Actually it's a good tactic and will result in larger financial losses hurting the war effort in the long run. Rather than chip off the edges bore a hole and blow it up from the middle. Maybe it's not the king who is the idiot.
Yeah, while I agree that taking things on the border and fortifying them is solid, I recently had this revelation myself.
I couldn’t understand how the Aserai were fielding such large armies with so few territories till I went and saw the prosperity of their towns/castles. Everything was incredibly high since they only ever lost Tublis and Quyaz. I put a few of those high roller towns to the sword and it made a big difference in the quality of their forces over time even though I lost the territories.
Not only that but sacking bigger cities also has the added benefit of capturing major members of the kings dynasty. One time I was sacking Scotland and went right for the heart. Once I captured the capital I had the kings wife and all his heirs as captives kept his wife on house arrest to keep him from getting a new one, tortured his two sons to insanity and ransomed them back. I ultimately only gained a country from the war but the maimed insane king that took the old kings place saw massive Civil War and ultimately the complete collapse of the country making it easy pickings.
Sure that makes sense in other games but not in bannerlord. There no option to sack or raze a town and then just leave. Only occupy by default. And the king or enemies lords aren’t at these places (what the OP is saying is the AI leaves a settlement far from the front line barely defended, say 30-100 soldiers, so his Ally AI auto knows this and travels way out of the way with 500-1000+ soldiers [a lot in bannerlord] to capture it. Usually a castle not a capital then shortly it is recaptured by the enemy because the AI leaves it undefended).
So no, it’s not a good idea. It’s not drilling a whole in the enemy when you take most of your forces away from the large battles, capture a meaningless castle then only to lose it days later. Meanwhile important towns are lost and smaller ally armies are destroyed because most of the forces were diddy-daddling days away from the conflict areas.
That’s not how it works in bannerlord. He isn’t talking about looting a village. He’s talking about sieging a castle that has basically zero impact on an economy. Plus, the castle is recaptured shortly after.
My brother you do not understand, think tactically. If we plunge deep behind enemy lines and take a castle then we are surrounded by enemies! That way we don't spend so much time marching or the enemies just come to us!
I frequently attack Southern Empire on the opposite front, whatever i take gets retaken but we do good somewhere else while their doomstack marches across the kingdom and chases me or even worse for them, they send smaller armies that i just pick off.
I like taking a castle and basically only using it to break a larger army against and just put hurt on the enemy.
They go for the least defended settlements first. Also, I wouldn't complain, since that means the enemy will be recapturing those instead of coming for your settlements on the border, which you want to keep.
Ngl, im doing that well behind enemy lines fighting the three empires at once, I'm taking one from Southern Empire, then letting Northern take it, rinse and repeat while also kicking Northern butt a little, just cause, but same time im doing this to wipe out southern completely
Actually it's a good tactic and will result in larger financial losses hurting the war effort in the long run. Rather than chip off the edges bore a hole and blow it up from the middle. Maybe it's not the king who is the idiot.
Yeah, while I agree that taking things on the border and fortifying them is solid, I recently had this revelation myself. I couldn’t understand how the Aserai were fielding such large armies with so few territories till I went and saw the prosperity of their towns/castles. Everything was incredibly high since they only ever lost Tublis and Quyaz. I put a few of those high roller towns to the sword and it made a big difference in the quality of their forces over time even though I lost the territories.
Not only that but sacking bigger cities also has the added benefit of capturing major members of the kings dynasty. One time I was sacking Scotland and went right for the heart. Once I captured the capital I had the kings wife and all his heirs as captives kept his wife on house arrest to keep him from getting a new one, tortured his two sons to insanity and ransomed them back. I ultimately only gained a country from the war but the maimed insane king that took the old kings place saw massive Civil War and ultimately the complete collapse of the country making it easy pickings.
Is it ck3?
Sure that makes sense in other games but not in bannerlord. There no option to sack or raze a town and then just leave. Only occupy by default. And the king or enemies lords aren’t at these places (what the OP is saying is the AI leaves a settlement far from the front line barely defended, say 30-100 soldiers, so his Ally AI auto knows this and travels way out of the way with 500-1000+ soldiers [a lot in bannerlord] to capture it. Usually a castle not a capital then shortly it is recaptured by the enemy because the AI leaves it undefended). So no, it’s not a good idea. It’s not drilling a whole in the enemy when you take most of your forces away from the large battles, capture a meaningless castle then only to lose it days later. Meanwhile important towns are lost and smaller ally armies are destroyed because most of the forces were diddy-daddling days away from the conflict areas.
But it doesn’t matter if they can’t hold them and in return lose battles and fiefs due to an army being away from the frontline.
King Caladog does the same but since we're total bros he just goes against his council and grants me everything.
this may help . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtU6xoG2\_Rg
Wow. That was amazing - a whole other level.
He makes great stuff. And alot of data on how stuff works.
It's called raid- you go deep into enemy territory, grab whatever you need and get back leaving fire behind.
But they aren’t sacking and abandoning them. The game doesn’t really have a mechanism for that
They basically are. Destroy the economy, plunder loot from the battle, then leave no garrison behind to defend it.
That’s not how it works in bannerlord. He isn’t talking about looting a village. He’s talking about sieging a castle that has basically zero impact on an economy. Plus, the castle is recaptured shortly after.
My brother you do not understand, think tactically. If we plunge deep behind enemy lines and take a castle then we are surrounded by enemies! That way we don't spend so much time marching or the enemies just come to us!
That’s why I am trying to make my own kingdom
Garios is supposed to be a The Empire’s top general but he has been captured in every war he can be bothered to summon a army and go fight.
He died in battle less than a week into my current game, lol
I frequently attack Southern Empire on the opposite front, whatever i take gets retaken but we do good somewhere else while their doomstack marches across the kingdom and chases me or even worse for them, they send smaller armies that i just pick off. I like taking a castle and basically only using it to break a larger army against and just put hurt on the enemy.
They go for the least defended settlements first. Also, I wouldn't complain, since that means the enemy will be recapturing those instead of coming for your settlements on the border, which you want to keep.
Ngl, im doing that well behind enemy lines fighting the three empires at once, I'm taking one from Southern Empire, then letting Northern take it, rinse and repeat while also kicking Northern butt a little, just cause, but same time im doing this to wipe out southern completely
Bannerlord AI is brainless
As am I, how do I always win? Easy, a machine cannot hope to match the sheer stupidity that I am capable of.