Situation: Assaulting Fortifications

[Indirik]

Nah you won because the Duke of the City was not there to recruit a decent amount of Infantry militia at the time of the assault Some nifty politics were to blame for that, but it was a decent strategy by the enemy nonetheless.

And if pigs had wings, they could fly.

That's a discussion for a different thread. (Which we've already had.) We're discussing generic tactics here, using a recent example for illustrating a point. We won the battle easily because we had an overwhelming advantage in infantry, even though we didn't have such an overwhelming advantage in CS. How we gt that advantage is irrelevant.

[Gustav Kuriga]

The example I am talking about in Dwilight with the level 7 walls deals with an all infantry defending force. With very competent infantry centers with which to get infantry from.

[Bedwyr]

The example I am talking about in Dwilight with the level 7 walls deals with an all infantry defending force. With very competent infantry centers with which to get infantry from.

General rule of thumb that I got from a guy who spent a fair bit of time studying this stuff was that your force is 10% less effective per level of walls without taking siege engines into account and all troops being equal.  So, level 7 walls defended by good sturdy infantry you'd need over three times the defending force in good infantry, or somewhat less with better infantry, and proportionally less as your SE/man ratio goes up.  From a few experiences I've had, if you can get your SE/man ratio high enough (and we're talking 10 men or less per SE) then there are no overcrowding messages.  If you can manage that, the walls appear to be almost ineffective at defending against infantry.  But, of course, that's bloody expensive especially if you're using anything other than elite infantry.

[egamma]

The example I am talking about in Dwilight with the level 7 walls deals with an all infantry defending force. With very competent infantry centers with which to get infantry from.

If they have an all infantry defending force, then I recommend placing your archers forward, infantry to rearguard, and just rake them repeatedly with arrows while your infantry move forward.

[De-Legro]

If they have an all infantry defending force, then I recommend placing your archers forward, infantry to rearguard, and just rake them repeatedly with arrows while your infantry move forward.

Definitely. If you aren't going to be facing significant archer forces, delaying the melee and making the most of your own archers makes sense. Even with the reduced effect due to fortification, every dead defender is one less that will be swinging a sword later.

[Gustav Kuriga]

That's what we did. I don't know if you realize just how well lvl 7 walls protect against archers. They only lost 4 men per turn at the most, which when spread out among all the defenders doesn't amount to much of anything at all.

Also, with siege engines, they only make it so that your men get their full amount hits in that they normally would. They do nothing to reduce the effects fortifications then have on reducing the number of hits that take effect. Also, I believe siege engines do damage to the walls for every round of combat they are there. That may just be a side effect of the melee on the walls though.

[egamma]

That's what we did. I don't know if you realize just how well lvl 7 walls protect against archers. They only lost 4 men per turn at the most, which when spread out among all the defenders doesn't amount to much of anything at all.

Also, with siege engines, they only make it so that your men get their full amount hits in that they normally would. They do nothing to reduce the effects fortifications then have on reducing the number of hits that take effect. Also, I believe siege engines do damage to the walls for every round of combat they are there. That may just be a side effect of the melee on the walls though.

I don't think it's the siege engines, it's the infantry that damage the walls. I don't think archers, cavalry, or siege engines do any damage to walls.

[Peri]

Also, with siege engines, they only make it so that your men get their full amount hits in that they normally would. They do nothing to reduce the effects fortifications then have on reducing the number of hits that take effect. Also, I believe siege engines do damage to the walls for every round of combat they are there. That may just be a side effect of the melee on the walls though.

I think siege engines effect the chance a unit has to be thrown back from the walls too, something that depends heavily on the lvl of the walls. And that is more or less the main feature that gives defenders the main advantage.

[Foundation]

That's what we did. I don't know if you realize just how well lvl 7 walls protect against archers. They only lost 4 men per turn at the most, which when spread out among all the defenders doesn't amount to much of anything at all.

Also, with siege engines, they only make it so that your men get their full amount hits in that they normally would. They do nothing to reduce the effects fortifications then have on reducing the number of hits that take effect. Also, I believe siege engines do damage to the walls for every round of combat they are there. That may just be a side effect of the melee on the walls though.

Yep, level 7 walls are AWESOME, and very, very expensive.

[De-Legro]

That's what we did. I don't know if you realize just how well lvl 7 walls protect against archers. They only lost 4 men per turn at the most, which when spread out among all the defenders doesn't amount to much of anything at all.

Also, with siege engines, they only make it so that your men get their full amount hits in that they normally would. They do nothing to reduce the effects fortifications then have on reducing the number of hits that take effect. Also, I believe siege engines do damage to the walls for every round of combat they are there. That may just be a side effect of the melee on the walls though.

Yup they are level 7 walls. No matter which option you pick (archer attack or infantry) you are going to need to outnumber the defenders significantly. As you noticed archers are only slightly effective, but then infantry have the same problem until they get a foot hold on the wall.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Which was my whole point about using large cheap units in the first attack. By increasing the number of men attacking, you increase the amount of time spent attacking the walls, doing more damage to the walls (the main point of the first attack). Its only point is to reduce the walls to the point where your quality infantry can face theirs on more level terms (fighting an enemy on level 4 walls is much, much easier than fighting one on level 7 walls) and thus win the battle.

The best way would be to have two armies, one that whittled the enemy defences with large, cheap units, while the other goes in once the walls have been reduced. This, of course, is not always feasable (especially if your realms are equal in strength). Thus, you would have to hit with large, cheap units, then refit and follow up with quality units.

[Bedwyr]

Which was my whole point about using large cheap units in the first attack. By increasing the number of men attacking, you increase the amount of time spent attacking the walls, doing more damage to the walls (the main point of the first attack). Its only point is to reduce the walls to the point where your quality infantry can face theirs on more level terms (fighting an enemy on level 4 walls is much, much easier than fighting one on level 7 walls) and thus win the battle.

The best way would be to have two armies, one that whittled the enemy defences with large, cheap units, while the other goes in once the walls have been reduced. This, of course, is not always feasable (especially if your realms are equal in strength). Thus, you would have to hit with large, cheap units, then refit and follow up with quality units.

(winces) Trying to wear down the walls of a stronghold?  You might be able to, but stronghold walls are pretty cheap (though level seven might be nasty, not sure), and it'll take a lot more than one or two attacks, no matter how big, to drop them to level four.  With the amount of gold you'd spend, I still think you'd be better off getting a full army of elite infantry with plenty of banners and siege engines.

Or give up and take everything else.  They can't sustain any kind of real defensive force with just the income of one stronghold.  Let them wither on the vine.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Actually, they can sustain a substantial defensive force, as anyone in Morek can tell you (albeit through means that were probably exploitive). I have personal experience of this happening, so I am not speaking ignorantly. Also, I may have been exagerrating on the number of levels you would need to batter down. One or two levels at most. Then pound them with a quality army and tear down the walls with your victorious army to keep them from using those high walls again.

[De-Legro]

We've been attacking level 5 walls using an army of some of the best infantry in the game. I can tell you it is still REALLY tough going even with masses of siege. A lot of the time your best option to take out a good defensive stronghold or city is to avoid it. Plunder the rurals, starve the realm of gold and food and hope that reduced their defensive forces, or forces them out from behind their walls.

[Bedwyr]

Actually, they can sustain a substantial defensive force, as anyone in Morek can tell you (albeit through means that were probably exploitive). I have personal experience of this happening, so I am not speaking ignorantly. Also, I may have been exagerrating on the number of levels you would need to batter down. One or two levels at most. Then pound them with a quality army and tear down the walls with your victorious army to keep them from using those high walls again.

The loophole that gave Thulsoma excess gold has been closed, and those involved are being watched.