Another reason to personally resolve sieges

[Radegast]

Shame I can't post to the main forums, even as a re-registered user (I can't use my old account as I lost that job, too much time on the forums tee hee) I'll have to start this here.

I was always one of thoe that almost always auto-resolved castle assaults as normally either I'd got so many troops outside he the enemy had so few inside that it seemed a pointless waste of time.

But since I learnt that valour is only gained by killing/capturing troops who have not yet broken (i.e. routers don't count) I've taken to trying to assault manually once the garrison is down to a manageable level.

I'll still assault with my sixteen plus unit army but I will only plan to attack with three or four of these units (and any of the seige weaponary that might be around).

Now as castle defenders almost never rout, at least not within the walls, then all kills start to count for valour gains. Sure, you'll lose some of your men but I've always been happy with a 50% loss rate for a +1 valour gain.

Of course I presume that valur gets gained in an auto assault, but I'm also presuming that it is distributed accross all units in the same way as losses are shared. So no one unit gets very much which tends to mean no valour increases appear.

Turns out to be quite a productive way to farm high valor units. It can even be applied to cavalry which dismount to reasonable infantry as the valour remains when they get back on the horse.

Just make sure your General charges in at the death so he doesn't get that V&V for not fighting.

[katank]

I would assault using one unit and autocalc. you get reasonable losses and still win.
they never rout since they have +8 morale for no retreat. Once this adds to castle defense, this is a place to get a lot more casualties for you so I would recommend against it. If you are that desperate for valour, just fight elsewhere and cook up some rebellions where you get more valour with less losses.

[Seven.the.Hun]

a siege is good, as i never like to waste time in yrs, sitting outside a castle starving them to death while they might get backup at some point...and seige battles are just fun, too bad the game is too afraid to throw one at you

[Obadiah]

I've definately noticed that auto-resolving kills fewer of my troops than my leading the attach directly. I'd assumed it was bad generalship But I do enjoy the battle, esp b'c:
1) they don't route, so you really have to kill them.
2) the outcome is never in doubt, so its less about winning than the efficiency (survival rate for my troops) of the win.
3) they get a certain tactical advantage in a) high ground around the keep and b) my having to funnel troops through the gate and a breach, which is somewhat similar to a bridge crossing attack.
4) the tactics of such a small enclosed space are quite different from the larger open hills and fields of most battles.

[Cazbol]

The best reason to assault castles is the sheer fun of it. I usually bring 15 artillery pieces if I can (the 16th unit being the general; infantry in reserves) and then level the place to the extent possible. This usually means the total destruction of the entire length of the wall on one side, including all the towers on that side. This in turn makes it safer for arbalesters to apporoach the breaches and recude enemy numbers even further before the main force charges in a finishes the job.

I pity those that auto-resolve and miss all that. If I wanted to avoid casualties I wouldn't be playing a wargame.

[econ21]

I used to find that auto-resolving saved casualties but no longer - I think it changed with VI or maybe the VI patch. However, I haven't manually resolved sieges with very advanced buildings (by that stage of the game, I tend to be in a hurry and frankly sieges aren't much fun so I autoresolve).

[Doug-Thompson]

Is there any effect on the number of buildings destroyed or damaged within a province?

[Cazbol]

Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ Mar. 11 2004,10:21)]Is there any effect on the number of buildings destroyed or damaged within a province?

I believe the castle does not get downgraded if you assault it, while it does get downgraded if you starve out the defenders. A bit illogical really, but then again I might be wrong about this.

[Sardo]

Indeed, if you want to preserve a castle you're laying siege to, you should assault it and shoot it to very little pieces. It will magically reappear when you return to the strategy map.

That said, I have some very fond memories of assaulting castles with 15 culverins at a time... after which I only needed to clean up the few remaining defenders, many of whom have ended up under big chunks of wall, with some knights.

[Gregoshi]

Welcome back Radegast. Do you know what your old account was?

Hello Sardo and welcome to the Org. Hehehe, that 15 culvern castle assault sounds like fun. I'll have to try it some time. We have another recent topic about using 16 such pieces of artillery against an army of peasants. From those that tried it, it comes highly recommended.

The only time I auto-resolve sieges, or regular battles for that matter, is when the odds are heavily in my favour - like 7-1 or higher.

[katank]

actually in VI, the autocalc takes into account the level of castle and gives horrible casualties. However, the trick is to assault with a force that would just beat what's inside assuming no castle and autocalc would still yield a win but far less casualties.

I like to play out sieges too but often I just don't get enough artillery so it's unmitigated pain to see elite units go down from stupid keep arrows. I do like to use peasant fodder though and see them die after forcing open a gate only to see some hardcore infantry inside who chops through them in a coupla seconds.

[Doug-Thompson]

Sometimes, I'll hire mercenaries with good armor just for an assault. They're better than peasants and casualties don't matter when you're disbanding the unit at the first opportunity after the battle.

[katank]

that's what I do. I send a unit of good mercs to storm the castle and usually can already take care of it if autocalcing and though it takes like 80% casualties, I don't care.

I certainly abuse mercs every chance I get. Early on, I merc rush by hiring up as many mercs as I can and place them into an army led by my best general and keep on attacking and assaulting every province for a nearby faciton while my king leads the national army behind to support and pacify the populace as well as defending against counterattacks. this works very well and by the time I'm done, all the mercs are effectively dead (gone or single digits) and then get disbanded. However, I sometimes keep them if they have so little support left and the ones that are left usually have crazy valour.