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!!!"

[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.

[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?