The reason to take walls rather than destroy them :)

[Slaists]

in my exp, you lose about as many troops from arrow fire with siege towers as you do just running into a hole in loose formation. The benefit of the sap point is that, if necessary, you can send more guys in.

hmm, to counter, in the experience i just described, i lost just a few seige tower pushing troops to the wall arrow fire. maybe because those were hastatii with their shields up while pushing. i figured, i would lose many more if i had the walls still shooting in my units' backs while they were fighting in the streets; had i just used one or two sap points.

[Morindin]

Sap points you lose less men - yes.
But siege towers go MUCH more smoothly in terms of pathfinding bugs.

Personally I build both. Siege towers first (4 of them), then Sap points 'just incase'. Usually you outnumber the defender so with siege towers you can swarm over the walls unopposed (in some areas), capture the gate easily, then send the rest of your forces in through the gate to capture the town square.

Blowing holes in the walls results in annoying pathfinding, scraps at small chock points, and walls you must repair afterwards.

Of course, if the enemy has millions of archers along the walls blowing up holes may be prudent. It really depends. Ladders are a big no-no.

[Dorkus]

well, this is really lame, but what i often do with a sap point is place my entire army away from teh sap point, save two units.

The defenders usually ignore the smaller force and position their defenders next to my main army (despite the fact that there's no way for them to get in).

the sapper digs in, and blows open a wall. right when the wall goes down, i rush the other unit in in loose formation and up the tower. When the wall goes down, the ai will generally send a couple units to the hole, but by the time they get there, i have the tower, so it's not a problem. Especailly when my main force arrives.

[TinCow]

I would agree you lose fewer with a sap hole run than a siege tower IF there are no enemy missile troops on the walls. Jupiter help you if there are two units of archers on the walls when you make that run though. When you have a siege tower, the archers try to set it on fire first (in my experience) thus keeping the casualties relatively low. Plus, it is much easier to clear missile and skirmisher troops off the walls with a tower assault.

So... Sapping on undefended walls, towers on defended walls. Ladders for the cannon fodder.

[Morindin]

Also if you move your siege towers to the walls on a slight angle most of the archers miss anyway :)
One thing about blowing up the walls however, if they have a lot of archers on the walls already you can usually kill a whole heap, then finish them off with your own archers (if you have them).

I still prefer siege towers overall and use sap points as a last resort.

[The_Emperor]

I find that the main problem with using only Sap points is that you need to blast more than one hole in the wall to be effective... Otherwise the enemy will just mob you on the other side.

Taking the walls is the best way to minimise casualties, and Siege Towers are best for this because (unlike ladders) your men actually manage to survive long enough to get up there.

[Paul Peru]

In my first real siege (beyond picket fences) I managed to get sappers under one of my siege towers
At least it worked as one would expect; the tower collapsed.
Until I read this tread, I hadn't figured out what to do once I was up on the wall, so I just used sappers. (or rams, if I wanted to give my legions a nice, dangerous barbeque)