Blitzkrieg on the strategic map

[econ21]

One problem I have with TW is that you can get bogged down in fighting seemingly endless battles as you try to conquer the world. Inching across the map, one province a turn, just makes for a dull game. Life is just too short, especially if you are loathe to autoresolve, as I am.

However, one strategy I have come to like is applying overwhelming force to crush opposition in a single turn. The idea is to attack a group of connected provinces in the same turn with massive force - the AI often seems to retreat from each province but have nowhere to go and you take its armies prisoner en masse without having to fight any battles.

I liken this to WW2 "blitzkrieg" because it means you can win a war with lightning speed without having to inch across the map a province at a time. I am not sure if it is an exploit - capturing 1000s of enemy soldiers without a fight - but to me it sort of resembles the mass surrenders of Russian or other forces encircled by Germans in early WW2.

Nowadays, whenever I go to war on an offensive basis, I always try to see if I can either take out a faction in a single blow or at least take out part of it's lands, preferably dividing the rest. With a really hard blow like this, it often seems the enemy falls into civil war or rebellion from which it cannot recover. You can then dismember it at leisure.

Of course to do this you need overwhelming superiority, but I find you can usually get this by the middle of the standard game (no mods) by building up a massive trade network to fund the development of a powerful army.

I may be pointing out something really obvious, but it is only recently that I have begun to see the strategic aspect of warfighting in MTW as interesting (the tactical battles have always fascinated me).

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

Theres nothing better when you have defeated an enemy army by forcing them back by numbers and then they have no way to retreat because you have blocked there escape off http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[scooter_the_shooter]

i have blitzkrieged ever sinve i was a newbie http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif i love it

[English assassin]

What happens if you do this and they have no provinve to retreat to, do you capture the whole army? How come they don't go into the castle and die slowly in a siege? (Or quickly in an assault, he he he)

[rasoforos]

I use a similar tactique that does not require you to have huge numbers of soldiers. I attack a number of enemy provinces at a short period of time 2-3 turns but i avoid big battles and concentrate on destroying the enemy economy and infrastructure , when the enemy brings enough forces to retake his provinces it is usually too late for him since: a) his provinces make a lot less money , b)his upkeep is still high c) his economy is crippled.

[katank]

me = blitz.

first turn, I hit at least one of my neighbors in several provinces and go from there.

my starting troops supplemented by mercs later from inns woudl be enough.

also, I tend to target their troops production so no replenishment for their troops while my troops get reinforcements.

after hitting two or maybe three factions like this, I usually have easily defensible borders and nice rich provinces form where I can turtle and be oportunistic.

[Oleander Ardens]

The Tactic of Simon - hit many provinces at once - is pretty good and very timesaving. I remember how I eliminated the Eggies which hold five provinces in one turn, fighting just one battle.

Over 6000 Eggies plus Sultan wandered in the Nirvana without having drawn sword...

[Kommodus]

I like to blitz, but I have one question. It seems that after a successful blitz, I'll have taken maybe 3 or 4 provinces and captured a lot of men. However, some of the conquered lands will have enemy troops holding out in castles, and all will be disloyal without a strong garrison.

Now, the sieges normally take only 1-2 years to complete, since the enemy will have retreated to the castle without battle, often in large numbers. However, it's some years before my armies can safely leave without incurring rebellion (even with taxes on Very Low). Thus, I have to wait longer than I care to before I can use the same armies in the next blitz.

How do you guys free up your armies for the next big push? Large peasant garrisons? Spies? Religious agents? Simply waiting until the castle falls and the people get used to your rule?

[Blodrast]

heh, I'm also applying Simon's tactic in my current campaign. I've driven the Egyptians back and got 6 or 7 provinces from them without so much as a single confrontation: just throw lots of troops at them, and they keep retreating.
Of course they did lose a few thousand people that were garrisoned and starved to death...

@Kommodus: sure, peasants are fine. this is what i use the newly captured provinces for (it's likely that I can't bring them overseas, since the ports usually get destroyed upon conquering a province). for a few turns, they just churn out peasants, which advance with the main army and then stay behind. 3-400 peasants with lower taxes will make even the most rebellious of provinces happy, even if they are all of a different religion. Then again, of course, first things I build are a few happiness buildings, small religious buildings, etc.
It really only takes 1-2 years to starve them out, just as you pointed out (because when they retreat they usually fill up the present garrison, so it can't last for too long). But in those 2 years, you'll have had 2-3 adjacent provinces churning out peasants...

@rasoforos: it is a nice tactic, but how can you take over the world with it ?
if you raze their provinces, you will sooner or later have to take them (that is how you conquer the world). that means more provinces to defend, but with a constant amount of troops (why constant ? because none of the new provinces bring you either money or the possibility to produce troops). This means you will eventually get spread too thin, and make an easy target for others (you'll likely be at war with pretty much everybody by that time).
Another shortcoming of extensive use of this tactic is that by sacking those provinces, if you choose NOT to keep them at that time, you will get rebellions/factions re-emerging, which means more armies for you to fight in the future (which means again you lose more troops, but you don't get a larger base for producing them). Not to mention that in the case of a re-emergence, they might have pretty good troops. If you choose to keep them, then you will need a huge garrison force to prevent rebellions, right ? which means more troops, time and money, and paralyzing troop-producing provinces into making peasants for garrisons...so we can't really call it a blitz anymore, can we ?
so while it does make for a great tactic for weakening your enemies and possibly great fun, i can't really see how it can work in the long run.

to return to Simon's topic and English assassin' and The Blind King of Bohemia's statements, I am trying to see if I can actually force the faction I'm attacking into attacking another faction.
To be more precise: it sure is fun, like you said, to get them to continuously retreat and cut them off and have them all surrender. But since I already know I can do that, I wanna see if I can push them back far enough until they have nowhere to retreat, and threaten them with a large enough force such that they would choose confrontation with another faction rather than with me...

[katank]

@ kommodus. I do much of my blitzing in early on the first or second turn so that not so much a fort can come up yet in many cases so I'll not have to worry about sieging.

Also, fighting battles yourself and using cav and maneuvering properly can often get the troops to be all captured and not a single one to make it to the castle, again no siege.

Otherwise, I have a moving wall technique in which my best general often commands a merc army to spear head attacks and continually push forward and attacking while my king commands regular forces which are often slightly inferior to siege or conduct defence.

behind that is hordes of peasants for loyalty purposes.

[solypsist]

i love the blitz, but things get bogged down when it turns to 2am and i'm only on my 4th battle of 7 or 8 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Blodrast]

@katank: merc army ? you mean you don't "raise" your guys ?
how do you take on uber generals then ?

[katank]

uber generals?

in the first few turns, there isn't many uber generals to start with and those that are there, don't have quality troops to command so are easily overwhelmed.

the sucker routs off the field once and gets good runner, his days as a killer general is over.

high powered merc heavy cav > peasants commanded by uber general as my general usually isn't bad.

besides, merc armies early on mean that I can often attack with far fewer troops, getting my general to attack specialist very quickly and 3 extra stars help a lot.

I usually have my best general on perpetual attack while my king's on perpetual defense.

apparently, command V&V's actuall help with heirs' command ratings.

[Aelwyn]

Its the only way I ever really play. I build up armies until my economy can no longer support them, and still make a profit. Then I lash out at anything around me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[katank]

I do the opposite where I lash out at factions near me and then build economy due to many troops dead and more land which means more cash.

my economy is always good especially after the boost from ransoms and pillage.

[RollingWave]

It works extremely well... but usually even better if you have sea control.... and from my exp anyway I rarely get them to retreat everywhere (as I usually don't have much greater force than him when I do this) but rather he'll come to relive the province I sacked but I already took a few otehr so i'll just avoid his main troops while hitting from all sides...

eventrually he'll try to get smart and split troops but that only means he'll keep losing troops to seiges while u don't since you abandon if you see him comming with bigger army..... u'll ware him down quiet fast... and since you have sea control u'll be able to send in reinforcement at a much more rapid pace than him.... not to meantion u'll get money from plunder while he is losing money from province being seiged and lost of infrastructure

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Aelwyn @ June 19 2004,02:12)]Its the only way I ever really play. I build up armies until my economy can no longer support them, and still make a profit. Then I lash out at anything around me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I think this makes games quite dull. My strategy is simple: if you have more than 2 elite units, attack. You'll win on most occasions, and the game will be extremly interesting and tactically challenging; you'll finish it much faster also.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I did somthing similar in NTW once, I was England and the target was france. I sent 3 stacks into Friesland, and took the french theire, then inot flanders, champaign, and lorraine (bracco), MASSIVE REBELLIONS ON BOTH FRENCH AND ENGLISH LANDS Damn, Huge battles, then one fo my best generals 8* died in an assault on Champaigne Castle, so I leveled the castle a few years later and sacked the provence. I took normandy, but lost it and burgundy and thus began years of bloody fighting with th french, and after taking on 3 stacks of french loyalists in Flanders, I had hope.
Code Sample CRASH TO DESKTOP[/QUOTE]
GAH
-Capo

[Chimpyang]

I tend to go for their largest stack..esp on the viking map ahd defeat it in battle, if it's early enoguh they should be left with a shattered army.

[katank]

sea control is nice but a blitz old school style across the land borders like across the Magnot line except the opposite direction and usually cripples HRE by sending it into instant civil war.

[andrewt]

I always storm castles right now even if it only takes 2-3 years for it to fall. I lose just about as many troops as besieging the castle and I get to use the province 1-2 turns earlier. That and I decide which units I want to die. I usually use the troops with the lowest valor and highest armor upgrades. That way I can replenish them by using the ones with lower armor upgrades and they would've higher valor.

I blitz a lot but I prepare for blitzes by building some ready-made peasant units and spies. Once I attack all those provinces, I storm the castles next turn and move in the spies and peasants. If I have enough spies and peasants extra, I could immediately attack another province with my armies the next turn.

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (katank @ June 19 2004,17:39)]sea control is nice but a blitz old school style across the land borders like across the Magnot line except the opposite direction and usually cripples HRE by sending it into instant civil war.
yup that's the way to go. By the way, does anyone know why the Germans like Civil war so much?

[eds]

I find blitzing is kind of boring. I like having the AI build strong empires with high-tech armies. I tend to only attack one province at a time.. anymore and you're begging to have the faction collapse due to internal unrest. Also playing into that is once I'm large/strong enough such that I have no real comopetitors I tend to get bored and stop playing. My threshold is pretty low in that regard... once I hold Khazar/Constantinople/Egypt as the Turks/Egyptians/Byzantines for example, I just wait for the horde to arrive, wipe them out then start a new game.

[katank]

@ah_dut, the HRE seems to always be plagued with low influence emperors and generals who have very little loyalty including heirs who want to seize power before their appointed time

when in AI hands, I have yet to see a single game in which the HRE doesn't erupt into civil war one time or another

@eds, that's usually the point of a blitz to cripple enemy production, destroying or capturing their armies through encirclement, lowering enemy morale or capacity for resistance (civil wars) in short order.

one good blitz should mean removal of the faction in two or three turns if not instant elimination.

BTW, play further. I also go for that triangle often but see much interesting results if I keep going.

[eds]

Quote[/b] (katank @ June 19 2004,18:56)]@eds, that's usually the point of a blitz to cripple enemy production, destroying or capturing their armies through encirclement, lowering enemy morale or capacity for resistance (civil wars) in short order.

one good blitz should mean removal of the faction in two or three turns if not instant elimination.

BTW, play further. I also go for that triangle often but see much interesting results if I keep going.
I know, I just find it crushes factions too easily. I'm not so much into MTWs strategic gameplay, rather I like to use it as an interesting way to bring varied tactical battles into play. Custom battles are okay but lack the variety that you can get with generals with V&Vs and reinforcements.

So I tend to view the strategic game as more of a way to get interesting tactical battles, which blitzing pretty much destroys.

Some people (from what I gather from your posts, you're one of them) really enjoy the strategic part of the game, which is great. I'd just rather play EU2 for grand strategic wargaming.

EDIT: Besides the Horde, what else is there later?

[gaijinalways]

I think blitzing is;

-to get ransom money
- to cripple enemy production facilities
- to cripple enemy revenue earners
- take a province
- take away a AI competitor's GA points
- to boost your fighting skills (training war)
- to divide and conquer an AI faction
- to make defense of your borders easier (by lessening the number of provinces you border

Any of these above reasons may be why someone would blitz and/or attack a province.

I usually don't blitz so much as I tend to play GA games now and prefer to expand slowly and choose the provinces I wish to cherry pick. Sometimes though I will blitz provinces if that allows me to take neighboring provinces and then I can easily move in supporting troops into the better provinces and/or support the provinces that I really wanted.

[Ar7]

I usually never blitz. I try to play the game as realistic as possible, i even RP my kings. So i raid/pillage often, expand slowly, take only weak provinces and attack only when an opportunity or true need arises. For example if i see an unguarded province i will take it, but won't attack further, or if i see that the Spanish need help with the almos i will attack. I tried blitzing games and they were just boring, since i get tired of the game when i get too big, so i like to stay small and weak longer, more fun~:thumb:

I think blitzing destroys the medieval feeling to the game, but it's just me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif I mean France going through HRE like a warm knife through butter is just plain wrong.

And another thing, i never get HRE civil wars, i have played about 10 games where HRE lost half of it's lands, had a 2 influence king and STILL NO CIVIL WAR, i play on hard btw. I want HRE ( and any other factions ) to rebel http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif

[ah_dut]

Quote[/b] (Ar7 @ June 20 2004,23:38)]I usually never blitz. I try to play the game as realistic as possible, i even RP my kings. So i raid/pillage often, expand slowly, take only weak provinces and attack only when an opportunity or true need arises. For example if i see an unguarded province i will take it, but won't attack further, or if i see that the Spanish need help with the almos i will attack. I tried blitzing games and they were just boring, since i get tired of the game when i get too big, so i like to stay small and weak longer, more fun~:thumb:

I think blitzing destroys the medieval feeling to the game, but it's just me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif I mean France going through HRE like a warm knife through butter is just plain wrong.

And another thing, i never get HRE civil wars, i have played about 10 games where HRE lost half of it's lands, had a 2 influence king and STILL NO CIVIL WAR, i play on hard btw. I want HRE ( and any other factions ) to rebel http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif
WHAT gre and no civil war, I do the same, as regards to turtling but i do a lot of border raiding

[Ulair]

I always find it really hard not to blitz, even when I'm trying to play GA. Always some faction will attack me at random (Italians, anyone...?) and rather than sit there with a border war dragging on, trade suffering and the threat of excommunication I can never resist dumping 10 large stacks into five provinces and just wiping them out as a punishment. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-blush.gif The AI seems to have no real defence against this because it always neglects the sea, leaving it wide open to multiple invasions in the one turn.

Well, they asked for it, yer honour...

[econ21]

Interesting responses. I've just gone back to playing Shogun and that game reminded me of why I sometimes like to blitz - fighting ceaseless battles for each of 60 provinces just gets very dull. I generally like to turtle, role-play and go for GAs etc. But given the limited diplomatic model in MTW, like Ulair said, I usually try to wipe out aggressor factions otherwise you end up with perpetual war and often no allies.

[Brutal DLX]

I rarely do this, I used to do this often in Shogun, during endgame and early game as the AI was cheating slightly with troop upkeep plus the fact that you could reach the end of the techtree much sooner than in MTW.
In MTW, "blitzing" is a shortcut, true, yet it is neither a challenging nor an exciting one, as the main reason it works so well is the lacking AI in that regard, not the strategical greatness of the human player, thus, it could be called a slight exploit. The AI simply retreats too often in situations where it HAS TO give battle. (That you can easily best overwhelming numbers of AI troops in the tactical battle most of the times is another issue.)

When I play GA, I have no problems at all in staying competitive without having to take out most of my neighbours. Smart troop disposition and awareness of the diplomatical states of the other factions amongst each other will significantly reduce the number of repetitive and "boring" skirmishes you'll have to fight. It's my opinion that Blitzing in SP does the same to the game as rushing in MP, but that's of course just that, my opinion. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Ulair]

Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ June 24 2004,18:45)]
When I play GA, I have no problems at all in staying competitive without having to take out most of my neighbours.


With me it's more a question of irritation and an irresistable desire to punish transgressors http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ June 24 2004,18:45)]
Smart troop disposition and awareness of the diplomatical states of the other factions amongst each other will significantly reduce the number of repetitive and "boring" skirmishes you'll have to fight.

This would be fine but for the random attacks the AI makes, usually on my shipping. You can keep the diplomacy nicely balanced, look after your borders, all that, but then the AI just does something dumb.

My recent GA game as the English, I'm minding my own business, crusading away merrily when the Italians, with whom I share no borders and to whom I've been offering daughters left, right and centre, sink one of my ships http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif . Just like that. Much healing of diplomatic rifts and a warning from the Pope later (say wha', Popester... He attacked me, capice?), we're all happy again... and then the Byzantines do the same thing. So I invaded Greece. With thousands of Aragonese-armed FMAA. And jinetes. And RKs. Who sacked Bulgaria, Serbia, Constantinople and Trebizond next turn.

I can't help it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif . Dumb AI deserves it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

[Marquis de Said]

I must say that I belong to the harder is funner and wiping out nations makes for a boring game camp. I like to play GA style on expert and make the game harder for myself by not grabbing every province I could grab.

However, sometimes the AI's backstabbing just cannot go unpunished. Like in my last campaign, a treacherous Holy Roman Emperor backstabs me three times within 50 years even though I thwarted him every time and offered a daughter as consolation.

I noticed in my last game as the Italians though that everybody seems to gang up on you, and that even weakling factions will attack you and you can't get any alliances from neutrals because usually you're at war with at least one of the neutral faction's allies. In such a situation I would understand the wiping out of an enemy just to reduce the number of wars.

I've never blitzed due to my benevolent nature (yeah, I sure am benevolent enough to always include some conquered territory under my wise patronage http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ), but I've noticed that you can force the AI to withdraw even in situations where it could easily win as a defender. An example is if you're attacking across a river (nevermind the fact that the computer usually botches those as well by allowing you across the bridge in the first place). I think this is a bit of a minus in the AI's performance.

Has anyone tried resurrecting factions by eliminating their last province with a rebellion using a spy, then waiting for them to re-emerge? Sometimes almost dead factions can really spring to life.

Marquis

[Ard-Ri McCullaugh]

I've been blitzing as long as I can remember. I usually will blitz an opponent, and after I have 3-4 of their provinces I sue for peace, and usually get it.

[The_Emperor]

Towards the end of the game (normally Post Golden Horde) I often end up blitzing my way to vitctory.

Most of the time my campaign is a slow and steady advance, but if a faction really annoys me, I will crush them with superior power and numbers.

My recent Byzantine campaign was a testiment to this because I bankrupted the Empire to produce a force to fight the Golden Horde. Following their defeat. I turned my numerous armies of massed Byz forces and overran vast areas of Europe.

My armies advanced from Russia and our heartlands in the East, and from Western France... Crushing the enemy on two fronts in a painful vice

The last free people in Europe belonged to the Papacy in Italy... I took my time with them and ended with my Emperor recapturing Rome. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_surrender.gif

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I use 'micro-blitzes' in my campaigns. You are probably wondering, "what is that?" It is not a new diet trend. Instead, it is simply a small, calculated blitz.

In short, I target two or three provinces to take for their strategic value. I choose those provinces that will leave my former border provinces isolated from the enemy after I have finished the blitz. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-juggle.gif I also choose which provinces to blitz based on what forces I have on hand. If it looks like I'll need more light cavalry to take this province, I will either find some more cavalry or change the whole set of provinces to be blitzed. I usually use a mirco-blitz to start or finish a major confrontation with a super power. The goal is to reduce the number of provinces that I own that have contact with enemy real estate, quickly and with little danger of failure.

It is also useful in inciting revolts and civil wars. Useful things indeed.

So there you have it. The micro-blitz diet... er, strategic attack template.

[Kristaps]

well, i don't know whether to call it blitz or a steam-roller. in my current campaign, which i started a few days ago, it's 1160 and my byzantines hold almost all of the map - spare a few HRE provinces, the british islands and the northern italy (including the pope's camp in rome).

actually, the campaign was fun. and i found it's more fun to play the AI at this speed, since, in order to expand this quickly, i had to field relatively many junk units (slav warriors, vanilla spearmen, slav javelinmen, horse archers) with a few professional units forming the elite core of my army, which matched the AI's army setup.

actually, at one point, i was at the verge of having my speedily built empire collapse in rebellions since my emperor had ventured too deep into the steppes of russia; my ship-yards could not match the speed of prince Michael's armies marching along the african coast towards spain; and i was nowhere near the point of building spies yet.

an action packed campaign ;)

[The_Emperor]

Junk units? na I don't use them.

The Bulk of my Empire was made up of massed Byz inf... Oh and by the time the Horde arrived A very large chunk of my army was Varangian Guard, which explains why I had so many troops left over after finishing them off

[Kristaps]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 25 2004,19:01)]Junk units? na I don't use them.

The Bulk of my Empire was made up of massed Byz inf... Oh and by the time the Horde arrived A very large chunk of my army was Varangian Guard, which explains why I had so many troops left over after finishing them off
hehehe, the plan here is to finish with TD before 1205 :) that's some 25 years before the horde arrives :)

as to the junk units: blitzing it's a necessity since there is no time to sit around and wait for that byz infantry army from Constantinopole in their shiny blue armor... ;) you have to press on, which means locally raised units of whatever-is-available quality :) of course, the core is still byz infantry, treb. archers and katas, but very few in numbers though.

on a different note: having all byz-infantry army sounds like a promise for a boring game in which the AI stands no chance (as if it had any anyways)

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[The_Emperor]

True but then you can always mod the game so the Ai doesnt build peasant units. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[dessa14]

long drawn out wars take too long and cause too much damage to your A)influence and B)economy and C)military.
if you do have wars you want them to end quick and without the pain of excomm.
when i get excommed its really a tough fight, with 5 crusades aimed at me, because when i get excommed i am fighting seven teams at least.
thanks, dessa

[Kristaps]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 25 2004,19:20)]True but then you can always mod the game so the Ai doesnt build peasant units. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
hehehe, true, but then again, you can mod the peasants to have a super-duper armor piercing attack of 10 matched by similar defense rating (those forks are scary weapons, after all...) :) give them also a modest morale boost (6 starting morale would suffice), and voila: you've got an army of jedis :)

i bet, this is the easiest modding project ever. and you can rest assured, the AI WILL field these babies ;)

p.s., make it so that YOUR faction cannot build the jedi peasants of doom.

[LestaT]

I choose blitz style when playing Cath faction as I need to crush the weakest opposition first by attacking all their province end I can end their line in 2 turns.

Make sure to attack castles/forts etc after got the excom warning then for the next decade wage war on other cath faction with no worries.