Page 1 of 1
QUESTION: Switching Siege Army
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:24 am
by uneducated
Will a besieged city with depleted walls remain weak and without some of its walls if the besieging army leaves that Region and a new army of the same Faction arrives on the same Turn?
One might have two armies, each fulfilling a different purpose. The first, the attackers, is constituted for defeating defenders and has an attacking general; the second, the besiegers, is comprised of ordinary infantry with a strong siege bonus and a cowardly general. (The coward trait provides benefits during besieging, doesn't it?)
To more quickly conquer a Province, an attacking army might arrive at an Enemy held Region, defeating the Units there, and then the next turn move on to an adjacent Region in the same Province. The besieging army might arrive after the initial Turn of combat, and simply help keep the siege going.
Re: QUESTION: Switching Siege Army
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2019 12:40 pm
by TimDee58
interesting question, I'd been thinking of that too
Re: QUESTION: Switching Siege Army
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:29 am
by Will_L
I don't use a dedicated siege army but I do switch out armies, sending my main field army to another region and moving in a weaker or different army to continue the siege and have not noticed any difference as far as effectiveness or effects go.
Re: QUESTION: Switching Siege Army
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:44 pm
by Morbio
I have switched armies from time to time and I too have not noticed any downside in the siege.
Re: QUESTION: Switching Siege Army
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 7:34 am
by loki100
uneducated wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:24 am
Will a besieged city with depleted walls remain weak and without some of its walls if the besieging army leaves that Region and a new army of the same Faction arrives on the same Turn?
One might have two armies, each fulfilling a different purpose. The first, the attackers, is constituted for defeating defenders and has an attacking general; the second, the besiegers, is comprised of ordinary infantry with a strong siege bonus and a cowardly general. (The coward trait provides benefits during besieging, doesn't it?)
To more quickly conquer a Province, an attacking army might arrive at an Enemy held Region, defeating the Units there, and then the next turn move on to an adjacent Region in the same Province. The besieging army might arrive after the initial Turn of combat, and simply help keep the siege going.
Coward has exactly the opposite effect to your statement, you are better off with a simple 0-0 leader.
But yes, swapping the siege army has no adverse effect as the siege is maintained and yes its sometimes an idea to have an army of MI that tries to keep out of combat but you can use to continue long sieges
Re: QUESTION: Switching Siege Army
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:33 pm
by Morbio
If Coward has a negative modifier for sieges then this should be better clarified in the game. I certainly have interpreted it as a positive bonus, assuming that he has driven the local populous and garrison to improve the defenses.
I suggest that positive modifiers should be green and negative modifiers should be red, this would make it much easier to understand!
Re: QUESTION: Switching Siege Army
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:40 pm
by Ludendorf
I just took Coward to be a universally negative trait. If he's not brave enough to storm the walls, he's probably not much good at defending them from rock throwers either. But green for good and red for bad would make sense.