Prioritizing strategic targets

I was wondering, when you invade an empire, assuming you can't do so with enough strength to attack all targets simultaneously, which targets do you attack first?

Do you try to take out lightly defended cities in the first strike, in order to cripple the enemy economy and prevent them from building resources? Or do you go for the castles first, in order to take the toughest targets before a garrison can be prepared and in order to deprive the enemy of access to his best units?

Do you actively seek out and engage enemy field armies, in order to defeat them in detail and leave the settlement garrisons isolated, or do you bypass them in order to lay siege to the enemy settlements. If you take the second option, do you try take the city by spies or siege weapons in order to force the enemy army into an offensive siege, or do you maintain the siege in order to lure the enemy army to attempt to relieve the city, thus drawing out the garrison and allowing the city to be taken without an assault?

My own strategy used to be to go for the cities first, in order to deprive the enemy of money and isolate the castles; however, I have gradually shifted towards favouring a direct attack on the main enemy castles, especially if they are underdefended, in order to get them out of the way and prevent them training reinforcements. I tend to find that several full stacks of enemy militia causes me far less problems than one stack of knights.

As for field armies, I very much tend to favour bypassing them and laying siege, in order to try to draw out the garrison and destroy it along with the field army in a defensive battle.

The reason I ask these questions is that since I mostly play BC nowadays, I am finding that I have to pick my targets very carefully when going on the offensive: Sieges are extremely costly, and the AI will positively churn out reinforcements when it is under attack, so you really can't afford to spend 10 turns besieging some out of the way hovel; it seems to be vitally important to plan an offensive well in order not to get bogged down.

It depends on who you are, who you are facing, and the current strategic circumstances. Here's an example. If you are playing a faction that has poor heavy infantry but good horse archers, and you are facing a faction with good foot missile units, then you should focus on eliminating their field armies, since you'll do better in field battles. If they have high mobility units, but you have good infantry or artillery, then focus on their cities and castles. If they leave a city open, then attack it. If they fortify one heavily, then try to cut it off by squatting on a bridge or something with one army and drawing them out with another through a protracted siege.

Depends abit on the location of the faction, however a sacking of the opponents Capital followed by the sacking of their most advanced castle usually does the trick, after that any army youd face in the field wouldnt last long or be able to resupply.. plus youd have set them back decades in development, perhaps permamently.

I tend to besiege their cities, so even if they have a big army in the field it will have to come to me.

I tend to go for cities and use spies to open the gates. This enables me to quickly conquer enemy settlements and cripple them ecconomically.

I usually go for the Castles first to cripple the AI's ability to make good troops. This also allows me a key defensive position on the front lines that can retrain and creat quality armies. This only applies to SS because usally the AI is just as high or more highly developed than me. In vanilla, I quickly amass a few stacks and nock out factions one by one in as little time as possible in many mini-blizs. Generally, I hate assulting cities and castles so I try to fight as many field battles as possible, during summer (I hate winter battles). In SS I usally use two stacks, one for assulting and one to fend off reinforcements which the AI can quickly create. Then consolidate and move on to the next target.

I have noticed that in BC the castles are often located in spots making them bones of contention. for instance the one on the nile south of Luxor: if as Makaria you can grab this the abbadabbadababaddinibids are in deep water. it is barely acceptable to leave a soldier factory like this on your border, owed by a hostile faction. they churn out cheap troops so fast that it is impossible to leave hostile castles in your rear zone if they belong to any faction with any gumption behind it. They have to be taken. this makes it much harder to gut a faction as normal.

Normally I go for field battles first and then slowly take enemy cities on my border. I like to leave them their castles for the start of the war in hope of getting some decent battles.

If I'm back against a wall and have to progress quickly I'll blitz their main settlements, opening gates with spies.

Regarding which settlements to take first, I usually decide by geographical location rather than type. If I can go either way, I'd rather take castles. I'd rather face hordes of rabble from a rich low tech faction than a smaller army of elites from a castle.

I try to resist the temptation of taking weakly defended settlements because I like a long campaign. I usually move an army into an enemies territory, positioning it by some mountains, sometimes where I know there'll be a nice hill, or perhaps if I really want to win, on a bridge. Then when the enemy has exhausted his forces in a failed attempt to remove me, I can proceed to the settlement if I wish.

This is mainly because I'm sick of attacking myself all the time. The AI is basically just an army-spawning machine that puts targets out there for you, but they rarely make a target out of you.

I usually maintain sieges if I can't take the city with less than ~100 casualties, if my overall situation doesn't require the army to be elsewhere soon.

Playing BC, and wanting to make it as fun as possiblem, I just brute force my way through the enemy's armies to get at their settlements. It's probably not the smartest way, and I do not prioritise my targets for any reason other than geography.

Presently, I just invaded the Abassids (Iraq) as Georgia with a single army. I fought my way through Abassid stack after stack to get to Baghdad, and the same again to get down to Basra. I just took the city, and I have about 1/3 of the original troops left. Now I realise that this isn't the most effective way of taking out another faction, but it is fun. I mean I could target the Capital and main recruitment center from the get go, but I think it's better when you take those settlements 10 major land battles later.



Why be sneaky with a knife when you can be blunt with a hammer?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:smg: :skull::skull::skull::skull::skull:

Because any idiot can use an hammer.

Maybe, but smashing things is fun. :smash: Not that I don't enjoy playing intelligently, but admittedly there's something to be said for just bulldozing your way through sometimes.

See trading profits a lot, so secure all the see bording cities and then work inland. This is much easier on the economy. War is the extention of polictics. And politics are powered by economy. You don't need a superb navy, just enough to secure troop transporting.
In BC, if play norway, one should raid the shore. The waleish, should work on the other side of the channel, the scots is capable of sending troops to the lower part of england and work way up. The Irish and english should build strong navy to block ports.

Welcome to the Org, PracticalEnglish. :beam:

By BC, I was referring to the mod Broken Crescent, not the Britannia campaign in Kingdoms. It hadn't occured to me that the abbreviation is ambiguous, sorry. Broken Crescent is a total conversion mod set in the middle east; I would strongly recommend it for a nice change of pace from the vanilla game, but I should point out it's something like 700MB so make sure you've got a good broadband connection before downloading!

An interesting strategy you suggest, of taking the most profitable trading cities by naval invasion. I can see how it would help a lot as the Scots, rather than spending ages taking the worthless border provinces, to go straight for the wealthiest cities so they can't afford reinforcements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martok

Maybe, but smashing things is fun. :smash: Not that I don't enjoy playing intelligently, but admittedly there's something to be said for just bulldozing your way through sometimes.

---

Well said.

All I ever do is smash things.... :viking:

I hit whatever the enemy has less of. I only hit castles if it's the only castle in the area and will eliminate their troop supply. If they have 2 or more castles around, there is no point in taking any one of them out, and you are better off sacking cities which which they will have few of and would be critical to their economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Well said.

All I ever do is smash things.... :viking:

---

But you smash intelligently

Apparently I have a secret admirer.

Who are you and how long have you been studying my techniques from afar?

Whatever city or castle is nearby after I've destroyed an army and killed its general.

It depends what my spies tell me. If there's a major production place for units i'll try to seige that while a second field built stack will try to intercept any hostile stacks. Basically rather than say seiging two cities i'll seige 1 and go hunting with the other stack.

I find Europe great for this with the mountain and forest choke points meaning your spies spot hostile stacks comming to the rescue.

Its pretty much the only way i've found of getting pleanty of field fights, AI seems to like just going for seige fights and bypassing my field armies (that have been squashing rebels ect)... maybe its just because of my positioning / garrisons / armies.

Don't prioritize. Kill them all! . Do so in strict order of their distance from your start positions. Leave none to tell the tale. Massacre the prisoners religiously. Don't procrastinate: Kill them all!

But what if you have to choose? What if you can only afford one army and have to decide which out of 5 or 6 potential targets to attack first? That's really what I was trying to get at with this thread; obviously if you have endless reserves of money and troops and can launch a full stack against every settlement simultaneously there's no need to prioritize, but if you are making a risky attack and have to bring down an entire faction with one or two stacks, and won't be able to reinforce, what do you go for first? I'm doubtful that the best strategy in such a situation is to go for the nearby worthless hovel and lose half your troops assaulting it while the enemy's main troop factories and economic centers remain untouched.

Cities. I attack, amphibious assault, or diplomatically bargain for them.

Without the income of cities they can't afford those "elites" in the castle. If they have decent stacks, removing the cities from your enemy can force them into debt to support their armies. Debt = no new units built.

I'd rather face a handful of "elite" castle units of finite numbers that suffer attrition than a potentially unlimited supply of militia.

Removing their economy is how you neuter the enemy, it's convenient for making vassals or reducing enemies to nonthreat status.

Upkeep. It's a killer.

The flipside would be taking castles, which the garrison required to defend on a front usually can be an economic drain on me rather than a boost. I'd rather take their money and turn it against them, and I only need a couple castles doing continuous production for all the soldiers my empire ever needs.

Playing as Hungary recently (for the first time) I took a play from the Venice handbook and bought Bologna, putting a presence on the Italian peninsula (always a fun place) and removing some of the HRE's production. Realizing this was a good policy against such a large potential problem, I followed this by cutting a deal for Vienna at $1k a turn for 15 turns (which I knew Vienna would cover the payment of). The HRE just hasn't been dynamic or threatening like they usually are to anybody. All those castles with only one city to support them... not good for the Reich. Profitable for me.

the Makurians are the text-book case here. Their core area has good income , poor troop production facilities. An early "blitz" type attack on Cairo hurts the Egyptian sorts, but it does not help Makuria make soldiers, which is what it really needs. however that castle is much further off and harder to hit.... In this case its not about what the opponent will lose, rather it is about what the player will gain
Try their campaign if you don't see my point. if you take the city, they will surely bury you. there must be a right way to playthis.

I usually try to go for the castles so i can retrain my own troops, or recruit new ones from a closer spot.

A tactic I often use is to capture bridges and access routes.

I'll send an army to protect a bridge until more forces arrive, and often this will result in the enemy sending out, 2-3 times as many troops to attack my force on a bridge usually resulting in them getting creamed.

depends heavily on faction. Heavy infantry catholic factions, I'll bypass field armies, and fight in the cities on both O and D, as heavy infantry tends to favor them. If I decided to invest more in cavalry this game, field engagements to outflank and route the enemy.

As eastern factions, 'weakened' HA armies intentionally lay siege to a city, forcing field armies back to engage and be annihilated by superior tactics, eliminating both the city and the enemy force. Generally speaking I'll almost always siege the city and either actually attempt a heavy infantry siege or else weaken my force enough to entice the computer to counter-attack.

For very heavily guarded citadels and fortresses, I'll simply bypass them and attempt to draw their garrisons out in the open, then either engage in the field or else force them to attack my besieging army. It's certainly a lot preferable to besieging a full stack in a 3-stage death trap. However, I see little value in open terrain most of time and beeline it for the cities. If the enemy has superior forces, I'll still tend to go around them, and meet them on grounds of my choosing when I want to.

If I can only attack one target, it'll always be the richest target I can take with the fewest casualties. A 3-unit defended fortress is preferable to a 10-defended city, but a 5-defended city preferable to a 5-defended fortress, assuming everything else is equal. I'll always take the nearest target of opportunity. The onyl thing that would give me pause is strategic map considerations that may leave other well-developed boarder settlements vulnerable, but the computer usually scrambles back to retake what it lost (especially provinces it considers key) that typically you don't have to worry much about counterattacks, so I don't mind sending my forces deep in in order to take key, high value, poorly defended rich coastal cities. The computer being what it is, I tend not to see how to hurt the computer the most, (As a faction) but rather what would benefit me as the player the most (rich city, castle for resupply, etc), but always it should be a defensive battle (ie AI is attacker) in their lands.