Do you play with battle timer on ?

[Didz]

Im thinking this out here, and I am not suggesting its perfect, but if an army seiges a castle, looses a great deal of men isnt then it withdraws. The AI withdraws and waits for you to remove it via sally.

Now you claim sally isnt acceptable, i disagree as its completely realistic in a military sense, if your under seige eventually your capitulate or you sally.

Now the do something trigger, yes i think that should be in there. In MTW if I recall you could "mop up" the battle and the AI would auto calc it at that point based on the avialable forces left. I think thats reasonable.

Its not acceptable because just as the attacker has the option to suspend the assault and return to its seige lines the defender ought to have the option to let them.

The bug, is that but refusing to either attack or withdraw the AI forces the player into a situation where they have to cede the battle and lose the town. I'm sure you can't claim that that is realistic.

Perhaps it should be right that the remaining forces of the attacker still keep the castle under siege when you go back to the strategic map, I am not sure which currently happen because usually all the attackers are killed so doesn't remain any men to keep the siege.

That would be a reasonable solution. If the AI just quit the battle but maintained the city under seige then it has the option to build more seige engines and hire a few mercenaries and have another go.

My overall point was, as the faction under siege, you should have to break it. The AI shouldnt just run away if it still has the ability to defeat your army, a seige situation should still be in effect.

My disconnect was that it should be on the strategic map, not the tactical one.

Agreed, but thats not the situation at the moment which is why in my opinion its a bug.

I also agree with your comment about attrition, in fact in my opinion any army operating on foriegn soil, whether beseiging or not ought to suffer some attrition every turn.