Which Units Do Better On Walls?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm finding sieges (even city sieges) more difficult than in Rome, which is excellent. However, even when I outnumber the enemy on the wall, I almost always lose. I usually hire mercenaries to take the wall, but they continue to fail, even if they massively outnumber the enemy. I've been auto-resolving sieges - even if I lose, I take less casulaties (which I know is because the resolve doesn't take walls into account). I'm at a loss, so I can only say that it must be the units. Which units do better on walls?

[FactionHeir]

Any unit that is substantially heavier than their counterpart manning the walls and definitely only one hand units with swords, maces or axes.

DFK and the like perform decently in taking walls. Usually you don't want to take the walls though but get through a breach (gate or wall) instead.

[Per Ole]

I think the defender gets a hidden bonus on the walls, which explains why if you got the exact same units on the walls, the defender always wins

[Ramses II CP]

In addition to the heaviest one hander you can find per FH, as the Danes Swordstaff militia do surprisingly well on the walls. They're one of those units that generally outperforms it's stats anyway, but I've found them near unbreakable on the walls.

[Cheetah]

Ignore the walls. If you blast the gate with arty the AI will pull back to the city square. If you ram the gate that is more costly, there will be a fight for the gate but once you win it the AI again will pull back to the city square. All in all, absolutely no need to take the walls by force. Ofc you can put archers on it once the AI pulled back.

[DVX BELLORVM]

I think the defender gets a hidden bonus on the walls, which explains why if you got the exact same units on the walls, the defender always wins

It does seems so. Anyone knows what exactly this bonus is? A moral, better stats or something else?

[FactionHeir]

No morale.
I think it gets a defense and attack bonus. Don't know how much, but it feels like +3 each.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm not sure I like that units rout from on top of a wall instead of fighting to the death. It's definately horrible from a gameplay perspective - by climbing back down the ladders they block reinforcements that could've saved them from coming up.

[FactionHeir]

I think they used to fight to the death in RTW. It was changed apparently in M2TW.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Units defending on a wall seem to get a pretty massive stat boost from what I've seen. I don't think its a morale boost, as I find the best way to defeat them is to swarm them and hope they rout.

Otherwise you must have much, much better quality troops to defeat enemies on walls.

[Husar]

Never noticed a stat boost for defenders.
Several problems though:
1. the attackers lose men to towers and other ranged units before they reach the top of the walls
2. the attackers lose men upon entering the walls because the defenders often strike before the attackers go into combat mode until the attackers have managed to spread out
3. the defenders will often surround the attackers from 2, maybe 3 sides(both sides of the wall and maybe cavalry on the street) resulting in a morale hit from being surrounded which can be quite severe

units which do not suffer too much from all these have a chance of taking a wall depending on who defends it, usually that is infantry with a onehanded weapon and a shield and good morale, positioning a general outside the wall to boost their morale can help but puts him in the range of enemy missile fire.
Trying to enter from multiple points with one or two units which only have enemies on one side of the wall, being the outer flank, can help as it allows one to surround the defenders and inflict a big morale hit on them as well.

[Ramses II CP]

Towers continue to fire into enemy troops fighting on the walls too, which no doubt reduces their will to fight. ;)

[Fisherking]

When it comes to this one I have no idea how the heck it works. I have had DFKs eaten alive by crap units when I was defending. I have had good units eaten alive by archers on the walls when I was attacking. If the darn stuff is coded in then it must be that the human player loses.

The units I have had the best luck with defending the wall with are pavise crossbows and Almughavars. Other than that peasants seem to do about as well as anything else.

I hear people saying that defenders get a boost, but I have not seen it in a fashion that proves it to me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm mostly auto-resolving seiges. I'm sick of getting good units destroyed by a few town militia.

[Cheetah]

I'm mostly auto-resolving seiges. I'm sick of getting good units destroyed by a few town militia.

In theory that is the point of sieges.

In practice though one unit of arty is enough to minimise casualties.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In theory that is the point of sieges.

Yes, if it were casualties going up to the walls. I'm talking about on the walls, where double the units the enemy has and those units being superior should carry the day.

[Fisherking]

So it seems we have some partial agreement that the units who do best on the walls are the AI’s units.

[Vladimir]

A catapult is indispensable when both attacking and defending a settlement.

[Alpedar]

How does catapult help on defense? For me, it tends to hit my own walls.

[rvg]

A catapult is indispensable when both attacking and defending a settlement.

Couldn't agree more. pre-gunpowder, the catapult is the great equalizer, especially for the factions with poor archer capabilities (like danes and scots).

[rvg]

How does catapult help on defense? For me, it tends to hit my own walls.

It's great for sally battles.

[Quillan]

The towers are the bane of everyone on the walls. They fire what is basically the equivalent of crossbow bolts, with high attack rating and the AP characteristic, so they do a lot of damage to heavily armored units like dismounted knights. Unfortunately, the damage is based on collision detection, so they'll shoot the defenders in the back as well as the attackers. As long as there are a lot of attackers on the walls, they tend to be hurt worse, but once the defenders really outnumber them they'll start getting hit hard by the towers.

At first when defending, I used to put a unit right there where the siege tower or ladders were going to come up against the wall. Now I tend to put a unit on either side near the towers, that way the tower shots hit the attackers more than my troops.

[ReiseReise]

Like most of the things that annoy me in the game (not bugs but those that seem to be there on purpose), I try to find a rational reason for it. Even if it isn't true, all that matters is that I believe it.

To the point - storming the walls. This was obviously incredibly difficult historically. The very fact that so many siege engines and artillery (pre and post gunpowder) was developed attests to this. My theory is that the defenders get a large bonus in order to simulate the incredible difficulty of simply getting off the ladder/out of the tower in the face of incredible 'local numerical superiority' as the tacticians call it. Yes - in the game the besiegers get on top of the wall with relative ease, but that is because it would take a ton of effort to add an effective 'wall-defense' system with added combat animations and everything where peasants poke the attackers in the face with a pitchfork as they appear over the ladder or whatever. So instead the game allows the attackers onto the walls and THEN gives the defenders a bonus. Much simpler to implement, and results in the same effect (massive losses for the attacker). Common military doctrine (today) is that to attack a fortified position you should outnumber the enemy by at least 3:1.

I would guess the defenders get a +8 attack bonus, similar to long spears fighting cav. afiak all combat bonuses add only to attack value.

[Galain_Ironhide]

I'm not sure if anyone can back me up on this, but when I am attacking a wall, I always get my heavy unit (say for example - dismounted English Knights) on to the wall usually by ladder. Then instead of letting only 3 or 4 guys fight the defenders while the rest watch on until their comrade falls (and then the next guy joins in and so on), I always get my unit to move or run through the defenders unit along the wall until they are totally mixed through with the defending unit and then of course, suddenly your whole unit is fighting and the defenders tend to take a beating.

As a result I almost never lose a battle on a wall. Never to any low armour type (eg. peasants, archers, militia's etc) units and almost 3 out of 4 battles with matching heavy defending units I'll win as well.

Mixing my units through seems to wipe out the defending units advantage out, as suddenly they are being attacked properly.

I stand to be corrected by this, but I do this on H battles every fight with no problems.

[WhiskeyGhost]

I'm not sure if anyone can back me up on this, but when I am attacking a wall, I always get my heavy unit (say for example - dismounted English Knights) on to the wall usually by ladder. Then instead of letting only 3 or 4 guys fight the defenders while the rest watch on until their comrade falls (and then the next guy joins in and so on), I always get my unit to move or run through the defenders unit along the wall until they are totally mixed through with the defending unit and then of course, suddenly your whole unit is fighting and the defenders tend to take a beating.

As a result I almost never lose a battle on a wall. Never to any low armour type (eg. peasants, archers, militia's etc) units and almost 3 out of 4 battles with matching heavy defending units I'll win as well.

Mixing my units through seems to wipe out the defending units advantage out, as suddenly they are being attacked.

I stand to be corrected by this, but I do this on H battles every fight with no problems.

I do similar things, since if you leave them to work on their own, they just bunch up and engage with 2-3 men on either side at a time, and slowly get eaten up by arrows.

[ReiseReise]

I do the same, mostly because even if only 4 of the men in the unit are fighting, the whole unit loses stamina. If you have a small number of units you need to be able to defeat one unit and move on to the next, which doesn't work so well when they are exhausted.

[Fisherking]

I took the question to be about defending the walls. It is very difficult to micro manage all of your units when repelling multiple attacks, & I have not seen a defender advantage in doing this.

Attacking and taking settlements has never been a problem. Holding them has and still is to some extent.

Citadels are easier with extra walls and gates but cities that should fight better are usually better served by sallying than standing the siege.

[Alpedar]

Aginst AI I sucesfully use tactic where i put at leaast three melee units behind gate forming empty square with one side being gate. (I know, nothing new.)
Sometimes i've seen enemy run through gate and panic without countact.

But this works becose AI in general sieges stupid way - does not try to flank with towers/ladders, so player can concentrate his defense on one side and dont bother with rest.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Against a full stack of elite (although early period) Venetian troops led by a great general, I found that only 7 town militia did the trick in Vienna.

Firstly, town militia took out their ladder unit as it climbed, routing their Venetian militia spearmen. Then two units of town militia took on the seige tower's forces from both sides, and took heavy losses before the Venetian unit routed.

Next, I had three units line up in front of the gate in a 5 or 6 soldier-wide, deep unit formation, set to GUARD. Then, the unit which repelled the laddermen came down and stood on the left flank, in the same depth formation, set to attack, aligned towards the gate itself.

Next, I pulled my remaining town militia off the wall after routing the seige tower's forces, and set them to attack in a complimentary fashion from the right flank.

Finally, the ram broke through the gate and I had the two flanks charge the unit coming through, making contact simultaneously from both sides, forcing an almost instant rout.

Then the general broke through with his heavy militia spearmen and his mounted guard, and forced a pocket to form. The units in guard mode held formation while the flankers attacked from the sides, stopping the advance and also simultaneously wore down the enemy morale.

Slowly, one by one, the general lost his guard units, but even more than that, the surrounded enemy could not fight off my inferior, unupgraded, novice town milita. This was on very hard, very hard by the way, as the Danes in a recent posted campaign.

Finally I slew the general himself, after approximately 37 percent of his force was already dead. Routing did not follow immediately, as I had to slay even more of his elite troops. Even after 81 percent of his army lay dead, routing units continued to return against me.

Finally I ended up sallying against his remaining hundred archers and spearmen who stopped routing and started peppering me with arrows. It was a heroic victory.

(I'm familiar with the grammatical usage of 'an' heroic victory, but I feel it is an outdated and inconsistent rule, therefore I aim to eliminate its usage)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I say that town militia are all you need except against late period units... but by that time, I have too much territory to bother defending anything, merely seeking and exterminating any and all who attempt to resist my rule. And against the Hordes, I prefer an active, aggressive defense over seige defense anyway. Night fighter and high chevron generals paired with infinite mercenaries/veteran spearmen/heavy cavalry.

Guarding walls? Militia units and archers are all you ever need. The game rightly gives defenders an advantage on the walls. This is the militia men's home, they will fight to the death to protect it from an invader, especially while they still have the walls in their possession.

Version: LTC (not latest version, however) and latest vanilla.

[ReiseReise]

Nice post pizza, as usual, but weren't we talking about attacking?