User avatar
Germany yemshi
Howdah
Posts: 1972
ESO: yemshi
Location: Germany

25 Apr 2018, 12:23

In response to the sieging manor houses thread:
Sieging houses vs. sieging military building vs. sieging TC.
Discuss!
User avatar
Greece Googol
Lancer
Posts: 872
ESO: Butifle
Location: Prague

25 Apr 2018, 12:26

It’s just situational, sometimes you want to siege houses sometimes you want so siege production facilities and sometimes you do 2 rax Jan and siege tc (my favorite strategy)
User avatar
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 13365
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

25 Apr 2018, 12:31

Sieging TC is criminally underrated tbh.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
Brazil jesus3
Howdah
Posts: 1000

25 Apr 2018, 12:41

Always depends on the opponents civ and BO, circumsieging TC is pretty effective if you expect a shipment popping that can't win vs your mass alone
User avatar
France kami_ryu
ESOC Community Team
Posts: 1519
ESO: kami_ryu & incognoto
Location: Denver, CO, USA, Earth, Milky Way, Virgo Supercluster

25 Apr 2018, 13:08

Siege what you can get away with without setting up your army to be caught.
seed & germination
User avatar
Netherlands edeholland
ESOC Community Team
Donator 01
Posts: 2601
ESO: edeholland
Location: Not ede
GameRanger Id: 4053888

25 Apr 2018, 13:23

Town Center is more dangerous because you can get trapped with MM + vills + shipment. With other military buildings it's usually safer.

When I know an enemy is aging up, I try to go for the TC. When he is not, usually houses & production facilities do the trick.
Whiteboards are remarkable
Not living in Ede
--- h2o Rip ---
In the beginning ESOC was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
User avatar
United States of America Hidddy_
Dragoon
Posts: 320
ESO: Hidalgito
Location: Miami, Florida, USA

25 Apr 2018, 14:07

Siege whatever you'd like, except Aizamk's tc
Jesus3 is my moral compass
Marco1698 :love:
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 7815

25 Apr 2018, 14:28

momuuu wrote:Sieging TC is criminally underrated tbh.


overrated imo. so many game ppl lose trying to siege tc and then getting destroyed in the process sometimes getting tc or not. ofcourse some games can be won by getting that tc down, but in many cases you could've also won by getting houses down instead, or something similar. because getting tc down in many cases is an all or nothing bet. It might be the fastest way to win a game in some cases, but it's also the fastest way to lose it in some others. A systematic grinding approach has a much higher success rate.
Ressentiment is the single greatest source of destruction in human history.
User avatar
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 13365
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

25 Apr 2018, 15:10

umeu wrote:
momuuu wrote:Sieging TC is criminally underrated tbh.


overrated imo. so many game ppl lose trying to siege tc and then getting destroyed in the process sometimes getting tc or not. ofcourse some games can be won by getting that tc down, but in many cases you could've also won by getting houses down instead, or something similar. because getting tc down in many cases is an all or nothing bet. It might be the fastest way to win a game in some cases, but it's also the fastest way to lose it in some others. A systematic grinding approach has a much higher success rate.

This is why it's criminally underrated. It frequently is the move that gives you by far the highest chance to win, and then people use examples of pr20 otto players trying to right click a TC with jans while dying to minutemen and xbows as an example as why sieging a TC is always bad.

Yes, sieging a TC is not on it's own a win condition. However, sieging a TC can definitely be a way to secure a win against an opponent that could otherwise stabilize with age 3 shipments/units. It's not about the worst or best case scenarios, but about the winrate it offers. Sometimes its indeed very stupid to siege a TC, but there are countless games that I've won where my opponents could've just sieged my TC down to punish a greedy age up.

edeholland wrote:Town Center is more dangerous because you can get trapped with MM + vills + shipment. With other military buildings it's usually safer.

When I know an enemy is aging up, I try to go for the TC. When he is not, usually houses & production facilities do the trick.

but now lets look at a level of play somewhere above casual. You know whats possible if you're any good: there is minutemen, potentially a batch of units and a shipment, but you will know that. If you guess they won't age up too fast, which you can know with some amount of accuracy, and have properly judged their amount of resources/available units then you should get a very good judgement on how safe seiging the TC is. People just ignore this as if it's always 100% unsafe.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 13365
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

25 Apr 2018, 15:25

Notice how in this game goodspeed ends up losing because he badly underrates how strong sieging a TC can be: https://youtu.be/02LrR3wcog4?t=13m17s

He easily destroys 2 banks. I popped minutemen already, clearly had a greedy age up and would have struggled shipping something that could quickly deal with goodspeed's army. If he stays, the 'worst' that could happen was a 13 skirm pop in 40 seconds, which would never even had a shot at contesting the pikes sieging the TC (in reality, the TC would probably be dead before those even pop). The TC goes down, the skirms at best have an even trade, he'll kill a ton of villagers, and I'd still really have had to rebuild the TC which is really expensive. And this is the worst case scenario - I am quite sure the TC would've gone down before I'd have ever gotten a shipment.

Instead he kills 'only' 2 banks, instead of doing game ending damage, then the game goes on and I get the chance to make a comeback and end up making that comeback. Even though I end up winning, goodspeed was definitely still favored, but sieging the banks definitely was a lower winpercentage play than sieging the TC.

Being a greedy Dutch player I've experienced countless instances where I aged up with way too much greed, almost got punished but then my opponents spend a lot of idle time sieging useless buildings (often banks) and then dying to the shipments I'll end up getting, while instead they could have just killed the TC, prevented shipments from ever arriving and then just instantly win. There is a mental block in the average community where reasoning like Umeu's is used to justify never sieging a TC, which is not justified.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 7815

25 Apr 2018, 15:28

momuuu wrote:
umeu wrote:
momuuu wrote:Sieging TC is criminally underrated tbh.


overrated imo. so many game ppl lose trying to siege tc and then getting destroyed in the process sometimes getting tc or not. ofcourse some games can be won by getting that tc down, but in many cases you could've also won by getting houses down instead, or something similar. because getting tc down in many cases is an all or nothing bet. It might be the fastest way to win a game in some cases, but it's also the fastest way to lose it in some others. A systematic grinding approach has a much higher success rate.

This is why it's criminally underrated. It frequently is the move that gives you by far the highest chance to win, and then people use examples of pr20 otto players trying to right click a TC with jans while dying to minutemen and xbows as an example as why sieging a TC is always bad.

Yes, sieging a TC is not on it's own a win condition. However, sieging a TC can definitely be a way to secure a win against an opponent that could otherwise stabilize with age 3 shipments/units. It's not about the worst or best case scenarios, but about the winrate it offers. Sometimes its indeed very stupid to siege a TC, but there are countless games that I've won where my opponents could've just sieged my TC down to punish a greedy age up.

edeholland wrote:Town Center is more dangerous because you can get trapped with MM + vills + shipment. With other military buildings it's usually safer.

When I know an enemy is aging up, I try to go for the TC. When he is not, usually houses & production facilities do the trick.

but now lets look at a level of play somewhere above casual. You know whats possible if you're any good: there is minutemen, potentially a batch of units and a shipment, but you will know that. If you guess they won't age up too fast, which you can know with some amount of accuracy, and have properly judged their amount of resources/available units then you should get a very good judgement on how safe seiging the TC is. People just ignore this as if it's always 100% unsafe.


I don't know how you can say its underrated when it's actually the one of the most common thing people do, and often do wrong as well. Like going for the TC when it has 0 added value (for example after someone has already aged up or something. How many times do people die and lose all their shit or their lead because they're trying to siege a tc and get popped on, while if they'd gone straight for the eco (wherever the vils are) then they would've won the game.

I'm not talking about pr20 otto games here, i'm talking about high level games. Obviously, there are countless games where people couldve won sieging tc, and countless games where people lost sieging the tc. The question is, could they have won doing something else than sieging tc, and would they have lost if they hadn't sieged the tc. In most cases the answer is yes to both. Aoe is a game where you don't have all the info, and that's what scares people from sieging a tc, ofcourse maybe he doesn't have anything to stop you. Maybe they do. the question is, how to know when which is the case? having that game sense and tactical insight is something that goes much deeper than just "siege the tc" imo.
Ressentiment is the single greatest source of destruction in human history.
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 7815

25 Apr 2018, 15:32

momuuu wrote:Notice how in this game goodspeed ends up losing because he badly underrates how strong sieging a TC can be: https://youtu.be/02LrR3wcog4?t=13m17s

He easily destroys 2 banks. I popped minutemen already, clearly had a greedy age up and would have struggled shipping something that could quickly deal with goodspeed's army. If he stays, the 'worst' that could happen was a 13 skirm pop in 40 seconds, which would never even had a shot at contesting the pikes sieging the TC (in reality, the TC would probably be dead before those even pop). The TC goes down, the skirms at best have an even trade, he'll kill a ton of villagers, and I'd still really have had to rebuild the TC which is really expensive. And this is the worst case scenario - I am quite sure the TC would've gone down before I'd have ever gotten a shipment.

Instead he kills 'only' 2 banks, instead of doing game ending damage, then the game goes on and I get the chance to make a comeback and end up making that comeback. Even though I end up winning, goodspeed was definitely still favored, but sieging the banks definitely was a lower winpercentage play than sieging the TC.

Being a greedy Dutch player I've experienced countless instances where I aged up with way too much greed, almost got punished but then my opponents spend a lot of idle time sieging useless buildings (often banks) and then dying to the shipments I'll end up getting, while instead they could have just killed the TC, prevented shipments from ever arriving and then just instantly win. There is a mental block in the average community where reasoning like Umeu's is used to justify never sieging a TC, which is not justified.


where do i say "never" siege a tc? that's silly and a purposeful misrepresentation of what i said. but whatever.

the reason gs doesn't go for your tc is simple, he doesn't know that you don't have a shipment. you can easily focus down the pikes with mm, send 4 huss or something, train some units from rax and hold that push. I believe you also still had mm, so that factored in to his decision making probably. it's very unlikely the amount of units wouldve sieged down the tc if you immediately had a shipment. taking 2 banks, is the safer choice and totally understandable. Going for that tc in his position wouldve been a gamble, a gamble that you wouldn't have a shipment or wouldve mishandle that situation. Going for the 2 banks is relying on your own play more. GS lost that game on so many more points than just not sieging the tc, I don't think you can say it was just that. He couldve done what he did, and gone in at 12 min and he wouldve totally crushed you. He couldve aged up to industrial unpunished, and totally crushed you with infinite crow shipments. so many things he couldve done. Problem was that he never capitalised on the damage he did, the time it bought him to age or the army advantage that gave him to do a timing.

Then the fight he took, he took at the worst time, with the worst possible angle of attack. And he didn't have to take that fight. He had map control. He couldve taken 3 tps + nats and boom. IV wouldve been an option, either 10 vils or 12 skir crow push. The mistake he made is a very common one, where he secures an advantage but then doesn't do anything with it. He went for army pressure, which gave him an advantage to exploit, which he pretty much choose to exploit by going army, but then he sat in his base with his army for 6 minutes and didn't do anything. If you go for the army advantage you must be more active. He also could've gone for the tech (IV) advantage or boom (in this case tp's or IV with 10v), which wouldve been better with that passive approach.
Ressentiment is the single greatest source of destruction in human history.
User avatar
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 13365
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

25 Apr 2018, 15:33

umeu wrote:
momuuu wrote:
Show hidden quotes

This is why it's criminally underrated. It frequently is the move that gives you by far the highest chance to win, and then people use examples of pr20 otto players trying to right click a TC with jans while dying to minutemen and xbows as an example as why sieging a TC is always bad.

Yes, sieging a TC is not on it's own a win condition. However, sieging a TC can definitely be a way to secure a win against an opponent that could otherwise stabilize with age 3 shipments/units. It's not about the worst or best case scenarios, but about the winrate it offers. Sometimes its indeed very stupid to siege a TC, but there are countless games that I've won where my opponents could've just sieged my TC down to punish a greedy age up.

edeholland wrote:Town Center is more dangerous because you can get trapped with MM + vills + shipment. With other military buildings it's usually safer.

When I know an enemy is aging up, I try to go for the TC. When he is not, usually houses & production facilities do the trick.

but now lets look at a level of play somewhere above casual. You know whats possible if you're any good: there is minutemen, potentially a batch of units and a shipment, but you will know that. If you guess they won't age up too fast, which you can know with some amount of accuracy, and have properly judged their amount of resources/available units then you should get a very good judgement on how safe seiging the TC is. People just ignore this as if it's always 100% unsafe.


I don't know how you can say its underrated when it's actually the one of the most common thing people do, and often do wrong as well. Like going for the TC when it has 0 added value (for example after someone has already aged up or something. How many times do people die and lose all their shit or their lead because they're trying to siege a tc and get popped on, while if they'd gone straight for the eco (wherever the vils are) then they would've won the game.

I'm not talking about pr20 otto games here, i'm talking about high level games. Obviously, there are countless games where people couldve won sieging tc, and countless games where people lost sieging the tc. The question is, could they have won doing something else than sieging tc, and would they have lost if they hadn't sieged the tc. In most cases the answer is yes to both. Aoe is a game where you don't have all the info, and that's what scares people from sieging a tc, ofcourse maybe he doesn't have anything to stop you. Maybe they do. the question is, how to know when which is the case? having that game sense and tactical insight is something that goes much deeper than just "siege the tc" imo.

Tbh, I don't recall a game where someone lost due to sieging the TC. I don't even think it's often done anymore, people rarely siege town centers above pr25. It's extremely uncommon. Maybe it used to be common, but I think very few people do this despite being frequently a very strong move which is why I'd call it underrated.

umeu wrote:
momuuu wrote:There is a mental block in the average community where reasoning like Umeu's is used to justify never sieging a TC, which is not justified.


where do i say "never" siege a tc? that's silly and a purposeful misrepresentation of what i said. but whatever.

Is it? Did I say you used your reasoning to justify never sieging a TC? Read closely!

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
Turkey HUMMAN
Dragoon
Posts: 336
ESO: HUMMAN

25 Apr 2018, 15:44

Watch some aiz games 21.
User avatar
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 13365
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

25 Apr 2018, 16:03

https://youtu.be/kX3F0q8mFYY?t=1h55m
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/37828072
(skip to 9:10 for the twitch one)

Two examples of town center sieging being a move that not many players would go for. In the first one, you can directly see how insanely much pressure the sieging from the janis puts on the towncenter. If Raphael goes for houses instead, there are actually hidden villagers and there's 200w in the bank for H2O which just lets him rebuild some hidden houses. That's actually quite a common thing to happen, it's really easy to sneak out a few villagers. If he spends too much time walking around, sieging a barracks that won't produce units anyways, or siege a market or sth 'because sieging a TC is not safe' he might actually lose that game. Instead, Raphael puts a lot of pressure on H2O by sieging all relevant shipment points as that'll make a comeback nearly impossible. Raphael knows the state of the game, knows what age up times are possible and what h2o could possibly have, and makes imo by far the best decisions in terms of what to siege that results in the highest possible winrate.

In the second one I think walking around too much with the sepoys, sieging a market or corral or trying to pressure villagers will result in the sioux player being able to get at least a shipment out. Sieging the TC here is by far the highest winrate play imo. It's such an important part of the game and I really do feel like people often fail to recognise that sieging the TC is a thing that should definitely be considered.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
France Kaiserklein
Gendarme
EWT
Posts: 5250
Location: Paris
GameRanger Id: 5529322

25 Apr 2018, 16:15

@momuuu You can't realistically expect that to happen in a scenario where both players are making similar amounts of units and have similar skill (and over pr 25), unless the game is over already because one guy lost his whole army. The only time I can see that happen is when one player is aging and the other isn't. After all, how else do you get such a solid mass advantage that you can right click a tc? And well, colonial vs fortress games are not so common, which could explain why you don't see people siege tcs that much.

And even in that kind of games, it's often too risky to just right click the tc, unless you're really confident you have enough mass and enough siege power to bring tc down without dying to a classic big pop of units in your face... That's a really specific case. Usually, you can simply sieging the houses down to prevent the guy from shipping units and/or sieging the military buildings down to prevent him from making units, which is much safer, and often more efficient.

However, it does still happen regularly, so I don't get your point. You probably didn't watch a lot of games if you don't recall people right clicking tc... I can remember myself vs prince on wadmalaw in tourney, right clicking tc with jans. I've seen recently look losing his tc as jap against a russia right click. I remember losing to mitoe, going straight ff in ger mirror when he just made 700w 700g 10 dops + uhlans and right click my tc. I remember destroying tcs with 3sw 700w 700g 3 dops timing when the other guy was aging as fr or ger (I did it yesterday on stream, and did it before against dicktator and bwinner). And that's mostly stuff from me, but I'm sure a lot of other players can confirm that with their own experience.
My YouTube channel

LoOk_tOm: I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
No Flag umeu
Gendarme
Posts: 7815

25 Apr 2018, 16:20

momuuu wrote:https://youtu.be/kX3F0q8mFYY?t=1h55m
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/37828072
(skip to 9:10 for the twitch one)

Two examples of town center sieging being a move that not many players would go for. In the first one, you can directly see how insanely much pressure the sieging from the janis puts on the towncenter. If Raphael goes for houses instead, there are actually hidden villagers and there's 200w in the bank for H2O which just lets him rebuild some hidden houses. That's actually quite a common thing to happen, it's really easy to sneak out a few villagers. If he spends too much time walking around, sieging a barracks that won't produce units anyways, or siege a market or sth 'because sieging a TC is not safe' he might actually lose that game. Instead, Raphael puts a lot of pressure on H2O by sieging all relevant shipment points as that'll make a comeback nearly impossible. Raphael knows the state of the game, knows what age up times are possible and what h2o could possibly have, and makes imo by far the best decisions in terms of what to siege that results in the highest possible winrate.

In the second one I think walking around too much with the sepoys, sieging a market or corral or trying to pressure villagers will result in the sioux player being able to get at least a shipment out. Sieging the TC here is by far the highest winrate play imo. It's such an important part of the game and I really do feel like people often fail to recognise that sieging the TC is a thing that should definitely be considered.


well spain vs otto is indeed a mu where you want to go for the tc. You want to go tower > tc. Because once the tc is dead, they dont have shipments, and all they have going for them is shipments. But this is also a mu where going for the tc can easily backfire. If ryan wouldve played it properly, he wouldve probably been able to hold and then otto wouldve spent all their time sieging a tc and got nothing for it in return. Still, as otto I would go for sieging the tc in this case, because its kinda the best chance they have at winning.

Sioux is kinda the same thing. There isn't even much to siege vs sioux. But tbh, you intercepting those 15 vils he had on the hunt also wouldve won the game.

In general, when you are age2 and someone else is aging or trying to age, then it's a good thing to siege tc. And I think thats something many ppl do.
Ressentiment is the single greatest source of destruction in human history.
User avatar
Germany yemshi
Howdah
Posts: 1972
ESO: yemshi
Location: Germany

25 Apr 2018, 16:22

Base trades?
User avatar
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 13365
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

25 Apr 2018, 16:25

Well, maybe it's not 'underrated' necessarily although I think public opinion isn't giving sieging the TC the legitemacy that it deserves. But that overall seems like a pointless discussion anyways, if it's underrated or not. The only real point I would like to emphasize is that it's the first thing to consider when deciding what to siege: TC or other buildings?

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
Greece Googol
Lancer
Posts: 872
ESO: Butifle
Location: Prague

25 Apr 2018, 16:39

@sebnan12 expert in base trades Xd
User avatar
Finland somppukunkku
Howdah
Donator 02
Posts: 1678

25 Apr 2018, 16:42

Good players simply know when they have a chance to burn tc and when only houses. It all depends on the situation.
Image
When I win, it's with homo, illegal and wrong strats.
User avatar
Poland pecelot
Retired Contributor
Donator 03
Posts: 8600
ESO: Pezet
Location: Warsaw, Poland

25 Apr 2018, 18:06

momuuu wrote:Sieging TC is criminally underrated tbh.

you should do that vs India
wołk :food:
User avatar
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 13365
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

25 Apr 2018, 18:29

I think other than sieging potentially key buildings sieging stuff isnt really that important. It feels really good to destroy buildings and it does feel very impactful, but houses are only 100w and production buildings are only 200w. Thats simply not a lot, just a few units. I'd say that sieging stuff is a thing you do when its completely safe or just something you do while idling villagers. Id prioritize finding stray vills that didnt make it to the TC or killing leftover parts of the opponents army over actually sieging buildings. Sieging forward bases can definitely be a big mistake that gives your opponent more time which might just allow him to muster up a competitive army or get that crucial unit shipment or something (although it is of course still some damage). I find that I personally way overvalue the impact of destroying buildings. If I have killed a barracks and a house I can feel like it gives a big advantage while its similair to killing maybe five units or two villagers or something. Just a note that psychologically killing builds feels better than it really is for probably many people.

"When life give you incompetence, participate in the betting" - Jerom, winner of autumn betting, 2016
"but wer eyiu playig a gainst someone as magnificent as jerom? thats wha ti thogutb jerom is a beaaitful human being"- Mr_Bramboy
User avatar
United States of America evilcheadar
Jaeger
Posts: 3624
Location: USA

25 Apr 2018, 19:24

When you do the 9/10, especially vs germany, burning the houses is important. If all goes well the opponent ages and can't send in any of the military unit shipments. It's also good to siege villages vs china.
A post not made is a post given away

A slushie a day keeps the refill thread at bay
User avatar
United States of America _H2O
ESOC Business Team
Donator 06
Posts: 3151

26 Apr 2018, 03:45

For everyone one example you have of seiging a tc being good there are ten games won by some guy popping shit out of the tc. Generally you are way more vulnerable attacking a tc and you have done zero samamge until the 6500 tc goes down. Killing housing is way faster which is harder to coordinate a defense against. Plus when the house dies it potentially denies your opponents next batches which furthers your tempo lead.

Forum Info

Return to “Strategy”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest