Whats your favourite kind of battle?

[Mr Kriegtooth]

Reading another topic made me think of this. Whats your favourite kind of battle? In the plains, in the woods? Seiges or bridge battles? Offense or defense?

I have to say, I enjoy the bridge battles, however rare they are. They just feel so brutal, the infantry clashing on the bridge, then when they break, mass casualities.

I also enjoy a well equiped seige defense...and hell, sometimes I even got an epic victory when defending with just a few units. One of my most glorious moments in SS6.1 was playing as the HRE. I invaded Greece(Byzantine Control, liberated Hungary from them and headed on south). Got cut off since I over extended my forces, and I defended the city(regretably forgot which one..) against an almost full stack of troops with some damaged Fuedal Knights and Peasant Crossbowmen. No general, or even spear units.

[Ichon]

I like the battles where I am forced to attack full AI army with decent combined forces over some different terrain. It actually makes me think and try to use cover or feints to lure out AI. Hills, woods, bridges, map corners, etc.. those have been my favorite battles.

On the other hand sieges bore me and bridge battles seem an exploit. River crossings however are very fun if also very rare.

Probably 2 battles I can remember most clearly in SS are attacking AI hiding in the woods with 1.5 stacks with only 1 stack. I knew AI had heavy cavalry and infantry but exactly where? Tense moments there. Other time was attacking England up a wooded hill. Their archers were hidden at the start and then trying to get my cavalry around the flanks up the hill to attack was a series of small ambushes. Probably the closest battle I've ever won with fulls stacks on each side. Single general and 5 infantry survived.

[PapaRosario]

Bridge battles may be exploitative, but it's just so satisfying completely surrounding and annihilating the enemy as soon as they cross.

[RZZZA]

I like bridge battles when you're on defense and you have an army of phalanx or pike troops. Muahaha. Carnage.

[Karthago]

I like woods or plains battles.

Plains, simply because two massive armies attacking each other...is amazing to see in the open. Very cinematic feeling to it. I'm really good attacking in the open as well.

Woods because it is rather awesome to ambush enemies and gives it a more...I'm not sure what word to use...but kind of a "creepy" feeling to it. Creepy isn't the word I'm looking for...but seeing battles in woods is really awesome.

My least favorite are city battles and bridge battles.

Maybe (probably) it is how I control it, but city battles always end up as a huge unorganized mess. However, I prefer defending a city than attacking. I always lose too many men attacking. I'm a lot better at defense. Though I tend to charge the enemy before they actually siege. That being, I actually go out before they siege the city on the game map. For some extra clarification.

Bridge battles because it is too easy to exploit. I mean, I like an easy win and all...but I prefer challenge and having to work for that victory. Granted, it is hilarious to see a whole army die to a few. But, that is really it. I tend to avoid bridge battles, personally. Granted, I'm not stupid...if it is actually a really good strategic point...but not just to exploit the enemy.

[Anjin]

Your honor is noted, however Caesar is turning in his grave. Attack Attack!

[Faramir D'Andunie]

Assaulting well fortified and defended cities/castles for me lately. If it involves a relief army outside the walls even better. Have to be quite creative with the means at your disposal and the tactic you will implement (spies, siege weapons, siege equipment).

Sadly they are quite rare.

[TheDarkKnight]

I like the kind where I win...

That being said, bridge battles are fun...When you're playing defensively.

[Byg]

I prefer flat grassy or desert plains as when there are hills I have a serious advantage as I can always seize the high ground. Inevitable victory is just dull.

[Judeman266]

I prefer flat grassy or desert plains as when there are hills I have a serious advantage as I can always seize the high ground. Inevitable victory is just dull.

I like flat terrain too because you can learn what formations work, when to strengthen a flank, and when to flank the enemy. Flat terrain requires straight up skill when you have an superior- highly superior enemy army/armies. Massacring the enemy in bridge battles is fun every now and then but fighting without many advantages ups the ante.

[Michadon]

I prefer plains (or any other 'open' terrain) over woods, mainly because in dense forests I can't have a decent overview. I cannot see clearly what is happening. That said, I do like using small woods on the battlemap to hide archers or some cavalery in, surprising the AI (by setting up the 'visible' units just so that the AI will expose its flank to the hidden units. Total carnage.
Bridge battles are a bit exploitive (not even the dumbest humans would cross the bridge ammass when the enemy is waiting!).

[Strengelicher]

I had some interesting battles in the mountains. If you are defending high and inaccessible terrain against a far superior enemy, your missile units become a valuable asset. I like it when I am able to play out the strength of certain units according to terrain.

[tudor93]

I hate the battles in the woods ! It's retarded man, I can't see a thing, only trees.
I hate siege battles when I'm attacking; in fact I never attack, I just starve them out, I only assault when I have like 2x more units than the defender
I like bridge battles although they are too easy; I actually lost one in my Byzantine campaign; I had a militia army, an the AI had some desert archers, a unit of bodyguards, some arab spearmen and cavalry (which aren't so great (3 attack, 12 defense), but still managed to beat the crap out of my stupid militia)
I enjoy siege battles when I'm defending, because I keep 2 units of light cavalry in my settlements that are going to be crusaded against so after I rout the enemy I chase them all with my light cav and with my general and then I release them -> nice chivalry traits; beware though ... never happened in M2TW, but in RTW my hardcore greek general was killed by the stupid towers when he was chasing the enemy.
I also enjoy flat ground to easily maneuver my skirmish cavalry (as Egypt I like to have 1-2 skirmish cav armies)

[Strengelicher]

I hate the battles in the woods !

Have you ever had a night battle in the woods with heavy rainfall? I can tell you that is the most confusing thing ever.

[Michadon]

It is true you can't see a thing in woods (especially at nights and with rain, as Strengelicher mentioned) but it gets even worse if you have youtr brightness setting lowered (to about 35/40%), which I have, to increase the 'atmosphere' of the game. Than it is compeltely hopeless (setting brightness at 70% can help you see at nights/with rain/in forests).

I don't really like sieges because of the crappy pathfinding, especially on walles and when trying to get off them.

[Jaymax]

I absolutely hate sieging if I'm attacking. My favourite type of battle is probably forests for reasons said above, like ambushing enemy troops.

[Ichon]

If you zoom in the woods you can usually see. The absolute hardest battles for visibility I've ever had are night battles in forest and fighting in snow with fog.

[tudor93]

Oh yeah I forgot ... I also HATE fog

[MagicCuboid]

Fog does suck - it feels like some Zhang Jiao trick the AI plays on you, since they can see fine. But the best moments are when the fog clears away after a tense engagement: "Ha! I can see you now you computerized scum!!"

My favorite battle scenarios are either when the AI has a serious terrain advantage, or siege defense. I often take the "repair tax" and autoresolve siege offensives though. They don't seem as fun for some reason.

[Lord Blackfyre]

I love a flat open plain, then its just down to who has the better soldiers and tactics