Sieges, garrison sally outs and relieving armies (POLL)

[JustinTime49]

Back again referring to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvkZ4RaYSE8



Did anyone else notice and get disappointed how nearby parties didn't get involved in the siege?

When I saw the band of lords (not an army) literally chill in front of the castle, sort of like testing the attackers, I was amazed and excited. 5:45 - 6:20


When the player went to go lead the assault however... nothing. There were literally 4 enemy lord parties right next to the besieging players' army that amounted to ~500 troops. When he got into the battle, its as though they never existed... but it gets worse.

On top of that, this is something I have overall seen in gamescom videos as well. When the players' besieging army does get attacked by an army, the garrison force not only dosen't join the battle, the battle scene is depicted as a pitch battle as opposed to a relieving force battle.

Ik this won't be implemented, but just think of this scenario which is completely gameplay possible.

We have seen constantly that siege camps are built and shown within the scene(battle), however they just seem to be eyecandy. I think after building a siege camp, the player or lord should have the option to build a perimeter defense around the castle(like the romans did with gaul). This will take more time, however, should they decide against it, any incoming army(or band of parties) that attack the besieging force attack with the surprise of an ambush! Remember, they are in the middle of sieging, and as such, there will be an exchange of projectiles between defending and attacking archers/artillery. When you get attacked with this ambush, a good chunk of the besieging archer force should be scattered in different places(behind mantlets, rocks, high ground) completely surrounding the castle... undefended. The Infantry and Cavalry will instead be in the siege camp, unmounted and unprepared. The enemy ambushing force are all mounted(cavalry) and the gates are open with defending infantry and cavalry(mounted) ready to sally out. This puts the besieging army in an already bad place, due to their poor execution of the siege. From there an intense battle occurs, and if you are only a sergeant or just a soldier as opposed to a leader, the AI besieging army(now the defenders) can choose between rushing out of the camp to save the archers and meet the the enemy troops in the plain between the castle and the siege camp; 

Kind of like this with the castle in the background!(but with a siege camp)

Spoiler

or instead try and retreat everyone back into the siege camp and hold the chokepoints.

4:34, only defending instead of rushing

COMPLETELY OPTIONAL: If we were to make it just that much more immersive however, and assume that equipment choice works the same as warband where they have a pool of equipment to choose from, maybe they can put in noble gowns or tunics for more elite units/nobles(aka their civilian clothing) of the besieging army(remember they weren't always in armoured in sieges) to really show how much they caught the besiegers off guard.

Spoiler

All in all, I am no game developer and I really enjoyed the overall gameplay of the way sieges played out, but I can't lie I was disapointed by a lot of siege mechanics(most notably the fact that garrisons don't even join the pitch battle with the relieving army). Its a leap up from warband, but I personally feel the could've gone to the moon.

 

[Kornwallis]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I also wanna mention that we should remember that not only is the game not feature complete, they mentioned that some features already in the game were shut off for the demo.

 

[JustinTime49]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I also wanna mention that we should remember that not only is the game not feature complete, they mentioned that some features already in the game were shut off for the demo.

They did say that, however this gamescom was to focus(aggressively) on sieges and siege gameplay. To not show something as revolutionary on this scale makes me wonder if they even discussed it or not. Also, there seems to be some internal strife within the company which worries me of adding or fixing certain gameplay mechanics suggested by the community.

 

[SturgiaStrong]

To be honest I think it's a bug. But i voted YES for sure

 

[ManGuy]

Absolutely, they said they wanna make the lords act more like the player and the lords should be able to avoid enemies and go inside the castle if they want to. And for lords defending their castle should be way more important than patrolling or raiding. If they're part of an army I guess they can't just leave like they do in Warband and the armies should also be smart enough to defend castles. Attacking the enemy siege camp with an army should also be an option.

 

[Honved]

No rational besieger would fail to set up some kind of fortified siege camp, although the situation in Julius Caesar's siege of Alesia was an extreme case, where the well-fortified town was entirely encircled by Roman field fortifications facing both in and out, since a relief attack was highly expected.  The scale of that relief attack was unexpected.  The simultaneous (and also expected) attack from the besieged fortress itself had to be hastily organized, since they had no more knowledge of the timing of the attack than the Romans, even if they expected it to come eventually.

Basically, the besiegers would be "ambushed" (a couple of perimeter scouts would sound warnings only a minute or two before the attack), but the defenders should at least have a good field-fortified position to fall back on, and the besieged should suffer the same ambush penalties, not knowing with any certainty when (or even "if") the relief would arrive.

Field armies should often ride to the defense of nearby castles under attack, although whether they join the defenders or not should depend on relative troop strengths and on relations between the castle owner and field commander (bonus points if the castle attacker can in some cases bribe - or coerce - the enemy field commander not to interfere).  Joining a castle's defense should NOT be automatic, but the field armies shouldn't be as oblivious of the events right next to them as they were in Warband.

 

[lcmiracle]

As long as the reinforcement don't just appear inside the besieged castle/spawn right on top of or being extremely close to my army, absolutely. Them doing nothing actually makes not immediately assaulting a fortification undesirable to me, like, we wait here to starve them out -- the enemy armies will attack once they've gathered enough force; we attack now and take the castle, at least we will have some walls to hide behind. Besides, storming the castle would have only the garrison to content with, and if the enemy armies attack I'll have the defensive advantage. Divide and conquer at its absolutely brainless-est. At least if they will join I will have the whole group to content with.

 

[JustinTime49]

No rational besieger would fail to set up some kind of fortified siege camp, although the situation in Julius Caesar's siege of Alesia was an extreme case, where the well-fortified town was entirely encircled by Roman field fortifications facing both in and out, since a relief attack was highly expected.  The scale of that relief attack was unexpected.  The simultaneous (and also expected) attack from the besieged fortress itself had to be hastily organized, since they had no more knowledge of the timing of the attack than the Romans, even if they expected it to come eventually.

Basically, the besiegers would be "ambushed" (a couple of perimeter scouts would sound warnings only a minute or two before the attack), but the defenders should at least have a good field-fortified position to fall back on, and the besieged should suffer the same ambush penalties, not knowing with any certainty when (or even "if") the relief would arrive.

Field armies should often ride to the defense of nearby castles under attack, although whether they join the defenders or not should depend on relative troop strengths and on relations between the castle owner and field commander (bonus points if the castle attacker can in some cases bribe - or coerce - the enemy field commander not to interfere).  Joining a castle's defense should NOT be automatic, but the field armies shouldn't be as oblivious of the events right next to them as they were in Warband.

I agree most everything! Having the defenders(behind the walls) also suffer the penalties makes complete sense as well. In warband, I believe there was a system where even if a lord was close enough to you when you engaged with an enemy lord, if the friendly lord had bad relations with you he wouldn't help you out in battle.
I don't think however in bannerlord the solution should be based entirely on relations. These lords have a duty to the realm above all else, especially in those times where honour was near everything. Maybe the relations can apply to more bad-tempered unfaithful lords, but you are 100% right with relative troop strength.

As for bribes, i'm not sure how that would play out since the lords wouldn't willingly approach you, and you wouldn't be able to leave or abandon the siege.

 

[SturgiaStrong]

Actually, judging by recent videos, it seems that to defend castle is much harder than to attack it.

 

[Captain Obvious]

I think nearby armies should be able to support the defenders as reinforcements outside the castle, not inside it.

 

[Honved]

I think nearby armies should be able to support the defenders as reinforcements outside the castle, not inside it.

Agreed.  The besieger should not let them pass through the lines without a fight while the relief army is still unprotected, and should have the option to abandon the siege if the relief army is too strong.

"An army with 132 troops has arrived to relieve the fortress garrison.  Do you wish to: (1) Attack them before they reach the castle? (2) Allow them to pass?  (3) Abandon the siege?"

If option (1) is chosen, the defender should then have the option to wait or sally out to support the relief force.

 

[DanAngleland]

I think nearby armies should be able to support the defenders as reinforcements outside the castle, not inside it.

+1

 

[Ezkia]

They could just do it exactly like in Total War games, I think that the way they make armies join the battle as reinforcements is pretty well done. Maybe if you attack at night you can avoid the nearby army or things like having the enemy army coming in the middle of the siege and you must derivate some troops to that flank... I don't know, we just want the best way to represent whatever is going on the campaign map on the battlefield.