Defending a siege

[Wandering]

I am a fan of siege battles, but a problem is that in a campaign, I am usually the one assualting. In the rare circumstances that I end up defending, I sometimes get an issue of AI waiting on 2-4 turns before assualting which annoys me as a few men of each units dies off (starvation?).

Is there a way go mod this so that settlement undersiege do not lose men? or simply a cheat of somesort to force the AI to assualt the walls once they have the ladders and rams? I love defending a siege(helms deep anyone?) but absolutely hate it when the AI takes way to long to prepare and I end up losing 10%-20% of my troops before the battle even begun, or they simply try to starve me, which makes me rage.

[ccgr1121]

they simply try to starve me, which makes me rage.

Wait, M2TW AI is actually being historical, and you don't like it??!?!?

Armies would rarely storm a settlement, and would instead starve it out.

[Wandering]

Wait, M2TW AI is actually being historical, and you don't like it??!?!?

Armies would rarely storm a settlement, and would instead starve it out.

Sometimes, gameplay value > historical accuracy. It'd be great if I can mod the AI to be stupid and send everything it has onto my walls regardless of his strength instead of being a smartass.

I just want to defend lots sieges during a campaign, but it rarely happens and I can only experience the most out of it in custom battles, which lacks the RP value(a big thing for me).

Thanks for the tips Willowran, sally forth is well...just another field battle with town walls behind me, it just doesn't cut my lust for repelling enemies off walls.

[Willowran]

[QUOTE=Wandering;10152383]I just want to defend lots sieges during a campaign, but it rarely happensQUOTE]

i know what you mean... i too enjoy seige battles over field battles, though i tend to give up my walls rather then fight on them...

best thing i can reccomend then is :
a) make sure you are good enough on battle map to win against massive odds.
b)keep your city garrisons small. if the ai is more likely to win an autoresolved battle, they will assault. the smaller your cities garrison, the more likely they will assault. just make sure you can win anyway.

In my experience the ai will beseige your settlement: next turn they will build seige equipment. third turn they assault. if they don't assault by the third turn they are unlikely to unless a lot of soldiers starve.

of course, this does not solve your starvation/disease problem, but it is the only thing i can think of

[ZealotsACH]

It'd be great if I can mod the AI to be stupid and send everything it has onto my walls regardless of his strength instead of being a smartass.

wait, are you sure you are talking about the same M2TW?

i personally have no lack of the enemy besieging my settlements. Egypt actually finally just took Antioch from me after 10 consecutive siege attempts. some of the armies were small, some were big. they really wanted Antioch.

either way, starving your army into submission is a sound tactic that the AI will do, trying to make u turn the settlement over to them, or catch you at a disadvantage while you attempt to sally.

[Fireright]

Maybe create a few units to replenish defenders while waiting for the attack? Not sure if it works though when a settlement is under siege. Or if the ai is slacking on siege attacking, select a garbage unit and do a swift auto win to conclude matters.

[_Elysium_]

Does the AI ever attempt to starve the player's settlements into submission? I love defensive sieges aswell, and I'd love it if the AI assaulted the walls once they had a decent supply of siege equipment.

[Willowran]

i don't use cheats, so no help from me there. i can suggest 2.5 things.

1: the smaller your defending garrison/the larger the city/the weaker the units the less will starve as you await their assault
2: sally forth and defeat them in the field. i'd recomend you go heavy on long-range units for that. that way you can sally forth everyturn they besiege you. if you take all your troops back behind your walls, you can exit the battle with a draw, but if you attack them every turn they will/could (depending on your skill/current situation) lose a lot more men then you. you wil lstill lose men as long as they besiege you, but at least you will have their losses to mollify you.
2.5: best thing i can reccomend for sallying forth are cannon towers. they have a long enough range to hit the enemy pretty much wherever they stand, and you lose absolutely no-one in the fight.

[danny X]

[QUOTE=Willowran;10152266]1: the smaller your defending garrison/the larger the city/the weaker the units the less will starve as you await their assault[QUOTE]

this is your answer! about between 5-9 units, something like that.

[AJenny58]

I actually think that the AI starving out a settlement is one of the few smart things that they do. Attacking a castle or city is a high risk maneuver that usually ends in a lot of casualties for the attacking army. I almost always starve a settlement until they come out to fight because it is the only way that I can be sure to lose far less men than my enemy.

[Willowran]

i still say keep a small garrison. i practically never have to worry about being starved out- all of my armies are in the field. and i tend to operate with rather small militaries when compared to ai factions. if they think they'll win, theyll assault.

[.L.]

i still say keep a small garrison. i practically never have to worry about being starved out- all of my armies are in the field. and i tend to operate with rather small militaries when compared to ai factions. if they think they'll win, theyll assault.

Only keep small garrison's if it's pretty close to your capital, I play as England and I need to keep huge armies of peasants and town militia in the holy lands to keep order, although the enemy still attacks because of the fact that they are simply peasants/town militia so keep a small garrison of "Fighting Troops" and large garrison's of "Police troops"

[PrestigeX]

It's easy to keep a small garrison, when you have other settlements and particularly Fam Members within range. To provide back-up, hire mercs to defeat assaulting foes.

Getting out into the regions with more of a spread, it's worthwhile to keep garrisons of decent size to dissuade an enemy from attacking it.

I generally prefer not to fight a defending siege, because the cost of victory is -- possible damaged buildings, a number of turns where no recruiting / building can happen , and loss of troops. The cost of Defeat -- everyone dies, you lose settlement, you lose 100% of army.

You lose assaulting, worst case scenario is you lost most of your army but certainly some portion of your men and often your General escapes to fight again...same with field battles.

[.L.]

I generally prefer not to fight a defending siege, because the cost of victory is -- possible damaged buildings, a number of turns where no recruiting / building can happen , and loss of troops. The cost of Defeat -- everyone dies, you lose settlement, you lose 100% of army.

You could keep a stack NEARBY but not in the control zone, if they attack just use your stack that's nearby

[shirajzl]

What others have said; it's actually pretty smart of AI to starve you at least for a few turns. It makes it a bit more challenging to defend successfully.

Also, when attacking, I always starve them out and force them to come out and attack me; the casualties on my side are much lower.