What's the point of defending Cities/Castles?

[Elondras]

With the most recent patch and the sheer ridiculous amount of elite troops roaming around for AI Lords, defending cities and castles against Armies with equal or slightly higher numbers have become absolutely impossible. Because guess what most of the Cities have? That's right, Militas. And if you don't yourself contribute high enough with an elite army like, say a bit earlier in the game, then your chance on defending are close to 0%. I get the sentiment on why they decided to buff the AI armies but this is overkill. I can't even defend a City with 500 against 700 what in previous patches was a piece of cake (and too easy) is now entirely impossible even if i manage to destroy all the siege equipment. Ladders are enough and the Militas are just melting at contact with the enemy.

This needs adjustment and please sooner than later.

[Action Man]

I've never been a big fan of defensive sieges. They can be useful if you can create a fatal funnel to inflict massive casualties, but I prefer to wait outside, let the AI drain it's forces in a simulated battle, then rush in when the numbers are something I can handle.

Or if it's too massive, I let them take the fief, wait for them to siege somewhere else, and I take it right back. You can keep an AI Army bogged down for quite a while. The downside is you can lose a lot of prosperity if this happens too many times.

Or use the time they are sieging to raise your own army to beat them down, then retake the lost turf.

If I could actually control the siege engines being constructed, I might like it more.

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Elondras:

What's the point of defending Cities/Castles?

Honestly?

For a back-of-the-napkin Strategy involving defending against Sieges in Bannerlord, other than just for fun or to rack up some kills/etc or to preserve fiefs, then...

To set up an effective counter-attack.

In that situation, if I was presented with an opportunity to engage in a winnable defensive siege with no other factors being present, but there was an opportunity to then progress an offensive in a now undefended battlespace... I would do it.

Now, if it's a busted up Town that's been picked over forever and I didn't bring enough snacks for the whole class and there's a very high likelihood I can't resupply there as well as there being no effective garrison to speak of... I'd just wait until some sucker planted their own rear-end in that deathtrap and besiege them as soon as possible.

Sieges can be much more "than" about saving someone else's fief because they're too stupid or too ineffective to defend it. :)

(Edit-added "than" 'cause I had run out of "thans" this morning...)

[flyingscot1066]

Seriously? Siege defense is the easiest way to wreck those 1k+ armies that roll up, not to mention the massive gains in skills, renown, prisoners, loot, etc. I got 40+ points of Athletics in one siege just by pitching oil pots at attackers,

[Ruffio]

Fiefs can be excellent fly traps for armies. Linger about outside with your party. Wait until the attacking army actual launching their attack, then attack and double team them with the garrison of the fief.

[Morkonan]

Just a note in general about strategic and often tactical combat:

Everything to progress a battle in this game belongs to the player's character.

That includes the enemy units, the terrain, the defenses... everything.

Even in a desperate battle, all the tools anyone can possibly have access to belong to the player-character.

Why?

Because if the player does not see the battlefield and a war this way, then they are conceding these tools to the enemy.

It's not about should you defend a fief just to "defend it." It's whether or not you can affect a decision that harms the enemy by choosing to defend it or to not defend it. (Nobody likes you, so doing favors or being "loyal" has little practical use in Bannerlord - You have no friends. :()

Unfortunately, the enemy doesn't have much of a grasp on strategy, so finessing things isn't possible. There aren't really any resources to threaten, no iron mines to pillage, caravans are just mobile ATMs, and depriving Towns/Enemy of Food isn't really much of the way in productively prosecuting a war. (These things can have an affect on prosperity and some attrition stuffs, but it's just not practical and there are better uses for the player's time.)

[Crim]

There is a HUGE penalty for auto battle for the attacker

I have won battles in which I was being attacked with double the numbers in autobattle because I was defending a city.

[Daliena]

Well I certainly found a lot of point in defending when Unqid rolled up with 2200 troops in a single blob of an army.

300-ish garrison, 300-ish militia, plus my 400 mostly high-ranked troops mopped the floor with the Aserai holding the walls. That guy had almost twice as much cavalry alone in his army as I had troops total, I can't imagine trying to fight that circus in the open.

[Maou]

Originally posted by Elondras:

With the most recent patch and the sheer ridiculous amount of elite troops roaming around for AI Lords, defending cities and castles against Armies with equal or slightly higher numbers have become absolutely impossible. Because guess what most of the Cities have? That's right, Militas. And if you don't yourself contribute high enough with an elite army like, say a bit earlier in the game, then your chance on defending are close to 0%. I get the sentiment on why they decided to buff the AI armies but this is overkill. I can't even defend a City with 500 against 700 what in previous patches was a piece of cake (and too easy) is now entirely impossible even if i manage to destroy all the siege equipment. Ladders are enough and the Militas are just melting at contact with the enemy.

This needs adjustment and please sooner than later.

what are you talking about i defeat 1400 with only 200 men on defense and attack is only possible after destroying defense equipment

[Maou]

when you break 2 armies, the enemy has only cannon fodder