Sieging Manor Houses
Sieging Manor Houses
Hai! When answering "sometimes", please specify when ITT. Thank you for your input!
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
When British player is going in for some kind of rushes, sacrificing manors in the process, then in the process it can be helpful to siege the manors to pop him.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
Hmmm.. Maybe if the manor house is providing some ridiculously good line of sight, I would siege it. Let's say it's placed next to a blockhouse while the latter is being built, then I would probably get rid of the manor.
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
If he has them spreader or in front of his base and you know you can’t go directly in his base it’s nice to siege them down for an XP boost you get, in my opinion there’s an particular matchup that it could be demonstrated on (Russ vs Brit) when British player can’t really overcommit on making many houses early on and usually gets around 100-110 manor pop if he goes for an age 2 timing with mosk huss. So if you get a house or two down before that happens it’s nice. Overall it sounds easy on paper but in reality the brit Guy atleast on higher levels makes manors close to his base not just to prevent this but also preferably making an house wall with the market and tower to make a nice stand in base in case Russian guy attacks. There’s also a viability for aging up from what I’ve seen (British player) that forces the Russian player to push themselves and the more hp of the manor house makes them harder to siege, which is an overall nice perk for the British player in this situation, however the Russian player can age himself, although it’s easier for the Brit player to upgrade because of better economy and their upgrades are much better than Russia's upgrades because of low base stats, the way I prefer it is to just try to flood brit base before he gets his upgrades rolling and falconets which are ultimate killer when protected against Russian units. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s just the way I see it, feel free to give your opinions on this.
PS.: sorry for going bit off topic but I thought it’s a nice idea to bring this particular mu here.
PS.: sorry for going bit off topic but I thought it’s a nice idea to bring this particular mu here.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
good for exp income, highly reccomended with aztecs with x3 from firepit
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
Is the experience worth it unless you are Aztecs, though?Hazza54321 wrote:good for exp income, highly reccomended with aztecs with x3 from firepit
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
Here's my opinion from playing Brit:
There's one assumed main reason players are told not to siege brit houses, because after 20 are built, it's the potential for a "free" settler (still costs 135 wood). It is in my opinion that this benefit is usually overestimated in 1v1, as the time when 20 manors are built the map is already waning in natural resources. It is the case most of the time that Brit's critical point and relative mass in the game comes before this point and that even if they could, they wouldn't want to build more than 20 manors until the late game mill switch anyways.
The one assumed reason people siege other civs houses is to pop them, because good macro means only ever having an extra 10 or 20 pop at any time.
Because Brit tend to build a lot of houses players can't expect to pop them ever, with one exception: early on when brit does a low pop build to defend a rush. This occurs vs. civs like Aztec, India, and Russia. Of these civs I'd argue only Aztec has the siege potential to siege manors fast enough to still perform an effective rush. And this is exactly what Aztec does, and they especially benefit from the xp bonus they receive.
But OK let's pretend the Brit player, in any particular game, won't ever build more than 20 manors so the late game benefit is nonexistent. Would players still siege manors? The risk of popping them is still so low and only occurs in early game aggro builds and their relatively high hp means civs that aren't Aztec can't afford the precious time to siege them. But they're still 54 kill xp. Would players sick 5 pikes around the map to manors on the edge of herded hunts like shrines? Probably not, but they'd use their armies when they're on top of them if the late game benefit isn't there to siege them because, well, why not?
Well this is sort of what I'm getting at. I think the point in a 1v1 game after 20 manors have been built shouldn't be a significant decision-factor for the enemy player. He should probably have either lost or won by then, and if he hasn't, a 135w villager or two is not going to be hugely significant. This gets... more complicated when VC is in play but VC over saturates natural resources even more and making more than 20 manors before the mill switch puts brit on an even faster clock.
For instance I like sieging forward manors in the brit mirror because it gets me my musket ups faster. To say there isn't some incentive to raze a manor or two is subscribing too much to the notion that you should never siege brit manors ever, an idea which seems to get told to players when they're PR 12 and never forgotten. It's not that Brit manors should never ever be sieged, it's just that without the potential to pop Brit there's better things to go after. But if you're on top of it, well, why not?
I'd like to hear @Mitoe 's opinion, personally, or any Brig.
There's one assumed main reason players are told not to siege brit houses, because after 20 are built, it's the potential for a "free" settler (still costs 135 wood). It is in my opinion that this benefit is usually overestimated in 1v1, as the time when 20 manors are built the map is already waning in natural resources. It is the case most of the time that Brit's critical point and relative mass in the game comes before this point and that even if they could, they wouldn't want to build more than 20 manors until the late game mill switch anyways.
The one assumed reason people siege other civs houses is to pop them, because good macro means only ever having an extra 10 or 20 pop at any time.
Because Brit tend to build a lot of houses players can't expect to pop them ever, with one exception: early on when brit does a low pop build to defend a rush. This occurs vs. civs like Aztec, India, and Russia. Of these civs I'd argue only Aztec has the siege potential to siege manors fast enough to still perform an effective rush. And this is exactly what Aztec does, and they especially benefit from the xp bonus they receive.
But OK let's pretend the Brit player, in any particular game, won't ever build more than 20 manors so the late game benefit is nonexistent. Would players still siege manors? The risk of popping them is still so low and only occurs in early game aggro builds and their relatively high hp means civs that aren't Aztec can't afford the precious time to siege them. But they're still 54 kill xp. Would players sick 5 pikes around the map to manors on the edge of herded hunts like shrines? Probably not, but they'd use their armies when they're on top of them if the late game benefit isn't there to siege them because, well, why not?
Well this is sort of what I'm getting at. I think the point in a 1v1 game after 20 manors have been built shouldn't be a significant decision-factor for the enemy player. He should probably have either lost or won by then, and if he hasn't, a 135w villager or two is not going to be hugely significant. This gets... more complicated when VC is in play but VC over saturates natural resources even more and making more than 20 manors before the mill switch puts brit on an even faster clock.
For instance I like sieging forward manors in the brit mirror because it gets me my musket ups faster. To say there isn't some incentive to raze a manor or two is subscribing too much to the notion that you should never siege brit manors ever, an idea which seems to get told to players when they're PR 12 and never forgotten. It's not that Brit manors should never ever be sieged, it's just that without the potential to pop Brit there's better things to go after. But if you're on top of it, well, why not?
I'd like to hear @Mitoe 's opinion, personally, or any Brig.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
zoom wrote:Is the experience worth it unless you are Aztecs, though?Hazza54321 wrote:good for exp income, highly reccomended with aztecs with x3 from firepit
i think theres a vid where ryan killed like 10 as spain, got like 2 shipments, pretty worth
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
It depends of the style of the brit player. I personally have a very agressiv brit style (like Jui if you want to compare to a top brit player), so I am almost always anoyed when my manors are sieged, but I am pretty sure diarouga or goodspeed wouldn't care because they do VC and they would even be happy to have time to rebuild one+scout your army. Mitoe wouldn't care either for the 1st 2 manors because he usually build a lot of manors during transition, but it wouldn't be good for him either because he won't go to 200pop anyway.
So try to know what strat is the other player doing (which you can guess by his style if you know him), and ofc don't siege manors if you can push, rather kill any other building. Keep in mind that the brit player will see your army so don't show units he might not know about when you siege, so that you can keep the surprise effect.
So try to know what strat is the other player doing (which you can guess by his style if you know him), and ofc don't siege manors if you can push, rather kill any other building. Keep in mind that the brit player will see your army so don't show units he might not know about when you siege, so that you can keep the surprise effect.
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
you should siege market rax or stable if you have to siege something because housing brits is impossible. However sieging some out of base for line of sight houses is always good. Even sieging other manors that dont reveal your unit position can't be bad unless he is doing some crazy VC boom in base or its lategame and he can reasily replace it
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
Eventually even Brits get housed because they will have big army and many vills. So ye, if there is anything else to do it is worth sieging.
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
If there's nothing else to pressure, then killing manors is almost always totally fine. Get xp, deny vision, open up the base more (longbows prefer cramped spaces), and potentially house them later. Usually, if you're in a situation where sieging manor houses is possible, then the other player isn't going to have time to construct more manors anyway, as they'll be needing to leave their base for resources soon, or investing in very costly mills instead.
Not to mention your presence in their base will likely have them concerned regardless of what you're doing, perhaps forcing them into something suboptimal.
The only time I'd say it isn't worth it is if the other player has shipped Virginia Company, and still has plenty of safe natural resources.
Not to mention your presence in their base will likely have them concerned regardless of what you're doing, perhaps forcing them into something suboptimal.
The only time I'd say it isn't worth it is if the other player has shipped Virginia Company, and still has plenty of safe natural resources.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10282
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
It depends on the mu, on the manor placement, and on what the guy is doing. Basically never siege manors if you think the guy sent VC, because it will most likely translate into an extra 88w vil. Also don't siege if it's late game since again it will mean more vils as the guy is probably maxed. Otherwise just go for it if you have nothing better to do, or if it's a really annying manor (because of its LOS usually).
Let's also not forget that sieging a building means giving your enemy information about your unit composition + its location on the map. Sometimes that can suck for you.
Let's also not forget that sieging a building means giving your enemy information about your unit composition + its location on the map. Sometimes that can suck for you.
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
- lemmings121
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2673
- Joined: Mar 15, 2015
- ESO: lemmings121
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
Hazza54321 wrote:good for exp income, highly reccomended with aztecs with x3 from firepit
had to go extra off topic just to comment of this.. x3 exp is super underrated imo, such great tech that people overlook.
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
Pretty much always. If your units are idle and they know what you have then you should be seiging. If it’s a far out house and your too scared to push him then you should seize it.
You get the experience from the kill.
They lose the vision and population space.
Most of the game it’s unlikely they are 200/200.
Late game 1 vil generated from a house is not worth much compared to the map control / exp.
You get the experience from the kill.
They lose the vision and population space.
Most of the game it’s unlikely they are 200/200.
Late game 1 vil generated from a house is not worth much compared to the map control / exp.
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
Killing a manor house is almost always more beneficial to you than to the brit player because it gives you xp. The question is however if there arent better things to do with your army than sieging a manor house.
But given the phrasing of the question the answer is practically always. Actually if answering really precisely, which I think zoi would appreciate, the answer is yes. Sieging manors is per definition beneficial to you as it gives you xp. It could also be beneficial to the brit player, even more beneficial, but it is still beneficial to you.
But given the phrasing of the question the answer is practically always. Actually if answering really precisely, which I think zoi would appreciate, the answer is yes. Sieging manors is per definition beneficial to you as it gives you xp. It could also be beneficial to the brit player, even more beneficial, but it is still beneficial to you.
- edeholland
- ESOC Community Team
- Posts: 5033
- Joined: Feb 11, 2015
- ESO: edeholland
- GameRanger ID: 4053888
- Clan: ESOC
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
The reason when rushing I don't kill manor houses is usually because it's very hard to pop Brits so there are better buildings to destroy (like production facilities). When a manor house is out in the open I will siege it most of the time.
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
Hazza54321 wrote:zoom wrote:Is the experience worth it unless you are Aztecs, though?Hazza54321 wrote:good for exp income, highly reccomended with aztecs with x3 from firepit
i think theres a vid where ryan killed like 10 as spain, got like 2 shipments, pretty worth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9JU1ik ... akpMrp2TRm
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
I counted 11 manors he killed, so 600 xp.
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
That was a big part of why I could go triple stable lancer later.
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
your units should have something to do. sieging manor houses is not the best choice, but it's still better than stay in home doing nothing.
-
- Lancer
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Feb 2, 2018
- ESO: OstiferButthole
- Location: USA
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
Hazza54321 wrote:good for exp income, highly reccomended with aztecs with x3 from firepit
is that really worth getting age 2? i play a lot of az and never thought of it
-
- Lancer
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Feb 2, 2018
- ESO: OstiferButthole
- Location: USA
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
_H2O wrote:That was a big part of why I could go triple stable lancer later.
a great moment in aoe canon
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
jgals wrote:Hazza54321 wrote:good for exp income, highly reccomended with aztecs with x3 from firepit
is that really worth getting age 2? i play a lot of az and never thought of it
You should always always get asap. Just trade 100c in the market and get hunting dogs and this up with it. It's so worth it.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Sieging Manor Houses
Well not asap, but always get it before a fight.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests