

Save scumming is my weakness, I'm glad that they put in ironman mode so I don't have the choice.

If the game was stable/polished enough I would use it but too many of my campaigns have been spared from a game-breaking bug by going back to an earlier save point to see this as a viable option right now.

IMO now that keep battles are implemented retreats on defense should just skip you straight to the keep battle.

They need to add keep battles for defenders, it's a rather basic feature. And yet they explained away keep battles not existing for player defenders as them not being worth the time as too few players would ever experience it, which sounds like they just gave up.

everything being left to rot.

Now you get it.

 

[Apocal]

And yet they explained away keep battles not existing for player defenders as them not being worth the time as too few players would ever experience it, which sounds like they just gave up.

He said that most players would get downed during the first stage, not that they didn't think players were likely to participate in a siege defense:

For 1, I don't really think it's a worthwhile goal. The player is unlikely to experience it, because chances are good they will already be knocked out on the wall.

 

[Shaxx]

He said that most players would get downed during the first stage

Semantics.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

And yet they explained away keep battles not existing for player defenders as them not being worth the time as too few players would ever experience it, which sounds like they just gave up.

The statements in the topic don't "explain away keep battles not existing for player defenders". The discussion is about future improvements. And the very thing you are referencing is quite clear that my opinion isn't the deciding factor.

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

It is further elaborated that

these things are not developed in isolation. That is to say if we pursue one thing, we do so by not pursuing something else. Similarly, if we chose to not pursue that one thing, we do so in favor of something else. All of these options can enhance the sandbox experience and must be prioritized according to their assumed costs and benefits.

And ends with the note

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?

But i guess that's

Semantics.

TLDR - Feedback is being read by the relevant people and potential improvements will be explored for the feature.

As for the topic at hand, we are aware and a likely resolution is to close the retreat (without loss) for the player. However, since the player can choose to use this exploit or not - much like the ingame cheats - i don't consider this the highest priority.

 

[Askorti]

No, it's just stupid.
A single player game has not the same pressure to be "balanced" than a multiplayer one obviously. That doesn't mean absurd mechanisms are acceptable. You say it yourself : it should be fixed. That answers the point.

Retreating should be a part of the game, and it should have logical consequences. I should not have avoid a basic feature because it's broken. Such idiotic reasoning basically justifies everything being left to rot.

Yes, it should be fixed.
But it is such a non-issue, that other, much more pressing issues take precedence. And there's *a lot* of far more pressing issues that need to be fixed. So get in line and patiently wait for a fix for this particular thing.
Remember, again, that a fix for this non-issue always means that something else will have to wait longer. It's always a trade off, and almost never a case of "we have some free time, so we'll fix this".

 

[Nogand]

He said that most players would get downed during the first stage, not that they didn't think players were likely to participate in a siege defense:

Most? You have to get downed to lose the siege defense, the battle can't end if you're still around. So player keep battles could only happen if retreating caused it.

 

[Shaxx]

The statements in the topic don't "explain away keep battles not existing for player defenders". The discussion is about future improvements.

Are you talking about the thread from around three weeks ago?

The one where you said: "For 1, I don't really think it's a worthwhile goal. The player is unlikely to experience it, because chances are good they will already be knocked out on the wall." ~ Duh

And: "If a few players are to experience a particular feature rarely, it becomes less worthwhile to pursue than a feature that more players are likely to experience often" ~ Duh

My remark was indeed spurred by one of your comments, they give us insight into what some of the thought processes might be on the team. Hence why I used the "sounds like" terminology and not something more definitive such as "they did".

And the very thing you are referencing is quite clear that my opinion isn't the deciding factor.

I actually cannot find where you say something specific like "I have no control over whether this gets in", which honestly I assumed anyway.

However if you did say that somewhere I certainly may have missed it as I did not read into other pages of that thread I was originally referencing, likely to due to simply not returning to it after reading it shortly after it was posted.

these things are not developed in isolation. That is to say if we pursue one thing, we do so by not pursuing something else. Similarly, if we chose to not pursue that one thing, we do so in favor of something else. All of these options can enhance the sandbox experience and must be prioritized according to their assumed costs and benefits.

Sounds about right, industry standard stuff. I just find it a little odd that you are more or less pulling the 'we did not have time to complete the feature' card on an 11 year project for a basic Warband mechanic, which was a 2 year project.

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?

In Warband you could control your random teammates in tournament fights. Control your own soldiers in a keep in it's sequel? Impossible.

But your argument here is essentially that your existing work a decade in is too lackluster to let a player experience? Or were you genuinely asking for input?

TLDR - Feedback is being read by the relevant people and potential improvements will be explored for the feature.

That is great to hear. It is genuinely good to know, thank you for bringing that to my attention.

 

[Akka]

Yes, it should be fixed.
But it is such a non-issue, that other, much more pressing issues take precedence. And there's *a lot* of far more pressing issues that need to be fixed. So get in line and patiently wait for a fix for this particular thing.
Remember, again, that a fix for this non-issue always means that something else will have to wait longer. It's always a trade off, and almost never a case of "we have some free time, so we'll fix this".

The entire "losing a part of your troops if you accomplish an action" already exists for joining a besieged settlement. It's not like hooking it to the retreat decision would consume any significant amount of time, please.

 

[Duh_TaleWorlds]

Are you talking about the thread from around three weeks ago?

The one where you said: "For 1, I don't really think it's a worthwhile goal. The player is unlikely to experience it, because chances are good they will already be knocked out on the wall." ~ Duh

And: "If a few players are to experience a particular feature rarely, it becomes less worthwhile to pursue than a feature that more players are likely to experience often" ~ Duh

Yes (you can click on the quotes I in my prior post - they will bring you to that very topic), which, once again, include

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

Seeing as you had referenced the original statement out of context, I provided the relevant quotes that followed immediately after it.

My remark was indeed spurred by one of your comments, they give us insight into what some of the thought processes might be on the team. Hence why I used the "sounds like" terminology and not something more definitive such as "they did".

Semantics.

I actually cannot find where you say something specific like "I have no control over whether this gets in"

It's pretty clear from the quote above.

However if you did say that somewhere I certainly may have missed it as I did not read into other pages of that thread I was originally referencing

Of course, these things happen. Having said that, you did quote the post that included the relevant clarification.

But your argument here is essentially that your existing work a decade in is too lackluster to let a player experience? Or were you genuinely asking for input?

Yes. It is a question. The answers to it (albeit limited) were / are taken into account in the discussion.

That is great to hear. It is genuinely good to know, thank you for bringing that to my attention.

No worries.

 

[Askorti]

The entire "losing a part of your troops if you accomplish an action" already exists for joining a besieged settlement. It's not like hooking it to the retreat decision would consume any significant amount of time, please.

That's simply not how game development works. Even if it sounds like a simple thing to just "hook it up" there's a whole managerial process involved before any change, even an insignificant one can be implemented. So the very act of doing what you say might not take up much, but actually getting it on the agenda, deliberating on it, and making sure it does not have unforeseen consequences will take up a lot of additional time. Time that can, again, be spent on something more worthwhile.

 

[mortache]

As a full horse archer main I would suggest that there should be a "nearby enemy" check for every single retreating soldier just like the player, leaving behind the ones who are close to the enemy. Its totally realistic to attack an army of twice the size with cavalry and skirmishers, causing casualties and and then retreating. That is how I lift the sieges most of the time anyways. I kill half their troops, the other half dares not to continue the siege when the garrison is nearly as strong as the army itself.

With the current reinforcement mechanics trickling down fresh troops after death, it keeps weakening any remaining troops on the side that does the killing. I don't enjoy a constant stream of more than a thousand tier 2-3 troops while my elite 200 guys (on 600 battle size) keep getting their hp and ammo lowered to the point where mere peasants can one shot them. But at the same time, I will also never use the retreat when I have foot troops in melee, or foot archers getting mowed down. So siege defense is the only place where I NEVER use it.

 

[Ted Striker]

I love the idea of "retreating" to the keep, but it should be extremely difficult to win it. If you have to retreat to the keep you've lost the castle or town.

It was something you would do in Medieval 2: Total War. If the enemy breached the first wall you'd retreat your troops to the second wall and man it's towers. If they breached that second wall you retreated back to your keep and mounted one last defense, hopefully with some archers still on the walls and manning some towers. It's not really the same in a M&B game but the idea is still sound: multiple walls and towers as defense to fall back to if needed.