Hmmm, I don't necessarily agree.
as a player that knows how "not" to mess up the defence like the AI does all the time. It's always better to defend inside your castle, even after 5 turns.
But you are always going to help out your Garrison. Or at least most of the time.
And fighting manually will reduce your losses to like 10% of what you would lose if you auto-resolve, so it basically is that way already.
And since it is that way, you are inclined to fight through most of them because even a small garrison can cause heavy casualties depending on the map and towers you can use.
But you are right, siege battles should be fun and thus worth it from the fun/time spent perspective. However, that's an almost impossible task if sieges aren't "rare". The way it works right now, you have one or two ever round. So it will get boring real quick.
I think the game would have to change *heavily* to make sieges interesting as you have to actively "poison" yourself to make sieges fun and "cinematic".
You can divide your troops onto different layers of defence, but that's just a bad move and if you want to win, you will never do that.
But that would be *exactly* what would turn sieges into something interesting. A battle of attrition where you fight through the streets of your castle/city.
Maybe they should actually include buildings you have built in that settlement on the *battle-map* so that you can burn them down as an attacker... that would give the defending side something to defend outside their best fortified position, as losing a Tier-V-Stable would cost like 10-15k gold to rebuild and a lot of turns as well.
Instead, we have utterly pointless "supply points" that do basically nothing for you and it really doesn't matter if you take them or not.