What's the Point of Siege Defense?

[geala]

I've played several sieges now and I don't see a big usefulness of fortifications and their defense, except that they look pretty. I long lost the impression I had got when I had watched the first siege video long before release where a siege seemed to be a long fight with meaningful combat actions. But also my much lowered expectations got more and more frustrated. Usually now it is the AI racing some siege towers over the field, not affectable by catapults which prefer to bombard the field far away in the hinterland. Then the AI rushes over the wall in compact form while the defenders are senselessly spread, no chance for a meaningful resistance.

The engineers of Calradia seemingly are too dump to construct at least slighly effective fortresses, maybe with a layered defense (like in 1257 AD mod f.e.), or a ditch? The fortifications remind me of Helm's Gorge in Lord of the Rings, the most stupid castle I ever saw. Usually fortresses had the purpose to allow fewer people to hold out against superior forces (in the famous "real life"), but in the game they seem to have no big impact, even some disadvantages. On the one hand they have garrisons too big (castles at least, maybe because defense is more difficult than attack with siege towers involved?), on the other hand they don't help defenders sufficiently. A bit disappointing for me.

 

[froggyluv]

They tried to get real fancy and perhaps cinematic with the idea of these multiple defense points but alls its doing in reality is thinning the defenses out too much. Honestly the clusterF we all know and loved from the previous titled played out far more realistically in terms of sieges defended and numbers lost. It just went about it in an ugly, uninteresting way

 

[federally]

I've only seen effective siege defenses done against me lol, my defenders always seem pretty useless.

One particular castle I was sieging had 4 catapults set up, and before I could do anything about them they demolished my ram and one siege tower. I reloaded the assault quite a few times and it happened every time.

So more effective siege defense is possible, is just not a common occurrence in the game.

 

[AfLIcTeD]

One the gate is breached or your guys get a foothold on the walls, it's pretty much gg for the defenders. It would be better if the defenders fell back towards the keep and defended certain points in the settlement. Rather than standing around at the gate to get slaughtered.
Some sieges look like they support this as they have certain defensive points.

 

[King Yngvar]

One the gate is breached or your guys get a foothold on the walls, it's pretty much gg for the defenders. It would be better if the defenders fell back towards the keep and defended certain points in the settlement. Rather than standing around at the gate to get slaughtered.
Some sieges look like they support this as they have certain defensive points.

Having done a bit of siege defenses using the Breakin mod I've found out that trying to protect the walls or the gate is pointless, it is too easy for the attacker to get their ladders in place and just walking up. Manually placing the troops at a chokepoint further inside the town is currently a much better strategy for the defender. I'd rather they make it harder to take the walls, giving the walls to the enemy shouldn't be the preferred strategy during a siege defense.

 

[archaicwarrior]

I suspect there was high hopes for realistic sieges ... but programming, limitations and game play lead us to what we have.

We'll need a highly skilled modder / team to give a partially realistic siege battle. In other words ... wait ... and wait some more.

 

[federally]

I suspect there was high hopes for realistic sieges ... but programming, limitations and game play lead us to what we have.

We'll need a highly skilled modder / team to give a partially realistic siege battle. In other words ... wait ... and wait some more.

It's sad because the Gamescon builds looked to have better sieges then we have

 

[CzeReptile]

Siege defense would be great if it had depth. Now its run and pray for smth. Ladders are weird, towers are a joke and when siege ram makes it and you still have enough troops its gg, because AI is just outright stupid. You break gate and they stand there, waiting for tons of troops to push in and surround them. And they dont even fight so you can easily pick 20 from side.

Also control over troops, is nonexistant. I want to order my archers to HIDE behind the damn fortifications, not stand there like a tourist and get shot at. On that note crossbowman should turn around while loading so they are protected by shield, but that does not work.

Id like to build a ditch for my castle. Have oil to pour on the ram to burn it. Heck, ANYTHING. BE able to placate 2nd layer of troops that run from battle , rally them and do last effort defense. Some narrow spots that matter. Whoever designed the castles and cities did not really had defensivness in mind, it seems to be designed towards take-retake-take-retake etc.

 

[hruza]

They tried to get real fancy and perhaps cinematic with the idea of these multiple defense points

There are 3 points, two at walls and a gate. To attack a gate, attackers need to use a ram. To attack walls, attackers can use default ladders -2 per point or build a siege tower, which provides 3 ladders per point.

I think basic concept is good, it's execution that is clunky and probably mostly related to path finding. Attackers can't use multiple ladders at the same time, defenders put most of their soldiers in to useless shield wall in front of the gate that can be flanked and defenders slaughtered like a sheep. I did not test it but I suspect that defenders place most of their units in to shield wall in front of the gate even if attackers doesn't have a ram. Also defenders tend to send soldiers from one point to another as a "reinforcements" resulting in lot of troops shifting needlessly around in "ignore everything" mode.

Ladder path finding needs to be fixed. Useless shield wall in front of the gate should be used only if enemies are actually trying to breach the gate and it needs to be disbanded the moment gate is broken and soldiers needs to attack the enemy breaking in. AI shouldn't shift soldiers from one side of the siege to another once defense is broken. Instead when one of the defense points is broken, all defenders should withdraw to some "last" stance point. It might be some makeshift barricade in the town center or in front of the keep. Barricade should be made so that it gives some protection to archers and prevents enemy from flanking defenders.

May be add some way for player to be able to assign how many soldiers should attack or defend which point.

If existing problems would be fixed, I think siege battles would actually be fine. The concept seems sound to me and there is no need to change something radically. Just polish the things and make things work as they should.

 

[archaicwarrior]

UG!! I just played a siege as the attacker, on a castle, and needed to RETREAT!! .. when some of the defenders vanished in a well ! Getting into the castle was VERY EASY and soldiers killed most of the defenders fairly easily .. all except 6 which could not be found, all my troops would go down the steps to the water well and run around like frantic dogs in the water. I went to take a look and found nothing. I suspect these 6 entered the water and phased through a wall ? Plus one tower of this castle had stone doors ! (could not be entered)

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I just sally out!
What I hate most about siege defense is lack of specific control and placement of the troops. I was all set to fire squad the enemy from the ground as they reached the wall or came through the gate, but my guys would keep going to the wall no matter what and getting killed! I also couldn't just place them where I wanted, the formations where always going the wrong way! It would have worked so well if I could just do what I wanted , they woulda been KOS the second they pop over ladder and fish in the barrel when they cam in the gate. I was gonna even open the gate to speed it up. But no the defense AI doesn't listen and wants to be stupid and die. After several attempts I give up and just sally out and slaughter them.

It's a real problem if you have less control and higher casualties in a siege defense then in an open battle! That just shouldn't be, but it is!

 

[Maximum997]

It's a real problem if you have less control and higher casualties in a siege defense then in an open battle! That just shouldn't be, but it is!

Yes. And dont forget about stupid control groups.

For example i have batanian fians in the shield wall at the gates and infantry in the tower with sniper windows.

 

[CzeReptile]

Yes. And dont forget about stupid control groups.

For example i have batanian fians in the shield wall at the gates and infantry in the tower with sniper windows.

Oh yes this is my favorite part. Recently attacked castle, had like 100 archers outta 200 men army.

And first message of battle - ranged is using siege weapon. Aaaand my infantry stands there just hanging about.

 

[CzeReptile]

UG!! I just played a siege as the attacker, on a castle, and needed to RETREAT!! .. when some of the defenders vanished in a well ! Getting into the castle was VERY EASY and soldiers killed most of the defenders fairly easily .. all except 6 which could not be found, all my troops would go down the steps to the water well and run around like frantic dogs in the water. I went to take a look and found nothing. I suspect these 6 entered the water and phased through a wall ? Plus one tower of this castle had stone doors ! (could not be entered)

Happened to me, I kept running around the castle for few minutes, found him bugged in wall and managed to shoot him xD but yes, the clunky pathfinding and clipping can make it quite an adventure!

 

[Scardan Youmans]

We'll need a highly skilled modder / team to give a partially realistic siege battle.

I think, TW is good enough to do the work themselves :p

 

[Lord Irontoe]

I don't know if it ever occured to TW that if they increase the amount of entry points attackers can use to get into the castle, then garrisons would need to be a lot larger to cover all the breaches. The average Bannerlord garrison is smaller than a typical Warband garrison that only needed to defend a single ladder. Its totally predictable.

 

[Nakh]

Defender AI utilizes archers very badly, I think this is the key problem. Attackers must have huge casualties before they reach the walls or gates, but none of it happens currently.

 

[Plumberscrack]

Murder holes go mostly unused. Troops trying to climb down the ladder. Defense equipment only gets possibly three shots. I'm enjoying the changes with the early access and look forward to were they are going.

 

[Magnusnyg]

I don't think people want realistic sieges... The amount of disparity between defenders and attackers would make the campaign completely static. Pre-gun powder, you often had 50-100 men holding off armies of thousands in castles and well defended towns. There's a reason so many castles were build, they were pretty good at keeping armies at bay. Don't matter how many men you have, when each time they make even a tiny breach, the defenders can make a mini Thermopylae.

So, I don't mind the cinematic version of sieges. I just think they should make each siege be a number of steps, depending on the size and defenses of the City/Castle.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The problem is how both bannerlord and warband expect you to assault every settlement like in total war. In reality a decisive field battle would make some of the losing side's castles surrender immediately. The game needs some system like this to make siege assaults less common and shift the focus onto field battles, so that if siege assaults do happen, the defenders can get way more of an advantage and it won't feel as ridiculous as it does now where every other battle is a siege.