Beseiged armies holding out forever...

I can't work out what effects the length of time a castle holds out. I've had the Byzantines hiding in Constantinople, but the stronghold would not fall.

Yet when i had assaulted the thing (breaking through god knows how many gatehouses to get to something like twenty peasants) and taken it, the information screen said my huge army would only be likely to hold out for one year.

Why are some strongholds well supplied and others poorly supplied? Is it just the amount of troops inside? Is more or less better? Is it different when the beseiged is royalty?

A little help, please sir...

Welcome to the Org GhavGrim

The length of time a garrison can hold out is a function of the size of the castle and the size of the garrison. A few troops in a large castle can hold out forever, while a large force in the same castle might only last a couple of years.

My guess has always been that it has to do with the amount of provisions stored inside; fewer mouths to feed means a longer siege.

ichi :bow:

These are options when you're besieging a castle. As ichi said, the time you need castle wait to fall depends on strength of the castle and size of garrison.

@{"It is about to fall. "}
@{"It is likely to hold out for two years. "}
@{"Its supplies will probably only last for 3 years. "}
@{"It is likely to hold out for around 4 years. "}
@{"It is well supplied and likely to hold out for 5 years or more. "}
@{"It has large food reserves and could last out 6 years. "}
@{"It is well supplied and likely to hold out for more than 6 years. "}
@{"Its supplies are likely to last well into an eighth year. "}
@{"It is very well provisioned and will not fall in less than 8 years. "}
@{"It is under siege, but its huge stockpiles will probably last more than 8 years. "}
@{"It is currently under siege but its vast reserves will last for more than 10 years. "}
@{"Its vast stockpiles and modest garrison mean years of waiting. "}
@{"Although besieged, the garrison is not likely to become concerned for years. "}
@{"Although besieged, it will take many years before this small garrison starves. "}
@{"Although under siege, there is no prospect of this castle falling without an assault. "}
@{"There is no prospect of this castle falling without an assault. "}
@{"This castle will not fall without a direct assault. "}

The little add ons you can get your castle help significantly as well, stuff like barbicans on citadels etc.

Well no castle will really hold out forever, even those that say that they will not fall without an assault. But the time that it takes to starve the buggers when there is no prospect of the castle falling without an assault is obscene. (15+ years)

It's not really unrealistic if you look at history..

For example, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon spent 13 years besieging Tyre. He won only because Tyre surrendered.

What about cities which cannot be fed by waterways?

Noone bothered fortifying the ones that had no water I guess!

Yeah, a good source of water was one of the most important features of any fortified location, whether that be a well or underground stream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1pain1Duck

Well no castle will really hold out forever, even those that say that they will not fall without an assault. But the time that it takes to starve the buggers when there is no prospect of the castle falling without an assault is obscene. (15+ years)

---

Well, think about it, 20 guys in a castle for 20 years. They can garden for food and save rainwater. It would be hard but it could work. And if they have a catapult, they can fling their poop at the enemy.

Thats how the Beseigers die each turn, flying shit bombs.

I know it's realistic, was just saying it's not really a point try to starve them out. ~:)

The main thing that irks me about MTW sieges is how the hell are 20 guys supposed to hold off an army. I hate MTW's castle defense system. I think the amount of fire that a castle can bring to bear against a siege assault should be equivelent to the size of the besieged army.

Do you guys like to assault the castles or do you auto-calc? ~:confused:

I do both. I've heard rumors that the AI forgets to take the archers on the walls into account when you auto-calc a seige, so it's damn hard to beat the record on a seige. That being said, especially when I have a high command general (high valor artillery) it is a lot of fun and very satisfying to watch the enemies walls come crumbling down. This is especially true after the advent of gunpowder. I LOVE watching demi-culverins and culverins bringing down towers, walls, even the keep itself. Just feels very .... cathartic... I make it a role-playing goal that I only attack forces that attack me, so generally, I'm pretty angered over whomever it is that I am seiging. I feel like Conan with his 'what is best in life' speech... "To crush, your enemies, to see them driven before you, to hear the cries and lamentations of their women".

I only attack a castle if it only has wooden walls. Otherwise it's just a waste of men. If a siege is going to take too long I reload the quicksave and refight the battle, letting them rout with more people until it's reasonable.

If i need to win a siege with little losses i autocalc them, mainly because the arrow towers are so unrealistic. That said i always make the ai carry out the assault properly, i know im a cheat but its not my fault CA never did another patch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dgfred

Do you guys like to assault the castles or do you auto-calc? ~:confused:

---

I rarely auto-calc; why buy a game then let the comp play for me? But its OK to play as your style dictates.

That said, I never attack the gates, I try to find the spot in the walls where the inner wall and outer wall come together, and destroy (using Trebs or gunpowder arty) that place; take out the one tower and break down the inner and outer walls a lot easier (prolly 'cause even the misses do some good damage. I take a lot of siege arty 'cause they can also kill the men standing behind the walls, and use just a few well-armored elites to break in.

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

I rarely auto-calc; why buy a game then let the comp play for me? But its OK to play as your style dictates.

That said, I never attack the gates, I try to find the spot in the walls where the inner wall and outer wall come together, and destroy (using Trebs or gunpowder arty) that place; take out the one tower and break down the inner and outer walls a lot easier (prolly 'cause even the misses do some good damage. I take a lot of siege arty 'cause they can also kill the men standing behind the walls, and use just a few well-armored elites to break in.

ichi :bow:

---

I agree that all the 'battling' :duel: is the best part of the game, but I some-
times auto-calc the battles where the outcome is already known :embarassed: . My name is Greg.....I have next-turn syndrome :shame: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ichi

I rarely auto-calc; why buy a game then let the comp play for me? But its OK to play as your style dictates.

That said, I never attack the gates, I try to find the spot in the walls where the inner wall and outer wall come together, and destroy (using Trebs or gunpowder arty) that place; take out the one tower and break down the inner and outer walls a lot easier (prolly 'cause even the misses do some good damage. I take a lot of siege arty 'cause they can also kill the men standing behind the walls, and use just a few well-armored elites to break in.

ichi :bow:

---

I punch a hole in the inner and outer wall and then take out every tower I can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dgfred

My name is Greg.....I have next-turn syndrome :shame: .

---

*Group says together* Hi Greg, we are here to help you!

I don't auto-calc unless I have 4 units in a castle or area and I get attacked by 3 stacks.....we all know who is gonna win. Although on a good day I like to play "the we will fight to the death for our contry" and just duke it out and kill as many of the bastards I can before I die. HOOAH :charge: :charge: :charge: :charge: :duel: :duel: :duel:

Has anyone ever tried this before, I just thought of it and until I can play Campaign mode again, I can't try it.

Have two armies, one group of 11 Siege weapons and your general. Then Beat the hell out of the castle - withdraw the siege troops and bring in the elite badasses.

I just think that would be a cool strategy, thats all. Would love to try it.

THAT WOULD BE SO SWEET TO PULL OFF ON A FORTRESS ASSAULT WITH LOTS OF DEFENDERS BUT TO THIS DAY, I HAVE YET TO SEE A CPU FORTRESS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

Has anyone ever tried this before, I just thought of it and until I can play Campaign mode again, I can't try it.

Have two armies, one group of 11 Siege weapons and your general. Then Beat the hell out of the castle - withdraw the siege troops and bring in the elite badasses.

I just think that would be a cool strategy, thats all. Would love to try it.

THAT WOULD BE SO SWEET TO PULL OFF ON A FORTRESS ASSAULT WITH LOTS OF DEFENDERS BUT TO THIS DAY, I HAVE YET TO SEE A CPU FORTRESS.

---

Depending on the size & quality of the enemy garrison, they may sally out against you should you try this idea. I'd keep a few good defensive infantry to guard the siege machines, ones that could at least hold out long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

The AI, especially at higher levels, can occasionally surprize the human player - it's happened to me!

I've had similar thoughts to Budwise, in the past, but wasn't aware of how to actually pull it off, on the campaign map.

You pick up the stack, drop it on the castle, say 'yes' to the "do you wish to end the siege by assaulting the castle?" message but does it allow you to pick up a second stack and also drop that on the castle? Maybe I've never even tried.

So, to date, I've never been in a position to have reinforcements to call on when doing a castle assault or, by only having dropped one stack, I'm never going to see the reinforcements icon on the battle screen.

The silly thing is I ought to know this will work because I've done a castle defence against the Horde before and I know they were reeling on reinforcements like nobody's business.

I take the losses to arrow towers etc. on the chin because I know this will work in my favour, whenever the boot is on the other foot.

It's a pity the keep building plays no role in these battles, beyond set-dressing and maybe the odd arrow. The point of a castle is to narrow the fighting front to the width of a gateway - hence the 'force multiplier' tag. Wall breaches should take weeks to make, so some artistic licence is given for the time they take to achieve in the game. That widens the front in the attackers' favour. (We're just lucky there are no moats in the typical castle models!!!)

The point of a keep is to narrow the front once again, to the width of a staircase and, on stairs, the defender has height advantage. Even the turning direction of spiral stairs was made such that the defender's right hand has plenty of freedom of movement, whilst the attacker's right hand is up against the central column and much more restricted. Damn clever, these medieval types.

I have autocalced in the past, particularly when it's so early in the game that I have no siege gear yet. I've also done it due to impatience, so I should join the 'next-turn anonymous' group. ~:grouphug: However, once I have the choicer troop types in my successful attack stack, I want more control over which units will suffer losses in the assault. Autocalc just spreads all the losses evenly amongst all the units, so it has a disproportionate effect on any Cav units in the stack. You also have no way of knowing if it's taken out some of the high valour individuals within your veteran units. You don't get a battle log on autocalc, making it impossible to check up on this.

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EatYerGreens

I've had similar thoughts to Budwise, in the past, but wasn't aware of how to actually pull it off, on the campaign map.

You pick up the stack, drop it on the castle, say 'yes' to the "do you wish to end the siege by assaulting the castle?" message but does it allow you to pick up a second stack and also drop that on the castle? Maybe I've never even tried.

So, to date, I've never been in a position to have reinforcements to call on when doing a castle assault or, by only having dropped once stack, I'm never going to see the reinforcements icon on the battle screen.

The silly thing is I ought to know this will work because I've done a castle defence against the Horde before and I know they were reeling on reinforcements like nobody's business.

I take the losses to arrow towers etc. on the chin because I know this will work in my favour, whenever the boot is on the other foot.

It's a pity the keep building plays no role in these battles, beyond set-dressing and maybe the odd arrow. The point of a castle is to narrow the fighting front to the width of a gateway - hence the 'force multiplier' tag. Wall breaches should take weeks to make, so some artistic licence is given for the time they take to achieve in the game. That widens the front in the attackers' favour. We're lucky there are no moats in the typical castle models!!!

The point of a keep is to narrow the front once again, to the width of a staircase and, on stairs, the defender has height advantage. Even the turning direction of spiral stairs was made such that the defender's right hand has plenty of freedom of movement, whilst the attacker's right hand is up against the central column and much more restricted. Damn clever, these medieval types.

I have autocalced in the past, particularly when it's so early in the game that I have no siege gear yet. I've also done it due to impatience, so I should join the 'next-turn anonymous' group. ~:grouphug: However, once I have the choicer troop types in my successful attack stack, I want more control over which units will suffer losses in the assault. Autocalc just spreads all the losses evenly amongst all the units, so it has a disproportionate effect on any Cav units in the stack. You also have no way of knowing if it's taken out some of the high valour individuals within your veteran units. You don't get a battle log on autocalc, making it impossible to check up on this.

---

Welcome to our group ~:grouphug: ~D ! I have no use for 'tedious' battles
but I like to help my better units rack up big kills and use flanking moves. :dizzy2:

I very rarely do sieges. If the remaining forces are large I'll wait it out; if they're really small I'll autocalc it. If it's something in-between I may do either, or actually play the battle out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlebktruck

I very rarely do sieges. If the remaining forces are large I'll wait it out; if they're really small I'll autocalc it. If it's something in-between I may do either, or actually play the battle out.

---

I am much the same way ~;) , I really don't like siege battles that much :embarassed: and rarely fight them.

In the late game, I find that the only fun battles left are epic sized siege assaults against fortresses.