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

[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.