Battle vs Siege

[Prpavi]

The goal of battle is not your own survival, it is to kill the last survivor of the enemy team before your team loses its own last survivor.

And if you don't care about your own survival how do you expect to be the last survivor to kill off their last survivor and bring victory and multi to your team, so yes it is both about your own survival and killing too.

[kinngrimm]

I prefer battle but due to constant increase of ranged, not playing it regularly for nearly 2 years now. If at any time the count of ranged players would feelable drop on eu 1 again, then i would be there also a constant player. As from what i saw in the past years concerning that topic, nothing was happening or the positiv feedback loop of ranged palyers was even increased, i see there no big chances taht every happening ... which makes me a sad panda 

[woody]

Battle can be fun late at night when you dont get banks of ranged or squadrons of cavalry.

However you can get 1 or 2 HA on low pop servers who while justified in playing that way means over half the time its watching an HA randomly galloping around occasionally firing which is seriously boring.

Basically siege has more melee, more fun, less down time.

[Sir_Senior_the_Eldest]

Siege of course (with more than 40 players). Battle is fine (with less than 40 players) but I like to have some story and tactics behind it.

No matter which terrain, the tactics on eu_1 is in general: Kill the enemy on the most effective way. There's no place to defend some special tower or a bridge or attack that beach. If you stay somewhere, you are often considered as ineffective or even a leecher only because you want to have some epicness.

In siege you can declare to defend this gate with your life(s) or take that tower on every price for the whole round.

And finally I love the HRE squatting when the yellow fellows special unit clashes into flag area and clears it like a pro or goes down in a flood of randomers or looks for an even enemy in a side skirmish vs greys.

[Tindel]

Battle is filled with lamers who only attack in groups and from afar or horseback.
If you want to actually fight people siege is the only gamemode that works atm.

I dont really like siege, i would like CTF or TDM instead.

[HUtH]

I prefer battle but due to constant increase of ranged, not playing it regularly for nearly 2 years now. If at any time the count of ranged players would feelable drop on eu 1 again, then i would be there also a constant player. As from what i saw in the past years concerning that topic, nothing was happening or the positiv feedback loop of ranged palyers was even increased, i see there no big chances taht every happening ... which makes me a sad panda 

If I'm not mistaken you always play as a shielder with huscarl shield and high shield skill? How then shooters are a problem for you? Recently I started playing with shield(a small one) and the comfort of being covered from misiles is so huge... I just can't get your opinion, kinngrimm, would you like only pure melee fights?

[Grumbs]

I prefer battle but due to constant increase of ranged, not playing it regularly for nearly 2 years now. If at any time the count of ranged players would feelable drop on eu 1 again, then i would be there also a constant player. As from what i saw in the past years concerning that topic, nothing was happening or the positiv feedback loop of ranged palyers was even increased, i see there no big chances taht every happening ... which makes me a sad panda 

Relying on range to counter range is the biggest problem of the game, and what I believe is the biggest contributer to the mod not flourishing like it could have. They even make it worse by making ranged effective melee hybrids, so they can get the best of both worlds as long as they can manual block

[Tzar]

Siege = Goal to have fun

Battle = Goal to stay hidden from range, an hope your team survive the range fest.

I dont mind range, but when they start to take over 60% of each team, that just sucks out the fun in battle 

[korppis]

Never happened. Ladders coincided with the largest amount of ranged ever present in the game. No melee wasted time carrying ladders in case some xbow or archer happened to be camping 3 mins into the round. The only people that got a use out of them were ranged, camping otherwise unreachable spots. Suggesting that they were some kind of tactical buff for melee vs ranged is nonsensical.

That depended on the map. The maps where buildings were close enough to each others, one could make a roof-to-roof ladder path and cause some serious headache to archers. I do remember rounds when half the team actually went behind enemy lines over the roofs. However the maps where there were lone buildings, it ended up with ranged standing up there, unreachable (which was one reason why the ladders were removed as far as I know).

[Umbra]

Siege = Goal to have fun

Battle = Goal to stay hidden from range, an hope your team survive the range fest.

I dont mind range, but when they start to take over 60% of each team, that just sucks out the fun in battle 

What if you are the ranged? 

[NejStark]

I think im in the minority because rather than hammer one class for ages I have lots of alts that I like to play in different modes. It depends what I want to play:

Wanna play cav - battle
Wanna play ranged - no preference
Wanna play 2h/pole - siege

Never want to play shielder... It just feels like im on my 1h cav but someone has killed my horse.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Kafein]

Before I GTX cavalry I used to be a 100% battle player... duh

[Gurnisson]

Battle. You barely have to use your brain in siege.

[the real god emperor]

With friends : battle
Without friends : battle again.

siege is for people who dies too much.

[Perverz]

eu1
eu6