Sieges Vs Regulars Courtesy of Groentje: I'm not really sure if forts work both in regular and in siege attacks in the same amount, I think forts do work both in regular and in siege attacks. In any case you'll have to do less damage when regularing (I believe you have to do 10% damage in a Siege and 5% in a regular, and doing that loose less then the oponent). Pro's and con's of Sieging: + you gain and destroy more land, and win / destroy forts - it is harder to win a siege then a regular. Pro's and con's of Regular: + It is easier to win, you do more damage. - you'll gain less land (about 50% of what a siege would give you) and win / Destroy NO forts (so no kill) Please note that the exact amount of taking land depends on the number of units you send in. It takes ca. 2300 surviving units (2500 militia, or 500 treants+2000 archers or...) to get ONE fort in a succesfull siege. It takes ca. 23.000 surviving units to get MAX amount of land (=10% of total land of the enemy). So * when someone is ranked above you, but you still want to attack (countering): do a regular. * When someone is asking to attack a mage, so he can take his counters afterwards, USUALLY regular, 'cause you will kill more troops and take less land, leaving the enemy * When you are confident the enemy is way below you (counter) or has more land AND less troops then you... do a Siege. * Always have a lot of units (>20000) when you landgrab When you do a siege and the message says 'You inflicted insufficient damage on XXXX' probably it would have been better if you regulared. When you do an attack and the message says: 'You lost more power then XXXX' it means you have lost no matter if it was a siege or a regular. Allies | Battle | Fun Strategy | Forum | Home