Does any one starve the enemy???

[Mediteran]

i think enemy generals DO starve but at a significantly slower pace ... when eveybody else was 30-50% down from losses the enemy general had gone down perhaps 15% or sth... this bastard was hiding rations from the rest of his troops and feeding it to his bodyguard!!!

the bastard!

i like to wait sometimes, only to wait for them to sally, i dont break off sieges and then start again

[ARCHIPPOS]

whatever happened to Alexander's "if my men can't get any ,neither will I !!!" attitude???? HUH???

[Mikhail Mengsk]

I starve the enemy every time, i attack only when the city is poorly defended or if i have to conquer that city FAST for some reason. I don't think it's cheating, i don't see any reason to call it so, because sieges are sieges.

Attacking full-defended fortified city was a slaughter, in antiquity. An intelligent general won't risks its veterans in such a risky way, unless there was some GOOD reason. So do I.

[Satyros]

I starve the enemy every time, i attack only when the city is poorly defended or if i have to conquer that city FAST for some reason. I don't think it's cheating, i don't see any reason to call it so, because sieges are sieges.

Attacking full-defended fortified city was a slaughter, in antiquity. An intelligent general won't risks its veterans in such a risky way, unless there was some GOOD reason. So do I.

Exactly .

Never storm unless sure to crush them , or other reason of great ( financial/roleplay ) importance .

Satyros