Mount & Blade: With Fire & Sword

Until I tried to siege a city.

Using some fully geared infantry I tried to take a city that was holding the King of a faction I wanted to join. So my 75 men and I storm Cherkassy(sp?) and manage to kill close to a 100 defenders and wound another 20 or so. In the fighting I lost around 30 men with another 20 or so wounded. I decided to run back to a merc camp and recruit some more wall fodder.

Upon arriving back to the city I noticed that the number of defenders had jumped back up to 200. Yes, in about 6 hours the defenders managed to recruit 100 fully trained troops. I raided the city two more times and each time it was the same, no matter how many I killed they always replenished numbers if I abandoned the siege.

And I was just starting to enjoy the game.

You recruited more troops, so why can't they?
---
psn: rpperin

Perhaps the TC should start using cheats because he obviously doesn't like a fair playing field.
---
Wolfdale e8400 @ 3.6GHz OC'd | 4GB Mushkin RAM | eVGA GTX 260 896MB VRAM 576/1242/1998 OC'd to 732/1457/2360

Or I dislike cities magically replenishing their numbers.

Hasn't it always been this way? I remember Warband doing this too. It's pretty reasonable though I think. If they didn't replenish as fast as you could you could just do exactly what you're trying to do which sort of defeats the purpose of a "siege"
---
"The only thing good about Francium is that it frequently gets it's ass kicked by Germanium. "-Rebelscum994

Morpheus3353 posted...
Hasn't it always been this way? I remember Warband doing this too. It's pretty reasonable though I think. If they didn't replenish as fast as you could you could just do exactly what you're trying to do which sort of defeats the purpose of a "siege"

yeah technically an entire city would have the means to get more troops than just a single warlord. I think when you do take a city and get a guard and infantry commander your troops replenish too!
---
Dood... if the realization of man on goat action isnt a good ending i dont know what is. -LordMace
gamertag: ptlsaints

The Unholy Fish posted...
Morpheus3353 posted...
Hasn't it always been this way? I remember Warband doing this too. It's pretty reasonable though I think. If they didn't replenish as fast as you could you could just do exactly what you're trying to do which sort of defeats the purpose of a "siege"

yeah technically an entire city would have the means to get more troops than just a single warlord. I think when you do take a city and get a guard and infantry commander your troops replenish too!

My current playthrough I'm doing a "Take my own kingdom" kind of thing, and a couple of my cities just wont replenish troops even if I have all of the commanders.
---
"The only thing good about Francium is that it frequently gets it's ass kicked by Germanium. "-Rebelscum994

If you can get a couple of nobles to follow you and keep the city "Under siege", they won't be able to refill their forces.

The second you leave to get troops, though, the siege is lifted and THEY can bring in troops. Thus you're not gonna win a siege by whittling them down. You pretty much need to take them all down at once in a glorious (And usually casualty-filled) battle.
---
We can all learn something from the Legend of Zelda and it's triforce, Power is nothing without the courage and wisdom to make use of it...

Talon72 posted...
Or I dislike cities magically replenishing their numbers.

No, you just don't like a fair playing field. It's ok if you don't, that's nothing against you personally. It would be ridiculous if you could just recruit 200 peasants and send them in a siege time and time again to slowly whittle down the forces until you overcome the castle. There would be no point in building up an army because you could just throw 20 troops at a time at a large city from the start of the game and eventually overtake it.
---
Wolfdale e8400 @ 3.6GHz OC'd | 4GB Mushkin RAM | eVGA GTX 260 896MB VRAM 576/1242/1998 OC'd to 732/1457/2360