Swadian troops sure feel weak in sieges...

[Jarl Erik the Red]

So the Swadians aren't the best siege faction of all time, boo hoo  Just get around that by fighting on the open field where your Knights kick butt! Eventually, yes, you may want to siege a nord castle, but it's a SIEGE not an ice cream festival! Expect casulties, lots, you're talking about fighting Nords aka the most siege proficient faction in the game. You can go ahead and edit your troops' equipment if you think it's unfair, but I prefer to live in a Calradia where factions have strengths and weaknesses.

 

[CriticallyAshamed]

Except for those poor Vaegirs... They are mediocore at everything, so stop complaining

And did Lancers lose their bows? Haven't played with them since the patch. That's kinda :sadface:... They occasionally hit stuff with them and at least it meant my army had _some_ sort of ranged attack....

 

[Blaze]

Lancers don't spawn with any ranged weaponry anymore, yet still have 4 power draw and 2 power throw :S.

The swadian's ace-in-the-hole are their knights, so yeah, fight in the open field whenever you can.

They wouldn't be so bad if you can get them out of the chokepoint so they can fight with breathing some room; which is impossible due to having only one ladder/tower.

 

[Wheem]

So the Swadians aren't the best siege faction of all time, boo hoo  Just get around that by fighting on the open field where your Knights kick butt! Eventually, yes, you may want to siege a nord castle, but it's a SIEGE not an ice cream festival! Expect casulties, lots, you're talking about fighting Nords aka the most siege proficient faction in the game. You can go ahead and edit your troops' equipment if you think it's unfair, but I prefer to live in a Calradia where factions have strengths and weaknesses.

Of course factions have strengths and weaknesses, and I never said I wasn't OK with that. Besides, sieges are ice cream festivals for Nords, and field battles aren't very tough either. My argument isn't that the Swadians should be the #1 siege faction, it's that they shouldn't suck as badly at it as they do now. I really do wish that you'd have exercised some basic reading comprehension.

A few points...
1) Swadia has an edge over the Nords in field battles, except in very hilly terrain, or in cases where much of the combat takes place in a stream. This issue is exasperated when the player is fighting in large battles alongside friendly lords. They'll often charge their men forward and fight in unfavorable terrain, rather than stick to an area that is better suited to their soldiers. That said, this is true for every faction; Swadians can charge up a steep hill to attack Nords, but the Nords may also rush off of a hill to attack Swadians in an open field.

2) Nords have an advantage over Swadians in siege warfare, and this gap is much larger than the one the Swadians benefit from in field battles.
2a) Terrain can favor Nords, but castles/cities can't favor Swadians.
2b) I've used Nord armies to defeat Swadian lords with just as few casualties as I've had in the reverse situation - even without a hill or stream to use for natural defense. The "Stand Closer" command works wonders, and I honestly think people tend to overstate the field battle gap that exists between Swadians and Nords. Sure, a Nord commander will need to do a bit more babysitting of his army, but can still achieve excellent results in field battles against any faction.

3) This issue isn't just about Swadia vs Nords, it's about Swadia vs Anybody. Several other factions have problems in sieges as well, such as Vaegir infantry/cavalry often not using their shields (or not having one at all) and Rhodok infantry not using spears effectively, but I think the Swadians have it worse.

In the time that I've been playing M&B/Warband (started in version 0.960 of the original M&B), I've attacked and defended many castles and cities, and have consistently found that the Swadians were the easiest to defeat in either role. Their field battle performance is good, but you can't really win wars based on those alone. Plus, as I mentioned above, all factions have the ability to do quite well in field battles; but the same cannot be said for sieges.

 

[Velax]

It's always going to be extremely difficult to balance the different factions, and to be honest I don't think they should be balanced. Having strengths in different areas mean you'll have a different experience with another character if you decide to go with a different faction. Feel like a harder challenger? Go with a Khergit-only army. Want easy mode? Train an army of Huscarls and/or Swadian Knights. And so on.

 

[Wheem]

It's always going to be extremely difficult to balance the different factions, and to be honest I don't think they should be balanced. Having strengths in different areas mean you'll have a different experience with another character if you decide to go with a different faction. Feel like a harder challenger? Go with a Khergit-only army. Want easy mode? Train an army of Huscarls and/or Swadian Knights. And so on.

And if one likes a particular culture more/less than others? "Oh gee I've always wanted to play Mongol style, but it's more frustrating than fun so I'll pass."

There are difficulty settings in the options menu, they shouldn't necessarily be present in the oath of fealty as well . I fully understand that there's no such thing as perfect balance; it's not possible to have faction A be 80% as strong as faction B in field battles, but the exact opposite for sieges. Still, there should always be an attempt at balance amongst the factions (and there obviously has been). I believe that the balance can be improved in some areas, and Swadia not being awful at sieges is one of them.

If I'm playing Nord and get taken out during a siege, it's always "Oh no, now I'm going to lose 3-4x (or more) the amount of men that I'd have lost if I just hid in a corner." For Swadia it's basically the reverse in sieges, and funnily enough, that's actually not hyperbole. Just to reinforce the assertion that it's not an exaggeration: We're trying to retake Praven from the Nords, who have ~150 men in the city, defending against our ~850. When auto-resolving the entire conflict, we lose less than half of the amount of men that we lost in the first round when I fight it manually. No idea what the auto-resolve losses would be if the factions were reversed, since 850 Nords would steamroll 150 of anything else so quickly that I never cared to test it.

 

[Assassinator1097]

Swadian's will already destroy every other faction except for Nords? Honestly, you can't make a faction TOO good, their power on an open field makes battles incredibly quick and easy. Even against Nords it's not that hard if you have an even ratio of Swadians to Nords. So really, their power on the field balances it, considering that Swadians have other troop tree options where as the Nords ONLY have Huscarls to fulfill any task other then their lower tier archers. I can understand what you're saying, but I just think it's currently balanced as is.

 

[Velax]

And if one likes a particular culture more/less than others?

*shrugs* Then you just deal with it.

Let's be serious here for a second; this game is not, in any way, shape or form, hard. Your character is basically a god compared to the AI troops, and unless you're massively outnumbered you're almost always going to win. That doesn't really change no matter which side you're on. Swadia isn't very good at defending sieges. It's true. So compensate for it. Don't try to defend your castles with recruits, because Nords, Rhodoks and Sarranids will slice through them like they weren't even there. Get some decent level companions and some Swadian Knights and you'll see how much easier it is to hold those walls.

And I'd still rather have true variety in factions. I like that Nords are awesome at sieges but less so on the field. I like that Swadians can crush their enemies underfoot on the field. I like that Khergits.....well, not every system is perfect.

 

[Wheem]

Swadian's will already destroy every other faction except for Nords? Honestly, you can't make a faction TOO good, their power on an open field makes battles incredibly quick and easy. Even against Nords it's not that hard if you have an even ratio of Swadians to Nords. So really, their power on the field balances it, considering that Swadians have other troop tree options where as the Nords ONLY have Huscarls to fulfill any task other then their lower tier archers. I can understand what you're saying, but I just think it's currently balanced as is.

A player can dominate field battles with any faction, and in rough terrain you're actually better off with Nords than Knights and/or Mamlukes. Knights are very powerful on flat open terrain, but lose all of that advantage when the terrain is rough. Nord infantry is powerful in ALL terrain; the only way they're ever weak vs anything at all (heavy cavalry included) is when they're used improperly. Conversely, there are no cases whatsoever where Swadians are better than Nords in sieges - and this is fine. My complaint is not that a gap exists, only that the current one in sieges is too large, while the one for field battles is actually pretty small.

And if one likes a particular culture more/less than others?

*shrugs* Then you just deal with it.

Let's be serious here for a second; this game is not, in any way, shape or form, hard. Your character is basically a god compared to the AI troops, and unless you're massively outnumbered you're almost always going to win. That doesn't really change no matter which side you're on.

Your statements are true for field battles, but not sieges. As I said before, I tried assaulting some Nord castles where I had ~95 men that were all T4-5 Swadian infantry/cavalry, Hired Blades, Slaver Chiefs, and Sword Sisters. My forces got absolutely decimated by ~120 defenders that were primarily T3. Reverse the factions, and the outcomes would have been drastically different.

Swadia isn't very good at defending sieges.

They're bad at both defending and attacking. As I said above - I get far better results from auto resolve than from shooting a crossbow while my/allies soldiers attack. Personally, I think that's kind of broken.

So compensate for it. Don't try to defend your castles with recruits, because Nords, Rhodoks and Sarranids will slice through them like they weren't even there. Get some decent level companions and some Swadian Knights and you'll see how much easier it is to hold those walls.

Uh, I was using Knights and Sergeants, and still got steamrolled. In fact, one of my primary suggestions is that those high end troops stop using Bastard Swords in one hand - why would I have made such a suggestion if I was trying to defend or attack with recruits?

My companions are mostly in the teens levels, and wearing an assortment of mid/upper end gear (Scale Armor, Mamluke Mail, Brigandine, Byrnie, Mail Boots, Full Helm, etc...)

And I'd still rather have true variety in factions. I like that Nords are awesome at sieges but less so on the field. I like that Swadians can crush their enemies underfoot on the field. I like that Khergits.....well, not every system is perfect.

Swadians not being terrible at sieges would have nothing to do with limiting faction variety, unless you're using that word as code for, "Each faction must be really terrible at something" - in which case Nords need some sort of gigantic nerf.

If we break it down to a scale of 1-10:
Swadians are a 10 on open battlefields, a 6.5 on rough terrain, and a 5 in sieges.
Nords are 8.5 on open battlefields, 10 on rough terrain, and 10 in sieges.

 

[blitzking]

Against the Nords at Praven...I don't even want to talk about it, the memory is still too painful . 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.

Well Nords are well known for their Swadian killing abilities. With less than 400 Nords (and Khergits, one of their lords defected to us for some reason) we were able to defeat a surplus of 1200 Swadians troops in defense of Curaw. And these were not just a bunch of Militia, these guys had a whole lot of elite Knights and Men-at-Arms, and even some Vaegirs to boot. Of course, we had quite a few Huscarls and Veterans on our side, and those Khergits horse-archers are excellent shots.

 

[Velax]

Uh, I was using Knights and Sergeants, and still got steamrolled. In fact, one of my primary suggestions is that those high end troops stop using Bastard Swords in one hand - why would I have made such a suggestion if I was trying to defend or attack with recruits?

No, what you said was:

but there were a number of Knights/Sergeants on defense for us as well (3 or 4 Swadian nobles sitting in the city).

Nobles tend to have relatively few top tier troops, often in the single digits, and the rest will be low tier. So you had mainly low tier troops defending walls against 2v1 odds and Mamlukes, widely recognised as the best dismounted knights in the game. It isn't a massive surprise you lost.

Swadians not being terrible at sieges would have nothing to do with limiting faction variety, unless you're using that word as code for, "Each faction must be really terrible at something" - in which case Nords need some sort of gigantic nerf.

No, it's a code word for "Each faction doesn't have to be balanced with every other. I believe some factions should be easier to play with, others harder."

I really don't understand what you're arguing for here. No one will disagree that Nords and Sarranids are better in sieges than Swadians. In your opinion the factions should be balanced. Some will agree, others won't. As you've already said, it's perfectly within your capability to modify the game to suit your personal taste by changing the equipment your units spawn with. But if you're waiting for Taleworlds to change the game to suit your specific wishes, I suggest bringing a deck chair and a newspaper.

 

[I AM HOBO OF DOOM]

swadia IS the easiest to defeat in siege

 

[Maksim125]

Yeah I remember swadia being easily conquered by the nords. Also I think that nords are siege masters since they have great archers and extremly overpowered footmen, so swadia doesnt stand a chance against them or the sarranids, or the vaegrs, or the rhodoks, but they have a fair chance of wining against the kherihts. So swadia is very weak I thing that their sergents need the armor king harlues has since no other faction is using it in their troops. Their footmen need helmets so headshots dont kill them so easily.

 

[Wheem]

[quote author=Velax]No, what you said was:[/quote]
Another quote from me in the very same post you quoted: "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)." This is significant because Swadians aren't able to become cavalry until T4, so at the absolute bare minimum - that's what my guys would have been. In reality, the large majority were already Knights and Sergeants; roughly 30'ish of each.

[quote author=Velax]Nobles tend to have relatively few top tier troops, often in the single digits, and the rest will be low tier. So you had mainly low tier troops defending walls against 2v1 odds and Mamlukes, widely recognised as the best dismounted knights in the game. It isn't a massive surprise you lost.[/quote]
Indeed, nobles do tend to not have a huge of top tier soldiers; even on the "good" Campaign AI setting, which I'm using. However, that's just as true for the Sarranids as it is for the Swadians.

Besides, since you like to argue that Swadia should be trash in sieges, why shouldn't the same be true for the Sarranids? Their Mamlukes are at least as dominant in field battles, and many people feel that they're even better. Their infantry/missile soldiers are pretty similar to that of the Swadians, all things considered. But hey, they should be better in sieges and field battles, right? Faction diversity, woohoo!

[quote author=Velax]No, it's a code word for "Each faction doesn't have to be balanced with every other. I believe some factions should be easier to play with, others harder."[/quote]
I see no logical reason whatsoever to design factions so that some were specifically more difficult to play than others. This basically takes variety out of the game; the casual gamers will always tend to stick to 1 or 2 factions, and the "hardcore" players to a different 1 or 2. Things might be a little different if the game was set in some specific Earth setting with historical kingdoms, but that's not particularly relevant to M&B/Warband.

As I said before, I don't expect all factions to be perfectly balanced - such a task is literally impossible. However, that does not mean that balance cannot or should not be improved upon. I feel that there is justification for Swadia to not be the "best" faction at sieges, but they certainly need to be better than they are now.

[quote author=Velax]As you've already said, it's perfectly within your capability to modify the game to suit your personal taste by changing the equipment your units spawn with.[/quote]
Which may or may not fix the issue. Editing the troop files does not work for in-progress games, correct? So it'd take a while to build up a new game and see if it even fixes the underlying problem. Though I suppose I could always cheat-level an army and give it a shot.

Besides, I don't feel that modding should be the default answer for issues that exist in any game. Swadia's weakness at sieges in no way means that Warband is a "bad" game - it's still one of my favorite games, ever. Still, I feel that bumping up Swadia's siege effectiveness - in the base game, not solely via modding - would be a good improvement.

[quote author=Velax]But if you're waiting for Taleworlds to change the game to suit your specific wishes, I suggest bringing a deck chair and a newspaper.[/quote]
I'm not demanding that the TW team tweak the game to suit my personal desires; I'm simply starting discussion and offering suggestions that are founded in more than, "oh noes I lost a fight, buff/nerf plz!" frustration.

 

[Velax]

This is getting pointless. We're just arguing matters of personal opinion now and will never get anywhere. Rather than continue this indefinitely, let me just point out one thing:

Which may or may not fix the issue. Editing the troop files does not work for in-progress games, correct?

Actually, no. It does work for an in-progress game. I tried it just the other day.

 

[Hawkeye66]

This is getting pointless. We're just arguing matters of personal opinion now and will never get anywhere. Rather than continue this indefinitely, let me just point out one thing:

Which may or may not fix the issue. Editing the troop files does not work for in-progress games, correct?

Actually, no. It does work for an in-progress game. I tried it just the other day.

It depends on what you do. I had to delete a 435 day save file because I changed something that I should of left alone. >.< If you're altering stats it shouldn't crash anything, course I'm am definately NOT an expert so don't even listen to me.

 

[Dark Elf]

I found swadian is quite ok in siege, use their sharpshooter and sergeant, leave your knight at home.

My siege party usually consist of 80-90% sharpshooter and 10-20% sergeant.
Make sure your sharpshooter outnumber their archer,
Set your sergeant in front to receive enemy fire, while your sharpshooter sniping their archer.
Shoot until your sharpshooter ammo run out. Leave the siege, besiege again, rinse en repeat.
Sooner or later they will run out archer to counter your sharpshooter.
Keep sniping the defender until no one left, huscarl shield can be broken! 

imho in term of siege power
1 Rhodoks (same strat)
2 Nord (all huscarl)
3 Swadia (see above)
4/5 Sarranid/Vaegir tie ( Sarranid = bad archer, Vaegir = no shield trooper)
6 Khergit (close your eyes and pray)

Test it using 100% damage, 400 person battle, good Ai for battle and campaign.
With 5-6 engineering skill, I can take nord castle without any problem as long as it's "ladder" siege.
"tower" siege take too long for this strat to work.