Sieges in .950

[Arathiel]

Forgive me if this is a repost...

As a swadian vassal, I'm having trouble getting sieges started against the rhodoks.  My king and a bunch of lords will be clustered around a city/castle, but when i go, there's no option to besiege.  Do I need to somehow join their siege?  I have no trouble when it's just my army, it's joining an ongoing siege that I can't do.  Is there a way around this, or do i just need to boost my relations and ask some lords to tag along on my sieges?

thanks

 

[dunnno]

I think only one army can actually besiege a location at a time so you just have to wait until they begin an assault, then you can join in.

 

[Encore]

I think only one army can actually besiege a location at a time so you just have to wait until they begin an assault, then you can join in.

What this guy said. You just have to wait around until the assault starts then get stuck in.

 

[Strok]

What is irritating is more often than not they'll break the siege instead of storming. They won't just fully abandon it, lords wander off disinterested and then the attack party falls apart. Almost every single time.

 

[Markus Saretti]

I started two campaigns in .950. So far, all the sieges i witnessed ended with an assault. Castles and cities gets captured all the time in my games.

I haven't got a chance to join an assault though. The king sends me to those annoying errands

 

[MountainBlade]

Strangely I could only help in a siege when a non allied lord was leading it.

 

[Simo]

I have had the chance to join the assault a couple of times but seems that the lords are pretty slow in building a siege tower.. The castles that the lords have managed to attack have been those where it takes a short time to build a ladder. They always fail the sieges on castles that require days of building a tower. I guess the lords have no engineering skill and the game calculates their building times through that too?

 

[Jericho]

I have to wonder why none of my troops are mounted when I start a siege and the NME
sallys forth out of the castle to attack.

That the sieges are separated into two phases is extremely cool, but it doesn’t make sense that
my cavalry wouldn’t be standing ready to repel Nord infantry attacks. Tactics have proven
out that infantry & cavalry will decimate Nord infantry after a bit of “tenderizing” from my archers. 

Ah but perhaps this is a minor quibble? 

 

[Kraven]

I have to wonder why none of my troops are mounted when I start a siege and the NME
sallys forth out of the castle to attack.

That the sieges are separated into two phases is extremely cool, but it doesn’t make sense that
my cavalry wouldn’t be standing ready to repel Nord infantry attacks. Tactics have proven
out that infantry & cavalry will decimate Nord infantry after a bit of “tenderizing” from my archers. 

Ah but perhaps this is a minor quibble? 

Mhm the reason i think its done like that is cause its not like your prepared for the enemy to attack you when their odd's of succeeding is bigger when hiding behind their walls.
Could be wrong though.

 

[Jericho]

Perhaps...but in the later 13th century, siege armies actually tried to provoke the defenders to sally out
of the fortress by pillaging and burning the surrounding country side.
i.e. ~ Stay in your castle and watch your infrastructure and economy go up in smoke or come out and stop us.

Just as well. A good infantry brawl is a good stretch of the legs! 

 

[Kraven]

Perhaps...but in the later 13th century, siege armies actually tried to provoke the defenders to sally out
of the fortress by pillaging and burning the surrounding country side.
i.e. ~ Stay in your castle and watch your infrastructure and economy go up in smoke or come out and stop us.

Just as well. A good infantry brawl is a good stretch of the legs! 

True, which now ya mention it should be add'ed, a way to provoke ya enemies to get out... as long as khergits stay inside XD, they are so much easier to beat when sieging their cities and castles..

 

[eugenioso]

actually the Khergits do have the hardest time taking a castle, since their infantry doenst really have good armor and the best tier of melee troops they get are the lancers, but if they manage to capture it, virtually their whole infantry can defend with bows and any assault into the castle will be extremely costly for the attackers.

 

[Kraven]

actually the Khergits do have the hardest time taking a castle, since their infantry doenst really have good armor and the best tier of melee troops they get are the lancers, but if they manage to capture it, virtually their whole infantry can defend with bows and any assault into the castle will be extremely costly for the attackers.

I rarely lose more than 3-4 troops when i assault a khergit city that has 3 times the amount of troops i do.

Mind it all my troops are melee troops when im sieging, so they arent that bad to take a castle or city from, their strength is in the field not in sieges...

 

[Captain Innocuous]

1) King asks you to accompany him.

2) King sieges someplace.

3) King hands those mofos their asses personally.



What you need to do is wait for the siege to start. Yargolek asked me to join him, and I did, and he said I would need to follow him. Then the siege started and I joined in.

 

[Jericho]

That method isn't for me. - I'm playing a renegade Lord this go around...No more waiting for those lazy and
worthless humps to declare war...I will conquer Calradia for myself!