Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Ladders ought to be a last resort, not a guaranteed win.
like... not using archers on a defensive battle is a sure way for your defenders to just die
The attack always wins: Militia in most cultures are Literal Garbage even in Vanilla but especially when you add a mod that improves armor without realizing the vast majority of militias don't have any.
The mod doesn't favor attacking armies in Sieges the game does and always has, and even then the AI armies still find a way the mess it up, which is why leaving very little units in a settlement used to be able to hold down the fort.
This is COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that AI armies only attack player defended settlements (with a player inside them) when they have a VAST advantage in the first place which almost never happens.
This is also excluding the many other variables that could lead to a successful siege, your governor and his engineering and tactics skill, food, development, fortification level, it being attacked recently, food of the enemy army, cohesion of enemy army.
All mind you if we are going into the "historical accuracy" generally fortifications (especially around a walled town) were supposed to stall an enemy until reinforcement came, not hold them off by themselves.