Can siege engines make a battle go worse for the attacker?

[egamma]

Siege Engines limit the number of infantry who can get to the walls so if you have plenty it is worth it for the damage they do. Having too few does little damage to strong walls and also limits the infantry who can get to those walls

Is that a true statement? Having a few siege engines is WORSE than having NO siege engines at all?

[Stabbity]

Is that a true statement? Having a few siege engines is WORSE than having NO siege engines at all?

Not from what I've seen. Overcrowded siege engines are far better than forcing your infantry to scape the walls and take massive combat penalties.

[Jaden]

Is the number of attackers the only factor relevant when determining the appropriate number of SEs?

[Anaris]

Having one siege engine for 1000 men is effectively the same as having 0 siege engines for 1000 men.

Unless I've missed something rather significant in the code, there is no positive amount of siege engines that can make your odds of gaining the top of the wall worse than if you had no siege engines at all.

[Indirik]

Siege engines are like ... umm ... something that gets better, the more you have.

[Stabbity]

Is the number of attackers the only factor relevant when determining the appropriate number of SEs?

The number of Melee troops the attackers have is the only relevant factor. Its a matter of fitting men onto your equipment, which is completely determined by the amount of that equipment you have.

[egamma]

Siege engines are like ... umm ... something that gets better, the more you have.

See, that's what I thought. Just wanted to do some BM myth-busting.