10 Stack Challenge

[Askthepizzaguy]

Although I tend to get excessive with the sheer number of stacks of units when I do my blitzkrieg challenges (I had like 20 or 30 I believe by the end of my England and France challenges) it is certainly possible in fact very easy to conquer the map with only 5 stacks.

You can do it with two stacks at a medium difficulty. Any two stacks of human-led troops can destroy an unlimited number of AI stacks, assuming they don't all attack on the same turn.

Mercenaries and generals replenish themselves, and with only two stacks and an aggressive campaign you never run out of money. The only question is how long it would take.

If you left your empire completely undefended, I question whether or not the computer would actually ever conquer your empire at all, or how long that might take.

One stack would also be possible, but it would take an excessively long time, and you would have to retreat sometimes to a safe place and recruit more mercenaries.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Also.... seiges:

Look at the map. Is every single settlement swarming with garrison troops? Nearing the beginning of the campaign, almost no settlements have an adequate garrison. That is why blitzing is possible.

If every single city had a huge garrison, blitzing would be more difficult.

Go where the weakest point is. So what if Bran has a huge garrison? So what if Frankfurt or Paris have huge garrisons? Go around them. If the garrison leaves the city, send in your spies and take the city by force, sack it, pillage it, burn it to the ground, and ignore the enemy stacks. They are so passive and you can run away, and when you can't, you can slay them.

Assaulting France, hypothetical:

Paris has a full garrison, and another settlement has a full garrison, others have half garrisons, some have few troops at all. Go for the weakest places first, take what you can with the fewest deaths, and sack the provinces. Now move on to the next biggest threat until you end up seiging the huge garrison province. By then, the enemy's empire is wiped out and they have to sally or starve to death. In the meantime, another stack is wiping out another empire.

Easy as pie. If the enemy doesn't sally, you win by force. If the enemy sallies, you win because you're a better commander.

The only way this gets complicated is if you "turtle".... ugh.... and the enemy has huge stacks everywhere. Well you can do that if you're really patient and you like leaving the enemy avenues of resistance. Personally I just exterminate everything as fast as humanly possible.

If the script were modified to give the enemy more soldiers and money, then it might be more challenging.

[cassu]

ive seen your Blitzkrieg AAR and im very impressed . I got some really good advices here and now sieges should go smoother but im still not closely as good as you pizzaguy but ill have to try more conquering and less turtling. Thanks for your help and pizzaguy make more AARs as they are much fun to read

[Askthepizzaguy]

Thank you for your kind words, however;

The blitzkriegs represent a mastery of the strategic map; management of forces and the exploits involving crusades and jihads for maximum offensive gain. But, they do not represent a mastery of battle strategy.

All too often I've found my skills on the battlefield reduced because I almost never enter a battle without an overwhelming advantage. Because of this, I find that my general's skills aren't as good as my logistical capabilities. I'm an ambitious logistics officer, and nothing more.

In the Broken Crescent, and before that, in my War for Independence campaigns, I've often found myself pitted against equal or superior enemy forces, with adequate AI generals behind them. There have been times where I've lost battles that I should have won, and it's hurt my campaigns.

Boo hoo, I'm mortal, right? Well that's not good enough for me. The lives of my men, the future of my nation is at stake. I should have both the logistics of war and the battlefield skills to win every engagement, because I am on a quest for perfection. An unattainable goal such as this allows perpetual challenge and room for improvement.

Lately, I've become satisfied with my abilities as a cavalry commander. However, I am not at all pleased with my ability to command infantry. And I don't yet have much use for navies.

The point of all of this is to provide through my example ways to improve one's self. You aren't satisfied with your seige mastery? I believe I've posted many times about some of the ways you can reduce casualties in seige situations. It all boils down to some key concepts.

1. The walls. Always with the walls.

Archers and infantry on the walls can ruin your day, especially when the enemy has a lot of towers which destroy your seige equipment. Best way around this is to tear the walls down entirely. That's what artillery is for.

I'm afraid I haven't used that much during my blitz campaigns, for logistical reasons (artillery moves too slowly) but it works. Oh how it works.

Bring yourself a catapult or two, and you should do well. Anything that knocks the walls down and smashes the towers around the point of assault. But a more subtle approach also works:

2. Spies, spies, everywhere spies.

Spies open all 4 gates to your forces. This means if you have 2 or more stacks of troops, you can actually use them! Bonus if you have artillery as well.

3. The most well-defended fortress ever

So you have a full garrison citadel with maximum troops and ballistae towers? (If you have one with cannon towers, then I suggest you wait the seige out or coax the enemy to sally. Quite frankly even if you could win against a citadel armed to the teeth with cannons, it would be an awful waste of troops)

Here's the battle plan:

Bring in the specialists for this one. Lots and lots of artillery, and the anti-cavalry troops to defend them. The whole purpose of this stack is not even to win the battle, but to bring down the walls.

All you do for the entire battle is aim at the enemy gatehouses, towers, walls, and clear a path for your invasion army. Inflict as many casualties on the enemy as possible, but the first priority is to decimate the walls. What if the enemy sallies? Cause as much damage as possible, aim directly at the sallying forces, and slay their general. Now, if you lose the battle, who cares? The enemy are badly bloodied, they've lost defenses, troops, and their leader. Your artillery forces and expendable infantry are the least of your concerns.

Withdraw from the battle. The enemy "wins" this round. Immediately lay seige with your main seige army.

This army is to have some artillery, but mostly long range archers, heavy anti-infantry forces, axemen, swordsmen, anything with armour and high attack. Now.... butcher them! The enemy defenses have crumbled, for the most part. Don't worry about the walls, go forward to the city center and kill as many as you can along the way.

Use your heaviest infantry to cut a path to the central square, and rain fiery death upon the enemy who stands in their way. Slay whatever leader remains in their army to cause routing, and keep your general safe. If the battle does not go well, your troops may be tiring. Cut your losses and retreat.

Did you remember to bring a second stack? Of course you did. Assaulting the citadel of doom requires more than a division of artillery and a division of infantry. Now bring in your fresh troops. By now, the enemy is weak, tired, and nearly defenseless. March towards the city center and claim it for yourself. Cavalry, infantry, and archers should make up your final seige army. The archers attempt to draw the enemy away from the city center, and the cavalry attempts to claim it while the infantry encircles and traps the enemy.

We are trying to do this with the fewest lost lives, right?

Well the first army didn't have that many troops, it was mostly artillery and expendable weak infantry. And you should have withdrawn before they lost too many troops. The second army is supposed to either take the city center, or withdraw when the army becomes tired and takes some losses. Units can be retrained, so it's as though you didn't lose anyone. Just don't allow units to rout or be destroyed, and you can take a good 50% losses and walk away with a smile.

The final army should conquer with ease.

I suppose if you wanted to be quick, cheap, and merciless like me, you could just surround the thing with 3 stacks of troops and auto-resolve it, but then you would be wimping out on a challenge and weakening your battle skills. I myself am guilty of this, so I've resolved to change all that.

I'm starting a campaign as the Eastern Roman Empire in the Broken Crescent mod. I am going to attempt to finish the campaign without autoresolving any battles. It is an exercise in strengthening my skills as a general, and since the troops are good in the late period, there can be no excuses if I fail.

So if you're brave enough, tackle that thing which you fear the most, take on your weakest area and attempt to turn it into your greatest strength. Turn your disadvantage into an advantage, and don't back down or give up. My greatest weakness is my inability to command my troops in such a way that I sustain fewer casualties, and I auto-resolve too much. Now I am attempting to turn that completely around.

You have difficulty in seiges? Then that is your challenge. Play some custom battles. Give yourself an army of troops, your choice which ones, and assault a citadel with a huge garrison of good troops. Now win the battle. And win another. Win consistently. Win with fewer losses. Now do that on the campaign map...

Wisdom is greater than brute force.