Raider or Conqueror?

[Powermonger]

Just curious to know what kind of King are you in your campaigns, a raider or conqueror? Do you only grab provinces from rebels or when a civil war errupts, or forcfully take land from other kingdoms to expand your empire?

Myself I'm more of a raider, trying to keep peace with my neighbours but jumping at rebel provinces when the opportunity arises.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I keep at least a war or two going at all times. And not a small war usually, but a true conquering war. It's good for the economy you know.

[antisocialmunky]

Kill anything that fights against you and then kill everyone that has fought with you. Its really for their own good... think of the people and cute kittens.

[BrSpiritus]

I show incrediable restraint with the stupid moves the computer makes. Like I having 1 ship to your 75 and starting a naval war. Or invading a province with a stack of half spearmen and half urban militia led by a 0 star general... and I'm defending with Norman Knights, Feudal Foot Knights, longbowmen and arbs. For their own good I usually massacre the army to teach them a lesson... which they never learn. Then I usually turn to smash, grab and go if I don't actually want the provinces in my empire.

BrSpiritus

[matteus the inbred]

I show incredible restraint with the stupid moves the computer makes.BrSpiritus

agreed, it does ask for it sometimes...ask, and ye shall receive. :knight:

I'm a definite raider and picker-up of unconsidered provinces, especially with factions that have tough starting positions like Poland. Scandinavia is particularly high on my list if possible.

Mainly depends on my GA objectives though...I'm playing HRE at the moment, and their GA goals make it compulsory to stuff other factions, so you have to be very careful where you commit your armies.

[Sir Toma of Spain]

I used to be a conquerer but then realised that raiding is much more fun:charge:

In one game as the spanish i managed to burn every structure in the Almohad empire and send them deep into the red before making peace and letting them sit in Cyrennia and tunisia with there half stack of pesants before turning my attention to the French and showing the path of my army by the large amount of debris i left behind. They didn't recover too quickly from that i can assure you. I also killed 3 out of 4 of their full army stack with my raiding force. 1 8* Prince, a few seige engines, 4-5 Jinettes, and a few feudal MAA/Sergeants.

Most fun i ever had (previous to XL mod)

[Ciaran]

Conquerer. Take what you can and give nothing back. Even if I´m almost sure I can´t hold a province I´m loathe to raze it to the ground and then give it up to whoever might take it. Rome is the only exception, but only because I like being alive and standing in a re-emergin pope´s path isn´t something your life insurance will advertise.
Rebel provinces are taken immediatly, if not sooner, others, it depends. I don´t easily attack fellow Christians, at least not if I can help it, but infidels of any kind are free game. It tends to put you on good terms with the pope, as it would seem, so he gives out his 1,000 florin gifts every now an then.

[matteus the inbred]

Will raze if I can't hold it, but I'm otherwise loath to smash up good buildings.

The exception being the Viking Era, when I morph into this blood-crazed conquest obsessive monster. If you ever need to relax and get away from the whole empire building thing, go and be the Vikings in VI, it's tremendously amusing sailing around and pillaging stuff, and laughing at people trying to beat your uber-warriors with fyrd and peasants.

Some factions are definitely more given to raiding and being sneaky, Sicilians and Danes spring to mind.

[_Aetius_]

Raiding can often be far more effective than a formal and prolonged war.

I remember once as the French, I held Aquitaine and Toulouse and my enemy Spain held Navarre and Aragon, so there was a constant border war going on on both sides of the Pyrennees. We both had huge armies defending these important terroritories and stalemate had set in, a decisive defeat could result in total defeat in the war. So both myself and Spain attacked and counter-attacked each other never really offering a final confrontation.

Tired of this expensive and dangerous state of affairs I gathered a small army of 900 men and landed them in Portugal, the soft underbelly of the Spaniards, the province was seized and put to the sword I totally destroyed everything in the province. Then immediately invaded Corduba and did the same again leaving the province bare. All the time the Spaniards on the frontier where unable to effectively help the provincial forces for fear of invasion from Aquitaine or Toulouse. I did the same in Granada, but was eventually cornered on my way back to the coast in Leon, where I narrowly won a battle over a large provincial army leaving 750 dead to 400 lost, Leon was then sacked.

I then swiftly got my troops to the fleet and returned them to Brittany. This small, fast and sharp raid had totally devastated 4 provinces in Spain, totally destroyed much of the infrastructure of the Spaniards' best territories.

The war continued for another 10 years, but Spain was finding it harder and harder to replace its losses let alone afford them, eventually I broke through the frontier and crushed their armies one by one before knocking Spain into a fatal civil war.

The raid of 900 men had achieved what close to 9000 could not achieve for either side in 25 years of constant warfare, this is an extreme example of what can come from a raid, most wont be that successful. But with decent timing and a well picked force you can cause significant carnage, even if it failed it wouldnt have significantly harmed me anyway.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Very nice recollection, Aetius. My Spanish enemies are currently too canny for that, having defended their coasts carefully. :stupido2:

I'm a raider at heart, since I find that there's a point in the game where one has conquered so much territory, the game becomes boring. Maintaining the kingdom within a limit where one is still vulnerable to defeat by a superior force provides spice (to me).

Raiding is also fun and profitable - especially when one miscalculates and gets caught - the desperate battle to survive brings out the best or worst in one's generalship! :charge:

[aw89]

I conquer, thats probably the reason why I've been excommunicated 4 times in 100 years.
I'm like the roman empire, you are my enemy from the day you attack me 'til the day you die!

[Scurvy]

im a huge fan of burning everything in sight :dizzy2: nothing better than invading a province, destroying everything in it, then retreating, just very satisfying somewhow :)

[Cowhead418]

After being excommunicated, it's really satisfying to invade Rome, crush the Papal force there, then burn it to the ground. That'll teach you a lesson!:charge:

[BrSpiritus]

It tends to put you on good terms with the pope, as it would seem, so he gives out his 1,000 florin gifts every now an then.


On this campaign it seems that every crusade I launched (3 of them) came with a mail in rebate. I'd give the florins to the pope to secure his blessing and the next turn I'd gat 1000 back from him. My best smashing expedition was the last game I played as the English all the other factions were cowering in fear from the huge Turkish empire but I realized that they were concentrating all their building in Anatolia and Constantinople. I led 3 army stacks on an expedition from Antioch to Lithuania destroyed 20 Turkish army stacks and netted 150,000 florins from destrying everything and getting ransoms. After that they had the empire and the land but no industry. The other factions were quick to grasp the implications and the Turks were beaten back from the gates of Vienna. It was all in all quite glorious.

BrSpiritus

[ajaxfetish]

Some factions lend themselves more to conquest in my mind, but usually I prefer to establish a core domain (often what I start with and anything I can historically justify taking with that faction), and then use my forces to keep any rivals from getting too powerful. I like to ally with the underdogs and raid the big guys. That way I get to use the fancy high-tech armies I've created without the pains of empire management and without being the only major faction on the map. If you can't tell, I'm also a fan of GA over conquest! (even for the factions I do conquer with, as that certainly isn't prohibited by GA goals).

Ajax

[Powermonger]

On this campaign it seems that every crusade I launched (3 of them) came with a mail in rebate. I'd give the florins to the pope to secure his blessing and the next turn I'd gat 1000 back from him. My best smashing expedition was the last game I played as the English all the other factions were cowering in fear from the huge Turkish empire but I realized that they were concentrating all their building in Anatolia and Constantinople. I led 3 army stacks on an expedition from Antioch to Lithuania destroyed 20 Turkish army stacks and netted 150,000 florins from destrying everything and getting ransoms. After that they had the empire and the land but no industry. The other factions were quick to grasp the implications and the Turks were beaten back from the gates of Vienna. It was all in all quite glorious.

BrSpiritus

Wow sounds like quite a battle, did you manage to save a replay?

I'm a bit of a 'wait and see' commander, only grabing what I need in the short-term then concentrating on economic and technical developement before flexing my muscles. In my new Danish campaign (my last one fizzled because my perverted King produced no heirs, died and then his elderly brother took over who then subsequently karked it as well) I'm doing a Viking raid of England, doing smash and grabs of English soil while the English King looks on with horror.

[BrSpiritus]

No no replay saves, it was more a series of battles than one huge one. My latest campaign, English, Early, Normal, XL I fought the french in brittany and saved a replay of that one. That battle was an example of how plans go awry and it constantly kept me moving and changing plans to adapt to the tactical situation.

[gaijinalways]

I kind of liked the GA campaigns also. I tended to do a bit of raiding nd conquering, depending on the territory. Some are more useful and easier to defend, depending on your army sizes and tech tree at certain points in the game.

[Byzantine Prince]

Depends on who I am playing as. If I am Byzantine there isn't much for raiding. For others though like Russia, I like to raid the hell out of everything until nothing around me isn't baby blue! :skull: :skull: :skull:

[Boris of Bohemia]

Do you only grab provinces from rebels or when a civil war errupts, or forcfully take land from other kingdoms to expand your empire?


The only rule I have is, don't start a war if the king or an active heir is married to a princess from that side (translation: seek wives from distant empires).

[Csargo]

I usually start wars to conquer because I think that conquering is more fun than raiding.

[Boris of Bohemia]

In my new Danish campaign (my last one fizzled because my perverted King produced no heirs, died and then his elderly brother took over who then subsequently karked it as well)


There's a cheat code for that: .unfreeze.

[hlawrenc]

There's a cheat code for that: .unfreeze.

I try to stay away from the cheat codes EXCEPT for that one. Nothing more frustrating that going through a long campaign, everything going fine then have a king that can't produce heirs and get the message that the game is over when he dies!!!!

I don't abuse it, but if my new king isn't producing an heir or two in the first 3-5 years of his assuming the throne I generally unfreeze to make sure I have at least one heir to keep the game going AND maybe give him some ideas about hanging round the castle a little longer.

Concerning raider versus conqueror I am a conqueror in the immediate land grab phase to get enough provinces to get the empire up and running or to smooth out territory to reduce number to be defended. But once that is done, I concentrate on economy and ship building trying to stay neutral with those immediately on my borders, ally with some beyond them then look for opportunities to do some raiding to snap up anything gone rebel and not start a war that could hurt economy early.

I enjoy defensive battles so don't usually get too agressive after initial land grab but definitely punish those who attack me. Where possible send assassins, spys and religious agents into neighboring territories to stir things up to get them to rebel. Then can take them over without forcing a war especially if trading with that faction.

Been playing Fall of Rome mod lately as East Romans. The Italian Romans have managed to repel barbarian hordes that poured over their borders initially and now appear to by my main competitor in the future, but also major trading partner right now while we are neutral. The fact that they refuse to ally with me makes me think I am on their "to do List" I don't want to get into a long drawn out war with them rignt now but have been assassinating their generals and strategic agents, having spys look for hidden vices etc. which as allowed some of their territories to go rebel which I have been able to swallow up without losing them as trading partners. This has been especially important since the barbarians have turned a lot more attention on the peaceful East Roman lands and I still have to keep a strong garrison on the east against Persian forces who keep attacking my med territories.

[ajaxfetish]

I've only lost a game due to heirlessness once, and I've never used unfreeze, but one cheat I do use is .matteosartori. I like to see what's going on in the rest of the world, and this way I can do it without spamming agents (which I'm willing to do, but usually I use religious ones, and I figure this way the cheat actually helps my enemies of a different faith, since I don't then inundate them with preachers).

Ajax

[gaijinalways]

Concerning raider versus conqueror I am a conqueror in the immediate land grab phase to get enough provinces to get the empire up and running or to smooth out territory to reduce number to be defended. But once that is done, I concentrate on economy and ship building trying to stay neutral with those immediately on my borders, ally with some beyond them then look for opportunities to do some raiding to snap up anything gone rebel and not start a war that could hurt economy early.

Good point Hlawrenic, I have tended to follow a similar strategy. Empire building is essential as you need to establish a base from which to trade and build troops in. As to formenting dissent in distant lands, I do it if the created rebel lands are useful for trading, ship building, etc, and they can easily be reinforced. Sometimes avoiding wars with large trading partners is a dicey proposition!

I enjoy defensive battles so don't usually get too agressive after initial land grab but definitely punish those who attack me. Me too, it is sometimes enjoyable beating off waves of attackers, even when outnumbered. I also like bridge battles from both sides, even though of course sometimes these bridge battles are best avoided, as they can be casualty harvesters!:wall:

[BrSpiritus]

Bridge battles can be interesting. I usually hold off on attacking bridges until I have Arbalests and Longbows. Then I can shoot way across to the other side and disconcert the enemy with casualties before actually attacking. My best bridge attack unit was a unit of +4 valour Billmen with +4 weapon and +4 Armor. They could run down the bridge and cut through anything in their path.

BrSpiritus

[hlawrenc]

Bridge battles can be interesting.
BrSpiritus

Bridge battles in defense yes... But hate bridge battles in offense. This may not be the right thread but would like to hear others tactics to win offensive bridge battles with minimum of casualties.

[matteus the inbred]

I was sure there was a thread on this somewhere...! Lots of archers, bring a couple of catapults as well, anything that inflicts casualties at long range, cos the target won't be moving.
Use tough, heavily armoured troops with high morale to force the bridge (halberdiers, chiv sergeants, huscarles, foot knights) and get them to hold the ground on the other side until you can get cavalry or faster infantry across to start spreading out and opening up the bridgehead. Use a very good general, preferably one with a morale boosting virtue, but don't let him anywhere near the fighting until you've won cos if he dies your guys will run.
If you have created a bridgehead, you can even get javelins or naptha throwers over behind your combat guys (only for the brave and foolish, this one) and try and chuck stuff at the defenders whilst hoping you don't perforate or blow up too many friendlies...!
You can try forlorn hopes (ie rubbish units) to soak up arrow fire before you expose the expensive stuff, but I find this doesn't work as well in MTW as it did in STW. Above all, make sure you have an advantage in numbers, don't give up, and be prepared for casualties, and make sure you have reserves just in case you win but lose most of your army in the process.

Back to the thread, and I need some advice; I'm playing as the HRE (early, GA, hard) and have just conquered most of France; both France and England have gone rebel...should I bother to invade and keep England (thus risking rebellions/faction re-emergences), or just raid it until there aren't any buildings left and abandon it? I don't get many points for it, and it's a long way from the centre of the empire (and overseas to boot).

[Boris of Bohemia]

Leaving it rebel guarantees faction re-emergence. So does abandoning to revolt.

[matteus the inbred]

Leaving it rebel guarantees faction re-emergence. So does abandoning to revolt.

Yeah, I suppose you're right...sigh. Thing is, I've got more important things to do, such as invading Italy and expanding the Empire eastwards, and bottling up Spain by taking Navarre and Aragon. I get minimal points for taking the provinces, and risk wholesale rebellion anyway, unless I put some very large garrisons in place.
I guess my point was, if I raid every British province and wipe everything out then I get loads of money and any faction re-emergence has to start with no buildings at all. It'd take ages for them to get anywhere technologically and militarily, I'd only need to garrison Flanders, and my fleets would control the seas around Britain as well. I was also hoping that any English faction re-emergence would allow me to ally with them and marry off some heirs...

[BrSpiritus]

Razing a rebel province does not guarantee that faction reemgences are weak. I had a province I razed to the ground once. The next turn a rebellion/reemergence happened and the king had 4 stacks with chiv knights, arbalesters, and etc. very few peasants.

[matteus the inbred]

As it turns out, I never got to test the theory...the English re-emerged in Scotland with about 3,000 troops that very turn...my guys pulled out south, destroying as they went, although some of them got cornered in Wales...:skull:

To date, the HRE now stretches from Toulouse to Poland, Norway to Corsica, and the English faction have yet to even complete the conquest of England as they have no buildings and no money, so in fact you could say I did the right thing.

[Total War Merc]

I never lose provinces :) or i try not to.

I usually invade a faction (which i totally destroy every single one of them so there out of the game for good), then wait about 10 turns (improve my army again, improve economy etc). Then attack another faction :) works great.

[gunslinger]

Raiding is only a last resort for me. It generally only comes in to play at the very beginning of the game when there is still a chance that some faction may actually be able to beat me. I hate destroying buildings because I know that eventually I'm going to be taking that province for good, and the amount of time it takes to build up a province into anything worthwhile is ridiculous. I mean, really, four years to build a brothel? That must be one high class meat market.

[Powermonger]

I mean, really, four years to build a brothel? That must be one high class meat market.

I guess only the best will do back in Medieval times :laugh4:

As a adage to the original question, do others like to maintain minimum border provinces at all times or just take what they can?

I always try to maintain minimum borders, well I should say I mean to keep minimum borders but mostly I end up spread across Europe as I've launched amphibious attacks on rebels or faction provinces. I think for the next campaign I'll refrain from doing sea based invasions and strictly stick with land-based expansion only.

[Roark]

I usually just take what I can, initially, and then look at the lay of the land to see how I can reduce my frontier to as few provinces as possible. Constantinople, Georgia and Egypt are obvious bottlenecks which I try to take advantage of as the Turks.

[Bregil the Bowman]

I recently finished a campaign as Spain where I tried to be a good Catholic, making war only on rebels, excommunicants and non-Catholics, holding the territories I took and building them up. I ended up getting multiple excommunications and at war with the Pope for most of the game.

This time as England I am being far more ruthless and the Pope is sending me money. I have been careful though to wait to be attacked by Catholic armies and to pull back when instructed by Il Papa.

I am usually a conqueror but experimented this time with a devastating raid in Asia Minor to wipe out some rebels and failing factions while maintaining a short border (Antioch/Syria) with the Golden Horde. I was hoping the Horde would spread out into these territories, spreading its resources and getting into a fight with the Turkish Empire around Constantinople. However, no-one took the bait, so I have had to go back and rebuild everything I destroyed. Still, it was a fun venture and it kept my options open.

[rvg]

I always play in GA mode and try to conquer as little as possible (just to keep things interesting). I do attack enemy/rebel provinces, but do not destroy their infrastructure. Only their troops. They gather a massive army, I walk in, annihilate it, and walk out.

[LoboSoulman]

I will only hold the province if it has a chance of making a lot of money for me. Otherwise I normally destroy it or use it to build up my king/princes by putting down any rebellions.

[rvg]

When I play as Danes, raiding is my game. I rarely bother to hold anything other than Denmark/Scandinavia, Novgorod, Livonia, and sometimes Ireland.

This means that my economy is almost completely dependent on trade. Thus, if someone like France or Spain decides to wage war against me (ruining my trade), I pay them a visit with my Revenue Extraction Council consisting mainly of Vikings, Huscarles and Gallowglasses.

I begin with their richest coastal province...Seize it, storm it, gut it. I only leave castles and ports, and raze everything else. Then I crank up taxes and abandon it to the loyalists while moving my army to the next province. Cycle, Rinse, Repeat until satisfied.

Eventually, they accept an offer of peace: the ports that I left unharmed mean that I can start getting money from renewed trading right away. Intact castles mean that the province isnt totally worthless AND that AI can start spending money on expensive infrastructure right away.

[Vlad The Impala]

I'm a conqueror myself, although I occasionally raid the provinces that border mine to hinder enemy troop production. And now that my empire is large enough to produce all the different units I feel I need, I destroy all troop production facilities in the newly-conquered provinces for a bit of extra pocket money.

[gaijinalways]

Good points, raiding can yield several things at once;

disruption of trade for your enemy
cash into your hands for buildings sold off
destruction of enemy's troop building capacity
a distraction, good for feints to attack elsewhere
way to rid yourself of extra troops and left over mercenaries
way to cause loyalty to drop in enemy territory as the loss of many buildings will cause loyalists to come unless the enemy brings in reinforcements (who may be stuck putting down rebellions, which tie up troops and sometimes lose men in battles)

sometimes causes civil war in a faction if you raze enough provinces (dropping enemy's faction loyalty along the way) and they are important enough provinces

hurt cash flow of enemy as he loses trade and farming income in the provinces you razed

Did I miss anything:2thumbsup: ?

[matteus the inbred]

Did I miss anything:2thumbsup: ?

yeah, raiding is great fun!!! burn, pillage, (not rape, this is an moderated and public forum and we can't be complicit in behaviour like that...) loot and massacre (apparently ruthlessly massacring people is ok though...)

on a serious note, it can also help you to improve some minor generals or even heirs in low risk battles and sieges, providing you can get your raiders out again.