Castle walls?

[PvK]

It's not crap, it's abstract.

And, there are historical cases where a very small number of men held a castle for a very long time against a large army.

The formula is obviously a fairly simple abstraction, but I don't think it's unreasonable, or that it gives undo advantage to either side.

Yes breaking things tends to be easier than building them, but seiges greatly favor the defender if the fort is well-designed and competently garrisoned. A defender isn't necessarily rebuilding a wall as it gets damaged, but he might be keeping people from getting near the wall with dropped objects, boiling oil, etc.

PvK

Originally posted by HotNifeThruButr:
That formula seems like crap to me. Destroying things is much easier than repairing it. Can you think of a situation where ten guys on the outside take a catapult to the wall and launch rocks at it, which is how most people would try to break down a wall. Each time a rock from the catapult hits a wall, a dent is created and bricks are knocked from the wall, which is what I think catapult rocks tend to do to walls. When the defenders see a dent, say there's a hundred of them, they all swarm out to that place (and keep in mind that catapult rocks tend to hit the outside of the wall instead of the inside surface) and with bricks and mortar, repair it until it's good as new. The ten men outside can hurl as many rocks as they want, but the hundred in the castle will keep coming out and repairing the wall forever.

What if there was no siege engine involved, which I assume is the case because siege power is dependent on strength. Are the attackers going to take hammers or pound at a wall with their fists until it breaks down?

What exactly is the siege simulation simulating?