Swadian troops sure feel weak in sieges...

Users who are viewing this thread

Wheem

Grandmaster Knight
WF&SVCWB
I'm currently playing as a vassal of Swadia, which I've not done since the original M&B, and am finding (successful) siege warfare to be nigh impossible. I've always felt that Swadia was the easiest faction to defeat in sieges - whether on attack or defense - and this was a big part of the reason I usually didn't join them.

Theorizing about the problem in the past has lead me to the conclusion that Swadia's weakness in sieges is primarily based on the equipment of several units.
1) A number of tier 4 and 5 infantry and cavalry use Bastard Swords with 1 hand, which is not only a bit on the slow side, but also seems pretty unwieldy for fighting in the tight spaces of siege warfare. The Morning Star also has the slowness problem, but its shorter reach and high damage can actually work out pretty well I think. Personally, I'd say leave the Morning Star as-is, but remove the chance of them carrying a Bastard Sword, and have it replaced by "proper" 1h weapons. I think Arming Swords, regular Swords, and various Maces/Hammers/Picks would all fit with Swadia's theme, and would all be good options (though not all added to the equipment list, of course).

2) Tier 3 infantry units seem to be quite common in garrisons, and the Swadian version (Swadian Footman) often lacks a helmet, and generally wears Padded Leather armor for the chest. While Padded Leather may not be "terrible" armor, it is noticeably weaker than the Byrnie of the Nords, Studded Leather of the Vaegirs, Sarranid Leather Armor, etc...found on other troops in the same tier. Lacking a helmet is a pretty serious liability in my opinion - the AI sure loves its overhead swings (especially in tight quarters, like sieges). I'd say the Padded Coif should be removed from their list, and replaced with a 100% chance of a Footman's Helm (which they can already have), or perhaps a split chance between it and something similar to it. The chest armor is a bit trickier I think, since the devs (and many/most players) want a bit of variety between the factions. I can't think of any un-used armors in the game that are comparable to that of other tier 3 units, so I'm not sure what the best solution is here, but I don't think it's "fair" that the same-tier Nord infantry have chest armor that is fully half again as good.

3) Swadian ranged units seem particularly weak in melee. I think this is partly because the pre-Sharpshooter tiers have weak armor, and partly because few (none?) of them carry shields. It's generally impossible to keep your archers/crossbowmen totally out of melee in sieges, and I think plain/regular heater shields being a guarantee for their crossbowmen would noticeably improve survivability. Armor for tier 4 crossbowmen could probably stand to be improved a little as well, but I personally think shields are more needed.

A few anecdotes from my current game to reinforce the frustration of having a horrible siege army...

In less than 90 days since the beginning of the game, we've lost the City of Dhirim to the Sarranids (which they then lost to the Vaegirs), and Praven to the Nords; along with 2 or 3 castles being lost as well. It didn't help that, in both cases, the Marshal just sat around "gathering the army" instead of actually using what had already been assembled to defend our lands, but I'm not convinced that we could have won even if he had decided to be useful. I tried helping defend both cities myself, once I realized the Marshal was going to twiddle his thumbs.

Against the Sarranids, we were outnumbered roughly 2-to-1, which I (naively) figured wouldn't be too bad. Our crossbows (including my personal one) did a fair amount of damage while they were pushing the siege tower forward, but the tide turned the instant it reached the wall. Once the melee began, we got absolutely steamrolled - it really wasn't close at all. I tried the battle several times, and the Sarranids usually dominated the walls within ~15 seconds of their first reinforcement wave making contact. Sure, they had quite a few Mamlukes, but there were a number of Knights/Sergeants on defense for us as well (3 or 4 Swadian nobles sitting in the city).

Against the Nords at Praven...I don't even want to talk about it, the memory is still too painful :razz:. Lets just say that I haven't seen a beat down of that magnitude for quite some time.

My army (97 men) consists of 8 companions, ~10 Slaver Chiefs, ~10 Sword Sisters, ~5 Mercenary Infantry, and the rest is a mixture of Swadian soldiers (fairly even split between cavalry and infantry). I've made a couple attempts at attacking Nord castles, but every one has been a disastrous failure; I'm taking roughly 2-to-1 casualty rates, even when I have the advantage in quality and am only slightly outnumbered. If the situation was reversed, and I was using high tier Nords vs mostly mid tier Swadians, I'm confident that I could win with the vast majority of my army still intact.

Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only h...nevermind, I think even he would fall before the might of the Huscarl :sad:
 

Wheem

Grandmaster Knight
WF&SVCWB
unknown3056 said:
It would seem sir that you are griping about equipment, right?  :lol:
Sort of, but maybe not :???:

The problem I'm having is that the Swadians feel horribly weak in sieges, and I think their problem is primarily due to equipment. Their infantry used to have horrible stats, but now they're actually quite good in that department - six Power Strike for their Sergeants is very good. Yet even with high Power Strike and a Coat of Plates, those Sergeants feel very weak in sieges. If it's not due to the Bastard Sword being a bad weapon to use in 1 hand, I'm not sure what the problem is. As far as I know, their AI is no different than that of any other units.
 

unknown3056

Sergeant at Arms
WBNWWF&SM&B
Well, now that you mention it...

I would agree with this whole thing x)
I guess it is the equipment :/ at least for now I will think that.

I really do not have anything to say...except...watch out for the Rhodoks. Because they do pretty well in sieges >xD
 

Velax

Squire
M&BWB
Wheem said:
My army (97 men) consists of 8 companions, ~10 Slaver Chiefs, ~10 Sword Sisters, ~5 Mercenary Infantry, and the rest is a mixture of Swadian soldiers (fairly even split between cavalry and infantry). I've made a couple attempts at attacking Nord castles, but every one has been a disastrous failure; I'm taking roughly 2-to-1 casualty rates, even when I have the advantage in quality and am only slightly outnumbered. If the situation was reversed, and I was using high tier Nords vs mostly mid tier Swadians, I'm confident that I could win with the vast majority of my army still intact.

Well, really, if you're attacking Nord-held fortifications and they outnumber you, you really should expect to lose unless you've got the best troops the game has to offer.

It's actually pretty easy to change the equipment units spawn with by tweaking the module files. If you need any advice with that, I can help.
 

The Dominator

Sergeant
Main problem with bastard sword is that it's rathr weak when weilded with one and and when the enemy is huggin you it's almost useless unless you hit from above.
 

The_Freeman

I have to agree, while Swadians could be designed to be very good in open battlefields but less strong in sieges I think that some tweaks to their equipment would be nice.
 
Khergits aren't all that bad. Lancers are reasonably strong and come with the upside that a majority come with bows, so you get a free archer force + a nice infantry force. I think their main weakness was Coursers pre 1.127... They won't beat Nords but they aren't really terrible.
 

Wheem

Grandmaster Knight
WF&SVCWB
Velax said:
Wheem said:
My army (97 men) consists of 8 companions, ~10 Slaver Chiefs, ~10 Sword Sisters, ~5 Mercenary Infantry, and the rest is a mixture of Swadian soldiers (fairly even split between cavalry and infantry). I've made a couple attempts at attacking Nord castles, but every one has been a disastrous failure; I'm taking roughly 2-to-1 casualty rates, even when I have the advantage in quality and am only slightly outnumbered. If the situation was reversed, and I was using high tier Nords vs mostly mid tier Swadians, I'm confident that I could win with the vast majority of my army still intact.

Well, really, if you're attacking Nord-held fortifications and they outnumber you, you really should expect to lose unless you've got the best troops the game has to offer.

It's actually pretty easy to change the equipment units spawn with by tweaking the module files. If you need any advice with that, I can help.
The best troops the game has to offer are Nords :wink:. I would run into huge morale problems if I tried to recruit some, though. High casualties can be expected when fighting against the Nords, especially if they outnumber you; still, I expected my higher tiered units to still be able to squeak out a victory with my help. Instead, it's crushing defeats with 2-to-1 losses.

The gap between the Swadians and Nords in sieges is far larger than the one in field battles; for that reason, I think the Swadians need a boost for siege effectiveness. A player who signs up with the Nords can (easily) take Swadian castles by himself once his army size is 80'ish, but I don't see how a Swadian player could ever hope to do the same (barring extraordinary circumstances, like a castle that has just been attacked and left with a small garrison).

unknown3056 said:
JaimeLannister said:
I don't know..my knights and crossbowmen own everyone.

In sieges?
I was going to ask him that as well. No one really questions Swadia's effectiveness in field battles (except perhaps in very hilly terrain), but they sure seem weak in sieges.

Carrotfarmer said:
You think swadia's bad in sieges? consider the sarranids and khergits...

Besides, just edit the equipment yourself.
While I could (and might) edit the equipment myself and see what happens, I don't think balancing the game should be something only done through player mods. I must also disagree that the Sarranids and Khergits are weaker in sieges than Swadia - that hasn't been my experience at all.

As CriticallyAshamed points out - most of the Khergit force will have bows, and the Lancer's gear setup isn't bad at all for fighting on foot. Not to mention the fact that they're actually tier 4, so the AI will generally have a sizable number of them (Belir Noyan joined the Nords in my current game, and had 68 Lancers in his army the last time I saw him).

The Sarranid troops generally have shorter weapons than the Swadians, and so are a bit better suited to sieges. Not to mention the fact that their archers can maintain a much higher rate of fire, and get free ammunition refills on defense. I scoffed at their 2-to-1 numerical advantage in the siege of Dhirim...until I actually fought the battle - the Swadian forces were completely annihilated once the enemy got on the walls.
 

Hidziro

Recruit
If you want to feel swadia power make your army only of knights. And talking about siege defence they arent weak at all when my kingdom was in war with swadia i tried atack their castle and it was full of crossbowmans (about 60) and everyone else was a knights or man at arms. I played on easy and i only won becouse i atacked castle with other 2 vassals. Im high level and its about 300 days if that change anything. Didnt noticed on begining of my game but now all their lords have same freakin armies like rhodoks, about 60-70 crossbowmans and everyone else is knights.
 

FrisianDude

Archduke
M&BWB
I agree. I mainly think that only cavalry should use the bastard swords because they're silly to use in one hand on foot.
 

Kenkage

Veteran
FrisianDude said:
I agree. I mainly think that only cavalry should use the bastard swords because they're silly to use in one hand on foot.

I tweaked mine so they don't get a penalty. I don't understand why an extended grip makes a bastard bad with shield seriously.
 

loco21666

Regular
M&BWB
unknown3056 said:
Well, now that you mention it...

I would agree with this whole thing x)
I guess it is the equipment :/ at least for now I will think that.

I really do not have anything to say...except...watch out for the Rhodoks. Because they do pretty well in sieges >xD

They do well in sieges because they sacrifice the children they deem "weak" to demons in exchange for nuclear uranium-tipped crossbow bolts and unerringly supernatural aim. Just thought I'd pop in and clear that mystery up for everyone, in case y'all weren't aware where the Rhodoks get their immense power from. :neutral:
 

vota dc

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWB
Removing the penalty for bastard weapons or remove from swadian infantry is right.
However swadian isn't so weak in siege for being a field battle faction. Swadian footman has a best armor than rhodok trained spearman that sometimes have only the pike and no helmet. Swadian crossbowman has better armor and sometimes the shield while sarranid archer don't.


Khergit lancer still have the bow?
 

Morover

Recruit
Wheem said:
The Sarranid troops generally have shorter weapons than the Swadians, and so are a bit better suited to sieges. Not to mention the fact that their archers can maintain a much higher rate of fire, and get free ammunition refills on defense. I scoffed at their 2-to-1 numerical advantage in the siege of Dhirim...until I actually fought the battle - the Swadian forces were completely annihilated once the enemy got on the walls.

Mamlukes, they are cursed  :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
 
Top Bottom