Is it correct that the biggest army present wins control over the territory after the siege is over? 'cause that's what just happened after I thought I had executed a masterly timed strike...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That's what I thought from EU3, but I'm pretty sure I had a siege stolen out from under me...
Not sure what happens with sieges. Attacked the ikko ikko and destroyed them. Started a siege and just when it was almost over, another clan swept in and took over the land. A bug? Of course, I then declared war to crush the nasty usurpers but it seems strange that after losing 20.000 troops, another clan steals my rightful land!!
I think that it's the character with the highest Martial rating, followed by who got there first, followed then by size of the army, I think. At least that's how I recall someone stating it in a thread...somewhere.
I am fairly certain it is just whoever gets their first with the exception being if you reorganize your armies at all (merge, split, move order). I have taken a very large amount of territory using small levy armies scattered across large pieces of land and then let my vassals or other clans do the heavy lifting. Several of the armies I sent were also not large enough to have the siege progress but they still counted as first and took control of the siege.
It would be nice if you could "Demand Command" of a siege where you had the largest army for maybe an honor point or a relations hit (or both).
It would be nice if you could "Demand Command" of a siege where you had the largest army for maybe an honor point or a relations hit (or both).
What autumn said. Although I do believe theres some bug where you occasionally lose control of the seige after an unsuccessful assault. Its happened to me 2 or 3 times. I'm sure I got there first, allied armies arrived later, I assault, assault fails and suddenly it says my ally controls the seige. No splitting the army or moving them at all.
happened to me too... but in my situation, for some reason my main army including my retinue had no general. i thought it was because of it..
Yea this happened to me too. My army leading the seige had no leader and so couldnt carry out any assault. And the moment i rearranged my troops to squeeze out a leader, I lost control of the seige too =(.
I'd like to see the issue, army reoganization->loss of siege lead priority, fixed sometime. Not sure if that's a big priority for the devs, however.
I guess that the idea of the assault running out of steam might be the reason for the loss of siege. In my attack, I was the first one there, had the largest army, had leaders and the only thing that I did was push for the assault. Did not monitor if my assault ran out of moral but it could be the reason. A bit stupid that some other clan that I have no relation with can sneak in and take over the siege with a tiny force. Logically, if my 20.000 men are surrounding a castle, then it should not be possible for a neighbor clan to join later, get through my men and take the castle from under me with a small force of 2-3000.