I know a lot of players don't stick to a monotone cultural getup when they play, but a lot of players probably do what I do; try to stick to culturally appropriate armours and weapons for the culture I am playing. I take this mentality with me to smithing as well, where I try to smith and use weapons that suit my characters culture appropriately. But I have some exceptions; I often use animal pelts for shoulder armour when playing as a Vlandian or Imperial. If I play as a Sturgian I may use some Khuzait armour. And if I play as a mercenary or Lord for a different cultural faction than my character is from, I may use a mix of regional armours and use my own culture for a weapon. Example; I played a Nord corsair mercenary for the Empire. I used gilded scale Imperial armour with gilded scale shoulderguards, golden pirate gauntlets and boots, and a brass Aserai helmet with a Nord one handed sword with gilded pummel and handguard. Anyone else give themselves similar cultural restrict...
Yesterday I did a couple of siege battles. It seems that standing on the attacking side of the siege either ends with winning with tremendous losses for the attackers (talking about 70-90% loss of forces) or the total obliteration of the attacking army.
Maybe it's just the fact that we (Kingdom of Denmark) attacked several baltic Castles & Towns, with every baltic unit beeing equipped with javelins.
But later when I joined in on the defense of one of our castles against the mongols, they still got destroyed even though it was 200 vs 1000, with us losing 50 people and them getting annihilated completely.
Playing on "Normal" Damage-Calc and "Good" Combat / Campaign AI.
Is there something I'm missing or are sieges just totally unwinnable for the attackers?
Submitted March 19, 2018 at 11:08AM by Dragoon_of_Austria http://ift.tt/2HKsTuk
Comments
Post a Comment