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

[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.