Did they say anything about seiges?

[Lighthope]

I don't recall if they said anything about revamping the benefits of sieges.

In KoH1, sieges were practically worthless for an attacking army.  All they did was give the defenders time to call in reinforcements.

There was no benefit to maintaining a siege.

Any word of a re-work?

[William Blake]

Potentially, you could make a huge difference with adjusting mechanics of food/supply/logistics. But it probably won't happen because it would look as too complex for a target audience.

[Lighthope]

1 hour ago, William Blake said:

But it probably won't happen because it would look as too complex for a target audience.

I think you may be looking for a game that is more complex than KoH is or wants to be.

[William Blake]

Well, true, I'm not a target audience for KoH, this is why you have "practically worthless sieges". What was your question again?

[Lighthope]

16 hours ago, William Blake said:

What was your question again?

It's in the OP.

[Zaza]

On 5/10/2021 at 8:39 PM, Lighthope said:

All they did was give the defenders time to call in reinforcements.

 

 

But it isn't supposed to receive a benefit by maintaining a siege. 🙂

And isn't this the purpose of a castle? To buy time, call reinforcements, etc?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lighthope]

1 hour ago, Zaza said:

But it isn't supposed to receive a benefit by maintaining a siege. 🙂

And isn't this the purpose of a castle? To buy time, call reinforcements, etc?

Yes, a castle was built to give time to call in reinforcements.

But with the option of the attacker to just attack, what benefit is there to the attacker to siege?  Why not just attack right now?

Historically, an attacker would besiege a castle in the hopes that they would just give up without a fight.  Many times, a deal was struck between attacker and defender that if relief did not come within a certain amount of time, the defender would surrender.  This way, both attacker and defender would come out (relatively) unharmed.

In KoH, though, there is absolutely no benefit to the attacking side to siege.

M2:TW as this same problem.  I would siege a castle just long enough to build siege equipment and then attack.  Waiting was useless as the defender would always sally forth just before the timer expired.

There needs to be a benefit to the attacker for besieging.  Such as the defender should losing troops as the siege goes on.

[frujin]

Attacker has no benefit. They just need to prepare the attack and breach defenses enough ...

[Lighthope]

12 hours ago, frujin said:

Attacker has no benefit. They just need to prepare the attack and breach defenses enough ...

That is kind of the point I was making.  No benefit to the attacker, so why bother besieging beyond what you have to?

But I bow to your decision.

[Arnold]

Sieges do have a use in KoH, though it is pretty limited. The defenders' morale breaks when there is no food, just as with armies, so taking a starved town is way easier.

[Lighthope]

2 hours ago, Arnold said:

The defenders' morale breaks when there is no food, just as with armies, so taking a starved town is way easier.

It's been a while, but if the timer (food) runs out, don't you just get the town?

Hence why the computer always comes out to fight before that happens.