Page 1 of 1
Siege Vs attack
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:41 am
by goodwood
When trying to take larger cities, what preference do people have, sieging or all out attack? Playing the april 61 scenario as the USA, it took me for ever with 3 corps and an army to take Fredicksburg in the attacking mode.
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:09 am
by Hobbes
From my BoA experience cities were not too bad to assault but it depends obviously on how many units are in the city and how entrenched they are.
Just a matter of experience and getting burned once or twice.
Forts are much tougher though and I would only attack if time is short and then expect high losses.
Cheers, Chris
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:13 am
by Stonewall
Unless you have a massive force and the besieged town is lightly defended, stock up with some supply wagons and ride the siege out. You can take sopme disastrous losses in a failed assault.
As soon as you breach the structure, you start inflicting lots of hits on besieged forces. If you have time, sieging is the safe way to go.
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:58 am
by Jacek
Isn't artillery infilcting hits on besieged forces even if you dont make a breach? Every turn your arty should shell them a bit.. or am I wrong?