storming castles

[Chazar]

Bah, actually storming a castle is not even difficult enough - or is there anyone here who would rather opt for a prolonged siege instead of storming right away?

A prolonged siege might starve the defenders, since a castle's supply bonus is halved for each subsequent sieged turn. However, starving units will only reveive diseases in the end. A disease will kill, but it takes too much time to actually wait for a sieged castle's garrision to diminish significantly due to starving/disease. Or did I miss a mechanism by which starving will cause more damage if the starving unit is already diseased? The decreased moral due to starving is useful, but thanks to wine skins and non-eating troops, a prolonged siege against human opponents is probably always a bad idea.

Another benefit of a prolonged siege is killing by preaching, but this only applies to the last castle of an opponent...

---

BTW, I think that flying units receive +1 to sieging and defending.

[Truper]

Any unit (besides undead) that is diseased has a chance to pick up additional afflictions. In most instances, I prefer to storm a castle if I can, since otherwise I have an army just staring at stone walls...

[Boron]

Chazar said:
Another benefit of a prolonged siege is killing by preaching, but this only applies to the last castle of an opponent...

Also applies to heavy use of immortals, especially by ermor or ulm bf. There waiting to get positive dominion also helps, as Marignon it should be possible to achieve positive dominion in 1 turn.

[Folket]

Using only meele units will give you huge looses unless they fly. Since only a few will be able to fight while the rest just hangs around beeing of no use.

So have some archer and crossbows to deliver some damage to thier units.

Mages with good evocations are also useful but spread them out as your opponents castle will fire at your commanders as well. Use of air shield might be useful.