Siege ownership

[unmerged(40814)]

I'm still a little unclear on how siege ownership is determined.

I always thought that the highest ranking official that got there first owned it. Such as a duke taking a siege from a count, liege taking from duke and then keeping it until they moved out or the siege was over.

However, the latest beta has produced some odd ownership issues that I didnt notice before, and I'm not sure if it's a bug or WAD.

First, I had a siege that was being led by me as a King. I brought in one of my vassal dukes to help end the siege earlier, and he ended up owning the siege. He may have had more manpower than me, but previously I hadnt noticed anything like that making a difference in ownership.

Second, I had another territory under siege with my liege, and then a second liege came in and took ownership.

Can someone (nudge MrT) clear up how ownership is determined?

TIA

 

[unmerged(37774)]

I'm still playing the Feb patch and I've noticed much the same thing as you, so I'm not sure it is new.

In my latest game as Russia my liege and the head of the Seljuks were sieging a province together and he got it. I moved on to another province before him, and I got that one instead of him.

 

[unmerged(31970)]

Had the same thing. As King of Scotland and Wales, the King of Sweden took my prise. i had more troops and more titles. So maybe there's a monarch-ranking as well?

 

[unmerged(40711)]

I was playing out a game in 1.04a the other day and saw something similar. As Count of Bihar I moved into a pagan Kingdom that my King was laying seige to (just to be supportive and help the seige get over more quickly). To my surprise the seige ended and I wound up with control of the province.

I appreciated the King's generosity, but since he'd previously been on a binge of taking provinces for his own demesne I was a little confused. Maybe it has to do with your own prestige and number of troops you have present in the seige??

Any way, it made a nice little twist in my AAR (I decided it was repayment for upholding his honor at a recent tournament in Poland).

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Odd. I don't recall a change being made to the seige rules. I'll investigate when time permits.

 

[Ciçatrix]

I remember reading that some people thought leader martial skills had something to do with it too.

 

[unmerged(40814)]

Bumping this up back to the top as it's fallen off the radar due to the other issues being worked on.

Playing the April 8th beta, my castillian liege just had two sieges stolen by his traitorous brothers from Leon and Spanish Gallicia. I was allied with both of them, DOW'd Molina like I always do to start the game, and beat their keep down to half when SG swooped in and took it. Zaragosa DOW's me on my inital attack and I decide to take them out as well. I sent my Liege and El Cid to wipe em out, same thing happens only it's my other borther who takes it...Neither one of them has a higher martial stat, but Leon did have a slightly larger man advantage over my liege's army (about 100), but I have greater overall manpower with El Cid's regiment there as well...

Thinking I could swipe it back, I sent my liege out of the zaragosa province, then sent him back once he reached his destination..Leon still owned the siege..

Between this and trying to reproduce a VFC it's been a busy night :rofl:

 

[Hogar]

maybe that new event of ending siege quickly kicked in?

 

[FrEDa]

maybe that new event of ending siege quickly kicked in?

Now there is a thought..

 

[Caranorn]

Now there is a thought..

Ah that could explain how I came to unexpectedly win a siege (04/01 beta still) under odd circumstances as well (as Duke of Lancaster (1066) against a Welsh county when a king marched in on the siege (eitehr my liege England or an ally Scotland, forgot which one). Previously I had the new siege event kick in while I had command in a neighbouring province (decided not to storm to keep my marshal alive (even if he received the coward attribute for his lack of action)).

Maybe something in that event code is wrong (I did not get any message the second time when a king was also sieging, so the event did not fire for me or there are different siege events (I haven't looked into the new files and plan not to do it (or else I will start modding stuff again and stop playing...))).

 

[unmerged(40814)]

maybe that new event of ending siege quickly kicked in?

I dont think so as the siege bar progressed normally until completion. If the event fires, it just ends immediately.

I could understand if that happened, but I'm nearly positive it didnt.

 

[Hogar]

I dont think so as the siege bar progressed normally until completion. If the event fires, it just ends immediately.

I could understand if that happened, but I'm nearly positive it didnt.

the siege bar was running out and then the event kicked in... just kidding...

 

[NeilJT]

I always assumed that if two kings were in the same province at the same time, then the one who had declared war first (but not necessarily arrived first) took the day - that seemed to fit in with my experiences.

This doesn't explain all those examples given above, but may explain one or two of the instances.

 

[unmerged(1923)]

I had two (or three, depending how you count) siege-related strangnesses in my (apr8 patch) Kappadokia game:

1) Besieging Antioch, with another prince present, but me as leader; suddenly the seige ends and the other prince holds Antioch. (I assume an event caused this.)

2) Twice I was besieging (Aintab and Damascus) and Emperor Romanos joined the siege - both times I still kept the siege-lead and kept the province when it fell. I was quite shocked - but not upset (I had not reloaded at all; I wonder if Romanos' becoming emperor without a reload caused problems?)

 

[Zander]

In a game on the April 8 patch just last night, another player was sieging a province. I sent my (untitled) marshal, who had more troops than the other player's whole army, and a higher martial than anyone else there, and I was suddenly in charge of the siege, despite the fact that he had a Duke there and had been there first.