Field Battles vs. Siege Battles...Where are you good at?

[smooth_operator]

The thread title says it all. :) do you like the thrill of a direct clash or do you prefer a wall standing between you better?

[A Nerd]

I much prefer the field battle. They are more varied and provide often different and more diverse strategy than taking a settlement. The way in which one takes a settlement is realatively the same time and time again. Afterall, if it works, why not repeat it? On the field your adversary will always adapt his strategy to counter your own as the two sides make chess-move-like decisions in order to beat one another. Such variance is not available to sieger and siegee. In a siege, you take the walls or defend the walls, little more. I personally like the freedom of movement in field battles vs. the rigidity of sieges. Morale and fatigue play more of a roll in field battles as well. An example would be the lack there of when the defender of a siege falls back to the city or castle square. My opinion does not take into account the competancy of the AI.

[Myth]

Siege battles effectively nullify cavalry, so I'd say I feel more comfortable with field battles. Siege defense with lots of archers and botched up infantry at the chokes is fun, but siege assault can be very annoying at times.

[smooth_operator]

siege assault can be very annoying at times.

and excruciatingly long...

[StuntManMatt]

I'd say I'm a bigger fan of field battles (love those cavalry charges), but I'm definitely better at defending a siege. Assaulting can be a pain because I hate taking losses. Nothing's better than successfully defending an undermanned citadel from the mongols multiple times.

"Remember Acre!!!":laugh4:

[Myth]

I find that it's quite fun to defend settlements by making a spear box in front of the gates. Instant route for the cavalry pouring inside trough the broken gate. And if you're England, having 6 stacks of Retinue Archers atope those walls and hearing the sound of a thousand flaming arrows rain down on the saracens or turks below... Mmmm... Too bad that as England, most of the time I'm fighting fellow Christians.:shame:

[anshuvio2]

I like field battles as they allow for more maneuverability and greater variety of tactics. Siege-defense is next as it just seems epic in my mind, while siege-assault comes last because it's just a big grind-fest.

[_Tristan_]

Though I prefer the tactical options offered by field battles, I'll rank siege-assault a close second with siege-defense the last.

Siege-defense is rather tedious as the A.I. can't seem to attack efficiently and the bonus you get from fighting on your walls makes things too easy in my view.

In siege-assault, I'll admit I prefer acting deviously (through spies) rather than through a frontal assault, but to keep a bit of challenge I tend to use armies that are of lower quality/lesser numbers than the defenders, evening the odds, sort of. And that helps getting nice traits for your generals as a bonus.

[Sebastian Seth]

I'd say I like siege battles more. Shame the gunpowder units ruin them. And the pathfinding/formation forming/getting stuck...

Edit: Siege defences are my favorites.

[Wytchfynder]

I enjoy a siege attack esp when my forces are kinda weak in numbers or quality, and using decoy attacks and making holes in walls I never intend to go through. Then swing my entire army right round the back and go through the 'real holes' I just made.

[bretwalda]

I like field battles the best, which probably means I have to get better in siege battles. I have to admit, I hardly ever get sieged and don't really like sieging. Any threads you could suggest to get better in city/castle attacks?

Little offtopic: ever happened to you that on a field battle you just can't get to you enemy because of the terrain?

[A Nerd]

Little offtopic: ever happened to you that on a field battle you just can't get to you enemy because of the terrain?

This has happened to me from time to time. Mostly when I attack the AI near some mountains. He is high atop the cliff face where there are rocks all the way down that I cannot climb. 90 degree ascent it seems like to get there, and no terrain I can walk up either. Usually, I just select my whole army, then click up where he is, 6x speed and note how my army climbs up there. There usually is a way, it is just hard to see. They get there exhausted, but better than cancelling out of a battle. Especially when the AI army is much smaller than my own.

I had one battle where my entire army was clumped together in one spot and I couldn't do anything with them. Couldn't click on them to move or anything. I had to cancel out of the battle and lose. That was annoying, but only happened once.

[Beggarman]

I prefer field battles to sieges. Sieges are very much a matter of "bulling through". You just have to accept that you wont have good mobility or flexibility, and push on.

On the other hand, I've never noticed a need for more time than the 15 minutes built in. But I also don't tend to assault "real" cities until i have Dismounted Knights or similar "assault" infantry.

[phonicsmonkey]

I much prefer field battles, but mostly because I'm a horse-archer nut and they don't like those crowded city streets at all.

There are three honourable exceptions to this:

- When I assault with panzerphants (BOOM! Aarrgh! Mwuahahahaha!)
- When I assault with Greek Fire (Whoooosh! Aaargh! Mwuuuuuaaaaaaahahahahaaaa!)
- When I defend with Naptha (Donk....Whump! Aaargh! Tee hee.)

[Thaddeus]

Siege defense for me. Never bothered much with siege attack, though just starting to and liking it. Field battles I love defensive battles. Attacking not so much.

[Vladimir]

I still play on occasion and use spies to either open gates or see when the garrison is at a minimum. I've taken more than a few ungarrisoned settlements.

Cavalry is very useful against an underdefended settlement. If you're able to flank enemy troops before they can get to the city center you loose a lot less men. Other times you can isolate a general or find an isolated missile unit to charge down. Cavalry is still good for picking armies apart.

I rarely attack a settlement that's garrisoned by more than a quarter stack. If I do, I wait out the siege or attack an adjacent army to draw them out. Smart sieges add an extra element of fun to the game.

[edbenedict77]

Siege battles effectively nullify cavalry,

sorry for the late reply but i totally disagree, u can quickly march ur cav behind the attacking enemy forces and charge, in a narrow city street and TRUST me it can be devastating to the enemy!! even if they are spear/pikemen units :)

[Myth]

Well versus the inept AI yes I even managed to win several hard sieges in SS 6.4 by making it sally, then charge-raping it's troops or taking the town center with my general while it gets stuck outside. What I meant by that is it nullifies cavalry for the defender. Not that you can't use it, it's just that there's no point. There are so many exploits to both siege defenses and attacks that they get boring. When defending you can stake the gate, make a box of infantry at the gate and let the enemy charge like a moron and get routed, you can box them at the gate and use ballistae or catapults with flamin ammo to kill them, you can trick the AI into leaving the city then take it and instantly kill the defending stack, you can siege a city from multiple angles and the AI won't adequately defend... So on and so forth.

[edbenedict77]

hard sieges in SS 6.4 ....

thanks, and off topic what do you meanby the above? is it a mod? and is it good and without glitches?

[phonicsmonkey]

thanks, and off topic what do you meanby the above? is it a mod? and is it good and without glitches?

Yes, Yes and mostly.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Field battles all the way. Playing as France, I love using flanking cavalry charges, especially when it involves some sort of wooded area or a place I can sneak some troops behind the enemy line at.

In fact my first ever MP Total War battle was on this game, the enemy started on the high ground, me on the low ground with 2 chokepoints to get to the hill. One (where the bulk of my troops were at) was fairly barren of trees, and was simply a straight-up approach, assaulting up a hill. The second entrance was covered by forest, where I hid several heavy cavalry units. I engaged the front with my main line, and could easily see that the entire enemy army was focused on the diversion. Essentially they all turned that direction and all but a couple Dismounted Knights units and some Hobilars were engaged with my heavy infantry. I found a hidden path to a plateau up above the hill, which gave my crossbowmen an extreme height advantage and the ability to rain down bolts right on the enemies heads. At this point my hidden cavalry charged right into the back of the enemy, killing the enemy general, all of their cavalry, and much of the heavy infantry. Though my main line was pretty much destroyed, his general was dead, his army was seriously outflanked, and they had hundreds of armor piercing bolts coming straight down on them and no way to stop it.


So yes, I love field battles more, especially when they incorporate varied terrain features.

[Negator_UK]

I prefer field battles and hate siege because its so fiddly.

My preferred method for attacking cities is auto-resolve, preferably with a siege-equipped night-fighter general.

My preferred method of defending them is a relief army.

I don't always achieve this of course, so the occasional foray into siege battles varies the game somewhat.

[Myth]

Fighting siege defense battles is great fun for me. Especially I'f I've stacked the city with good archers and infantry.

[archimedez]

@ Myth I got a question about gate defense with town milita. I read somewhere stacking two units of militia each 3 rows deep onto eachother is better for moral than one militia with 6 rows deep. What is your experience ?

[Memnon]

The only time the AI ever attacks me is if I leave them a city on purpose, or if they work up the courage or slyness to sneak into my mostly undefended settlements. So I prefer field battles unless they involve horse archers, and I prefer siege assault because I've never fought a seige defense battle which didn't involve one unit of militia versus the Grande Armee of the AI.

[Myth]

=
@ Myth I got a question about gate defense with town milita. I read somewhere stacking two units of militia each 3 rows deep onto eachother is better for moral than one militia with 6 rows deep. What is your experience ?

I dislike stacking troops ontop of each other in the deployment phase, though I'd allow the game engine to do it if It's the shortest way to get to the enemy. For a gate, I make a square of spear units, all set to Schilthorn formation and defend mode. The more you have, the tighter the ring, though even three can work. I've defended cities with only a few spears and a general to keep them from routing. The trick is, if you have archers, to never set the catapult on fire. Let them batter down the gate and the computer siplls inside in a masive blob, surrounded on three sides. He soon routs and you send your general and any other cav to mop up the retreating foes. Heroic Victory.

If you want to make it obscene use one of the commn exploits (I avoid them):

1. Stake the gate
2. Use flaming Ballistae or Mangonel shots to kill the enemy blob

[Sp4]

I hate siege battles against the AI, wether I attack or defend. Can't say for MP because I have never played a siege in MP.
In the campaign, I always try to catch invading armies in the open field and if that does not work, I put my defending army into the central plaza on guard mode, speed up the whole thing and go watch TV, unless the enemy army is significantly weaker than my own or I have a ton of mounted troops, then I just sally out and steamroll them.

Usually, I just keep an army made up almost entirely of mounted units along with a General or two close to my frontier settlements, so I can send them to lift any siege that might occur.

[Alsatia]

Well, I usually like sieges, except when town militia starts decimating all your heavy inf. on the walls...

My attacking army is usually made up of around 10 -15 Heavy Inf, and 5 Cav. I never seem to use archers effectively.

[Sp4]

I like to use groups of 3 heavy infantry along with 1-2 siege weapons for each group and then just killing the walls from multiple directions and attacking the central plaza from 3 directions at least. AI tends to withdraw when they notice they got holes in their walls all over the place.

[MamlukArcher]

Definitely field battles

[Prussian to the Iron]

Definitely field battles

Hey hey hey! I see we got a noobie here! Welcome to the .org!

[Vladimir]

Adding a little life into the Citadel!

Field is definitely more fun. My armies are generally built to maneuver and destroy the enemy's ability to maneuver. I always take more casualties defending in a siege then out in the open.

[GoldenToad]

I have started using a lot more cavalry in my campaigns; I do find assaulting castles boring, but defending is bearable.

[A Nerd]

I found a warm spot in my heart for Jinetes. I always loathed the thought of fighting them with England, France or the HRE and the like when I moved down to take Spain and Portugal. But in a recent Spain campaign I discovered why they are so difficult to manage (for me anyway) in a field battle! I love to use them in my armies and now have been doing a number on those before mentioned factions as I move north. Nice to be on the winning side for a change! :D

[DAX]

Field battles all the way. Seiging as the Spanish in the Americas campaign or with any cannons in general can be alot of fun, if for no other reason than the incredibly disproportionate amount of kills you can get, but otherwise I usually autoresolve any assaults. I tend to lose more people than the computer does anyway when it comes to attacking.

[Sultan of Egypt]

siege (as the defender)
Really easy especially with ballista towers and lots of good archers

[Zim]

Normally field battles. On the other hand there is nothing like tearing apart fortifications with cannons followed by heavy infantry going into the breach...

[Bullseye]

i prefer field battles.siege battles are silly.when defending the city-fort use the spearmen and enemy will crush.play field battles and enjoy the game.

[mtw2]

Opposed to everyone else I like siege battles. It is a shame the fights on the wall usually don t work as good as they should. That can be a bit frustrating at times.

However in campaigns I often siege settlements untill the enemy comes to attack me, but that is mainly to minimise the troops I lose.

[klc123]

Field battles are fun, as that is when tactics can have a large impact on the outcome, as you have space to move your troops around, and also the terrain plays more of a role.

My absolute favorite battles are when I am defending during a bridge battle. I purposely engineer these on the strategy map because of how effective they are. It might seem too easy to some people, but there is something fun about seeing a few units of spears, with a few units of crossbows, and an artillery unit completely destroy a full stack with less than 10% casualties on vh.

Siege defense is also something I really enjoy when I am prepared for it with a decent size garrison. Some of my most enjoyable battles have come from defending antioch from multiple stacks of hordes with a full stack of English.

Conversely, I absolutely despise siege assault, I just don't understand them. Tactics seem to make next to no difference, and it turns into a meat grinder where I lose at least 50% of my men even when I far outnumber them.

[Yoyoma1910]

Assaulting walls isn't supposed to be a cake walk, otherwise we wouldn't build them.



Personally I enjoy both for different reasons. In field battles I enjoy maneuvering my troops to try and best confuse and out flank my opponent.


In siege, I simply enjoy the hardware used for breaching the walls, like the cannons, trebuchets, and siege towers.

[Myth]

Field battles are fun, as that is when tactics can have a large impact on the outcome, as you have space to move your troops around, and also the terrain plays more of a role.

My absolute favorite battles are when I am defending during a bridge battle. I purposely engineer these on the strategy map because of how effective they are. It might seem too easy to some people, but there is something fun about seeing a few units of spears, with a few units of crossbows, and an artillery unit completely destroy a full stack with less than 10% casualties on vh.

Siege defense is also something I really enjoy when I am prepared for it with a decent size garrison. Some of my most enjoyable battles have come from defending antioch from multiple stacks of hordes with a full stack of English.

Conversely, I absolutely despise siege assault, I just don't understand them. Tactics seem to make next to no difference, and it turns into a meat grinder where I lose at least 50% of my men even when I far outnumber them.Defending a bridge with longbowmen and packs of heavy infantry - one of the few ways t beat Mongols in the field.

[klc123]

Defending a bridge with longbowmen and packs of heavy infantry - one of the few ways t beat Mongols in the field.
Yeah, England were the first faction I played with, and their units really suit my style of play. Planting stakes in front of the gates to a castle makes the game seem like easy mode, especially when fighting the mongols who rely so much on their cavalry.

As a quick side note, I was beginning to use pikemen yesterday with Spain, and I was excited to see how good they were on the defense, seeing how good hoplites were in rtw. But they really suck, I can't seem to get them to do anything with their pikes, as soon as the enemy touches them, they switch to their swords. Anyone know a decent fix for this?

[Prussian to the Iron]

I know there are mods, I can't cite any though.

[Myth]

This is a problem with vanilla M2TW. Most mods like Stainless Steel remove their secondary weapon to fix the issue. You can try flashing the F button but that's limited in usefulness.

[venomousmonkey]

Oddly i prefer Sieges especially when they bring siege towers, always satisfying to stop those as well as the battering rams. Always feels more epic as defending a siege, gives a last resort feel. While yes, assualting is definitley the worst of the options.