Still havent defended a single castle siege yet.

Currently viewing this thread:

You are not missing out on anything, the AI is way too bad for sieges to be enjoyable. Once the gates are destroyed the siege is over because the defenders just stay in that stupid square or keep trying to get to fixed positions while ignoring everything around them.
 

niekdegrijze

Sergeant at Arms
You are not missing out on anything, the AI is way too bad for sieges to be enjoyable. Once the gates are destroyed the siege is over because the defenders just stay in that stupid square or keep trying to get to fixed positions while ignoring everything around them.
if more people are able to fight in a defensive siege, theses issue would have been talked about more and possible improved upon. The examples you mentioned are bad enough when you are the attacker but extra frustrating if you are the defender.
 
if more people are able to fight in a defensive siege, theses issue would have been talked about more and possible improved upon. The examples you mentioned are bad enough when you are the attacker but extra frustrating if you are the defender.

Siege AI has been in this state since the beginning of EA and people have complained about both performance and AI being dumb for months. I am hoping that with keep battles being included soon™ they will take the opportunity and give sieges a much needed attention.

PS: They won't.
 

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
Even when they attack 1500 vs 500 they always abandon the siege. Im still waiting for the day i can defend a siege from the top of my walls. Didnt happen yet in 800 hours of gameplay.

It would immensely help, if the overall strat of the game had an aspect of logistics and supply lines, because generally, pushing into enemy territory deeply to hit a target, and leaving military positions like castles behind, was a dangerous move. That's why castles and forts were important positions in the first place -- you need to take it first, to go in deeper.
 

sositehui

Recruit
xddd i had siedge experience on defenders side only once, and it was like on 1.4.2 patch or so. ai justa fkn wuss hu fear of me all the time and always runnin away when see me
 

sositehui

Recruit
xddd i had siedge experience on defenders side only once, and it was like on 1.4.2 patch or so. ai justa fkn wuss hu fear of me all the time and always runnin away when see me
and as i can remember i had about 200 soldiers in my party+ some militia vs like 1k khuzait mongolis wussies.
 
it is curious because in WB a siege defence was my favorite method to defeat big enemy armies. Just played once in bannerlord and it is a completly mess, for example the door is undefensable, just few minutes and the enemy broke it and rush inside the castle.
 

redmark

Squire
it is curious because in WB a siege defence was my favorite method to defeat big enemy armies. Just played once in bannerlord and it is a completly mess, for example the door is undefensable, just few minutes and the enemy broke it and rush inside the castle.
That's more an indication of WB sieges being a mess (but great for prisoners and loot) than Bannerlord's.
 
That's more an indication of WB sieges being a mess (but great for prisoners and loot) than Bannerlord's.
disagree, sure they were far from perfect... but a castle should give a big bonus to defender and it is not the case in BL. If you visit a real castle it is not hard to imagine that breaking the door shouldn't be an easy task, in game it is just a joke.
 

redmark

Squire
disagree, sure they were far from perfect... but a castle should give a big bonus to defender and it is not the case in BL. If you visit a real castle it is not hard to imagine that breaking the door shouldn't be an easy task, in game it is just a joke.
It is still the case - see my first post in this thread; I won a siege defence outnumbered about 3:2, with about 20% or a little lower dead (45-50% casualties including wounded, with a half decent but not brilliant medic). The issue with the game - my example was a surprising exception - is that normally the attackers don't attack with that low an advantage, usually breaking off unless they have at least a 2:1 advantage (this is where game AI needs to be smart enough to act stupid sometimes, but not always - armies sometimes did enter battles they weren't going to win). Watching that battle, I should have still won narrowly if my disadvantage had been closer to 2:1, but probably not much more than that. That seems pretty reasonable, though could be a little higher (I might still have won at 5:2, but probably not 3:1). In WB, you could win defensive sieges outnumbered 4 or 5 to 1 (more, for players who are actually good at personal combat, which I'm not).

Gates were always the weak point of a real castle and the key target of attackers. Inevitably, as wood is weaker than stone. Sure, it would take longer IRL, but so would everything that happens in game.
 
Last edited:
disagree, sure they were far from perfect... but a castle should give a big bonus to defender and it is not the case in BL. If you visit a real castle it is not hard to imagine that breaking the door shouldn't be an easy task, in game it is just a joke.
I agree, i tried defending castle in the custom battle mode, and it doesnt add up at all. 100 defenders vs 200 attackers and the attackers win easily, which doesnt make sense at all to me, its like the defenders dont get any advantage. My archers gets sniped just as much as they snipe theirs, the main door breaks in the first minute which quickly turns the fight into a melee brawl, making the castle irrelevant.
 
Gates were always the weak point of a real castle and the key target of attackers. Inevitably, as wood is weaker than stone. Sure, it would take longer IRL, but so would everything that happens in game.

And castle builders knew it, that is why they were always well defended.


Anyway I don't want make them invencible just being able to defend them... some times you will win others they will break it anyway despite you efforts, but right now they are a lost fight ever.
 

vonbalt

Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&B
it is curious because in WB a siege defence was my favorite method to defeat big enemy armies. Just played once in bannerlord and it is a completly mess, for example the door is undefensable, just few minutes and the enemy broke it and rush inside the castle.
Same i loved this in warband, in bannerlord they are awful, you lose a ****ton of men just to enter the castle if it's siege then the battle starts and the AI is completely broken, only way to win a siege defense is to open the gates and tell everyone to charge lol
 

redmark

Squire
And castle builders knew it, that is why they were always well defended.


Anyway I don't want make them invencible just being able to defend them... some times you will win others they will break it anyway despite you efforts, but right now they are a lost fight ever.
You can open the interior gate from inside, I suppose? (Not tried it, in my two siege defences - but I've seen the AI do it). Open the gate, stick some infantry there and attack the attackers as they break the external gate?
 

Magello

Sergeant
500 hours myself and I have never defended a siege. I know you can cheese the game to get it but why? We want the game to be fun and I loved defending sieges in Warband. I have purposely even taken only about 50 into a city to get the defenders to attack but they never did. Just sat around with their army until it broke up.

I recently went back and watched the siege videos they showed at gamescon and damn. I want to play that game.
 
if more people are able to fight in a defensive siege, theses issue would have been talked about more and possible improved upon. The examples you mentioned are bad enough when you are the attacker but extra frustrating if you are the defender.
There are so many complaints, bug reports and suggestions how to improve it since EA release, so nope. It´s not us, the players....

Do you think the same about the broken smithing system? :grin:

Most players are aware about what is wrong with this game.
 

niekdegrijze

Sergeant at Arms
There are so many complaints, bug reports and suggestions how to improve it since EA release, so nope. It´s not us, the players....

Do you think the same about the broken smithing system? :grin:

Most players are aware about what is wrong with this game.
Honestly I never really cared about smithing, I wasn’t exited about it when it was announced and after a few attempts in the game decided that it was not for me, but I hope dat the issues are fixed for people who do like it. Most importantly a realistic price level between smithing, looting, raiding, equipment, hiring and upgrading troops.

I know the dead rate for battles is increased for now, to test out the simulation and see what the problems are. I was hoping for a simil ar solution for the defensive siege. Even a temporary fix: no penalty for joining a siege. Just to see how things run.I personally would like the ability to fight as your clan/family members. This would give them more personality and use. For me it is not a story about a single person but about a clan

I see your point that reporting the issues, does not mean there will be a fix. But i like to be optimistic 🙂
 
Last edited:

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
I know why people don't

I think I know why people avoid defending besieged settlements. They don't want to sacrifice their knights, noble troops just for defending some castle. I wouldn't want to sacrifice even one of my hard trained knights. So here's my suggestion. If your settlement is near to besieged settlement go quickly and leave your elites to garrison. Then get some regulars and break into besieged settlement. If your settlements are far away or if it's your settlement that besieged then, well, idk... Maybe it would make sense if TW adds an option to temporarily leave your troops in an ally garrison :grin:

Actually this is only part of the reason. I mean I am absolutely not going to just throw away 25% of the army I spent time gathering just to help defend. I mean if I had to actually fight my way in that would be different but just to throw them away, nope.

The second issue, is even if you did throw away 25% of your army so you can take part in defending a siege, most often the enemy decides the odds are now against them and they abandon the siege. Basically you throw away 25% of your army and STILL don't get to defend in a siege.

The ONLY way to take part is a siege is the make sure your going to lose. You would have to either already be in a city where its garrison plus your troops are too weak to defend the city or you break in with a small enough army that even with your help, the garrison plus your troops are too weak to defend the city. Basically, you start off by throwing away 25% of your Army before even fighting, then throw away the other 75% and a good chuck of the gold and items you have, when the enemy overwhelms you. I mean I am sure there are some edge cases where you will actually win but since the enemy won't ever continue a siege if it doesn't think it has 100% to win, well odds are pretty small it actually happening most of the time.

So unless you just like the challenging of losing everything or feel it is worth losing everything just to be able to defend a siege, then the best tactic is to wait until the enemy captures the city or town and then once the enemy army has moved on leaving a tiny garrison behind, you just retake the city or castle.
 

vonbalt

Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&B
I've fought two siege defenses so far and that was because i went out of my way to be forced into a siege defense just to test it, they are bad like reaaaly bad, i was heavily outnumbered (only way for the AI to not chicken out from the siege after you reinforce the garrison), on the first one i was massacred because of the dumb defensive AI, on the second one i opened the gates and told everyone to charge and won it easily lol
 
Top Bottom