Siege Leader Flip to ally

[Manwe_Sulimo]

Not the first time it happens but it is rare:
I just fight a war as Ajuuraan against Adal, its ally Aden and several others. One of my allies is Yemen.
I started the war trying to snipe Adal out of the war, I did not call in Yemen to avoid them taking provinces from Aden, after destroying the army I started sieging the capital and the other 2 provinces. I then called in Yemen who moved their army into one of the other provinces. After it was occupied I moved in my army there to the capital and Yemen's army followed. As soon as they all arrived in the capital I moved my 4 stacks sieging it away, leaving the ~500 soldiers regiment and Yemen's army to siege it down.
Now at some point (maybe it was in that moment, but I believe it was later, because I was considering Naval barrage) Yemen got control of the siege. When the siege finished Yemen was in control of the province, and I was like WTF, why!

So what are the rules of the siege control flipping? I don't get it, normally its enough to keep a single regiment there and let the allies siege it down.

 

[Limyx826]

If you leave the province during sieging and your ally still there, they automatically take over the siege as you are leaving. Also whoever is the first to reach the province is the siege leader.

So if you want your ally to siege the province but under your occupation, you will need to reach the province first. And if your army need to leave the province to do something else, make sure you leave as least 1 regiment, 2 better if no fort, or number required for fort+1 at the province to make sure you are the one occupy it.

 

[Manwe_Sulimo]

If you leave the province during sieging and your ally still there, they automatically take over the siege as you are leaving. Also whoever is the first to reach the province is the siege leader.

So if you want your ally to siege the province but under your occupation, you will need to reach the province first. And if your army need to leave the province to do something else, make sure you leave as least 1 regiment, 2 better if no fort, or number required for fort+1 at the province to make sure you are the one occupy it.

Yeah, that's clear if I entirely leave them, but I did not, I left 1 regiment there. I started the siege before I even called them into the war.

So what you say in your last sentence for a Lvl 1 fort I need 2 regiments to keep control, for lvl 2 fort 3 regiments, and so forth?

 

[Limyx826]

So what you say in your last sentence for a Lvl 1 fort I need 2 regiments to keep control, for lvl 2 fort 3 regiments, and so forth?

That one is my personal recommendation, because for every 1000 garrison needs 3000 men to siege and so forth. So a level 1 fort required at least 3 regiments and every level of fort add another 3 regiments. Due to attrition, if you don't have enough men to siege then the siege with halt until your regiment is reinforced. So for my personal preference I like to add 1 more regiment to make sure the siege is ongoing and if my ally is there and enough then I will leave the half of the regiment required.

For example, the level 3 fort needed 3 regiments then I will leave with 4 regiments. If my ally with 4 regiments arrived then I will pull out 2 regiments, but if my ally only have 1 regiment the I will do nothing. Of course during actual play it will depend on the situation, like you might leave a large army there to deter the enemy from attack you.

 

[CaesarVincens]

Yeah, that's clear if I entirely leave them, but I did not, I left 1 regiment there. I started the siege before I even called them into the war.

So what you say in your last sentence for a Lvl 1 fort I need 2 regiments to keep control, for lvl 2 fort 3 regiments, and so forth?

The siege leader isn't the country that gets there first, but the army that gets there first (regardless of number of regiments). So, if you split off a regiment or several, and move your original army away, the new army "arrived" after your allies. If you instead split off some regiments and send those away, now your "original" army is still the first one at the siege.

(You might even be able to "cheese" moving the general by swapping all regiments to the new army which causes the general to switch armies, then returning some to the original army, preserving arrival priority.)

 

[Manwe_Sulimo]

The siege leader isn't the country that gets there first, but the army that gets there first (regardless of number of regiments). So, if you split off a regiment or several, and move your original army away, the new army "arrived" after your allies. If you instead split off some regiments and send those away, now your "original" army is still the first one at the siege.

(You might even be able to "cheese" moving the general by swapping all regiments to the new army which causes the general to switch armies, then returning some to the original army, preserving arrival priority.)

OK, I think that explains it now. I started the siege with a 4 regiment army, then my allies and my 1 regiment army moved in, I moved the original 4 regiment army out and I guess their army just arrived before my 1 regiment army. Do I then need to pay attention to merging of armies and could I lose priority due to that?

The rule is very obscure and should be changed IMO.

 

[bokorthedust]

OK, I think that explains it now. I started the siege with a 4 regiment army, then my allies and my 1 regiment army moved in, I moved the original 4 regiment army out and I guess their army just arrived before my 1 regiment army. Do I then need to pay attention to merging of armies and could I lose priority due to that?

The rule is very obscure and should be changed IMO.

Yes, if you merge into an army that arrived later, you will lose priority if the army you merged into has a later arrival date.

 

[Manwe_Sulimo]

Yes, if you merge into an army that arrived later, you will lose priority if the army you merged into has a later arrival date.

Hmm this sounds off, you merge so often and it is so random (or at least obscure) which of the 2 army counts, that such a siege leader flip should happen all the time. Why is it so rare then?