Anyone Tried MM Siege

**AlfonsoVIII** · June 26, 2011, 01:06 PM

I am also someone who got tired of 1v1 matchmaking on land and thought I would do some sieges, 1v1 2v2 auto team. It is a nice change of pace from land battles, even though you get a few spam armies, but once you know what to bring to each castle whether attacking or defending, it sure is fun. Anyone else have good experiences, or bad about Siege battles.

**Last Samurai** · June 26, 2011, 02:58 PM

My experiences with sieges are mostly bad. There are some castles that could be easily defended like most of fortress and where succesful attack must be done by a skilled player and also a one-level castles like (if i'm not wrong) Yaizu on that the attacker can just smash defenders by bringing a lot of bow units and there's nothing to do against it. I think they're very disbalanced, but are a good way to have some fun and wait untill veterans will be able to fight though.

**AlfonsoVIII** · June 26, 2011, 03:07 PM

yes they are unbalanced, but i have no problem winning as attacker or defender on all the maps. Some people just bring the wrong army setups to each battle, but once you know how to win, then it is easy as attacker or as defender. some people bring very bad army setups and wonder why they lose. And yes, Yaizu and similar castles should not be a 2v2 map, only 1v1, then there fine.

Of course, defenders who cav spam and run outside are the ones i hate the most.

**i came from outerspace** · June 26, 2011, 08:34 PM

i play them from time to time, I have no real gripe with the game mode.

Though I wish i could save my armies with my retainers. I use different retainers on sieges and when I switch between land and sirge it takes a minute to find my retainers

and it often puts 3v3 maps even when its 1v1, and sometimes it might be a 2v2 game but it chooses a 1v1 map.

When the map is too big it gives the defender an unfair advantage (all thsoe extra tiers make a big difference), when the map is too smal the assault has an advantage (not much in the way between the defenders and the large attacking force)

if I decide I wan to spend the afternoon doing siege though and I stay on tht mode it usually turns out ok.

**fumle** · June 27, 2011, 02:41 AM

Sieges are very fun. I used to like both attackign and defending. but suddenly every attacker started to use millions of bows, this caused extremly long and boring battles (the most boring do like this: first they bombard you with their cannon, then their bow hero, then their bow monks, then their bow sam...). This caused many players to sally with cav, the bow spammers retalieted with nagi/yari troops, leaving that (also boring) option out.
My own tactic can easly beat bow spammers, but when they finally run out of ammo they realise they face certain defeat so they decide to go redlinecamping or something-.- in the end I could just as well had attacked from the start instead of trying to defend the castle, but when i do that, the enemy gen snipes at once because he cleary don't have a big enough chance with "only" 5.800koku worth army more than me.

sorry I turned this into flame, but yesterday I stopped siege defence altogheter because of all this, and I find it such a shame since they used to be such fun!

**Mr. Battle** · June 27, 2011, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by fumle

Sieges are very fun. I used to like both attackign and defending. but suddenly every attacker started to use millions of bows, this caused extremly long and boring battles (the most boring do like this: first they bombard you with their cannon, then their bow hero, then their bow monks, then their bow sam...). This caused many players to sally with cav, the bow spammers retalieted with nagi/yari troops, leaving that (also boring) option out.
My own tactic can easly beat bow spammers, but when they finally run out of ammo they realise they face certain defeat so they decide to go redlinecamping or something-.- in the end I could just as well had attacked from the start instead of trying to defend the castle, but when i do that, the enemy gen snipes at once because he cleary don't have a big enough chance with "only" 5.800koku worth army more than me.

sorry I turned this into flame, but yesterday I stopped siege defence altogheter because of all this, and I find it such a shame since they used to be such fun!

Is there not a time limit on the siege battles? I have only played field battles so far, but in a siege, where there is an obvious attacker and defender, there should be a time limit so that attackers are forced to actually, you know, lay a siege.

**Arilon** · June 27, 2011, 04:36 AM

I played sieges a lot when I began with avatar mode,
it was a good way to get used to the game (mechanics).
But as said here before, once you figured out how it works (what units to bring as attacker or defender)
its boring b/c it clearly favors one side depending on map and number of players.
If really you want to win, you have to take the same units every time.

Siege units were not very effective on big castles, due to the nerfes even worthless in small castles now.
Ninjas worthless in small castles, and worthless in big castles if you play 2v2 and up.
So two units basicly intented to be played in sieges are rarely seen and used... sad but true.

But especially the missing battletimer is annoying and stopped me from playing sieges further b/c
more than once the attacker refused to move and didn´t say a word...
And once I played a match were the attacker waited until the firearrow timer
was resetted to shoot fire arrows with every single volley of his bow units to max out their effectiveness.
Lucky me that after some time his steam connection broke down....

So since I got both achievements I rarely play sieges anymore.

**AlfonsoVIII** · June 27, 2011, 02:33 PM

@Arilon, true i have 1 attacking army and 1 defending army, and so far with my partner, we are 30-1 in 2v2 siege battles, that loss came when i was host and steam decided to kick me out, lol. i just wished everyone knew how to play sieges correctly so i can get a challenge. Attack, I win, Defend, I win. boring, but the clan tokens are nice and should be in the elite of the 2v2 ladder in a couple weeks, if not number one, lol.

**Arilon** · June 27, 2011, 04:43 PM

Hmm really ?
Than it seems that the palyers who knew how it works are gone....
Maybe I should play 2v2 sieges again ;-)

**AlfonsoVIII** · June 27, 2011, 04:52 PM

no time limit of sieges, so yeah you can face an attack who refuses to attacker and you have 2 choices, wait or sally. sometimes they want u to sally and they have a all cav army hiding in the forest waiting for you.

**Mr. Battle** · June 28, 2011, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by AlfonsoVIII

no time limit of sieges, so yeah you can face an attack who refuses to attacker and you have 2 choices, wait or sally. sometimes they want u to sally and they have a all cav army hiding in the forest waiting for you.

Wow. CA should really just fix the whole camper situation by building their multiplayer around it. Even in field battles, there should be an attacker and a defender. The attacker should get more funds, but should have to beat the defender within a time limit.