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 . 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
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 . 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