Jump to content

Does anyone siege a castle?


Recommended Posts

tbh I have never sieged as castle.  I go just go in and slaughter them.  There doesn't seem to be any tactical advantage to siege a castle.

All you do is just give the other guy time to call in reinforcements.  And if you wait long enough, the other guy will sally forth anyway, so what was the point?

I think sieges need to be worked on.

The point of a siege is to take a castle/fort/town without damage or loss.  So either there needs to be a massive penalty for fighting or a massive bonus for not fighting.

That just isn't there in KoH1.  Not that I have seen.

Edited by Lighthope
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very good point actualy.

TBH I have very rarely used Siege - 2 or 3 times in total and in very specific circumstances: we have comparable armies & enemy moral is high & I have no other army close enough to be able to assault the castle safely.

I think an increase in Deffensive ("Fortification") bonus when assaulting the castle should be fine(10% is just too low), as in KoH1 it just feels like an open field battle.

On the other hand - if the defenders decide to Break the Siege, this should be an open field battle and the "Fortification" bonus from the defenders should be stripped. I think adding the option to Retreat back to the castle after atempting to Break the Siege will be also interesting interaction.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe fighting should destroy a certain percentage of the structures and kill a certain percentage of the population.

So not fighting would keep those intact.  The attackers get a province with everything built up and the defenders can decide to give up peacefully in the hopes of returning and taking it all back.

Very historically accurate.

Okay, sieges actually ending up killing a lot of the population through starvation, but hey it's a game.  We can let that slide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey great topic.

I think it is better to spend more developer time on open battles (more fun). And most of sieges should end up defenders starving (not fun). As I understand sieges were used by stronger army to force a defender smaller army into battle (last stand siege relief). 

As for gameplay it would be cool to see assaults. But for developers time sake it could be added later as i believe manpower cost would be to big for players to actually consider assaults.

As of latest dev diary, winning a siege changes the owner instantly, so relieving sieges in time becomes even more important. 

Could spy have an action to resupply besieged castle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I siege occasionally in early game or if the castle is low on food storage. If they are low on food, the morale quickly drops and occupation is quick and easy. Since the game is fairly easy, sometimes I will siege just for the roll playing aspect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.