Prioritizing strategic targets

**Zim** · 06-11-2008, 00:24

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.

**Dead Guy** · 06-11-2008, 07:57

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.

**rossahh** · 06-12-2008, 13:21

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:

**Old Geezer** · 06-12-2008, 17:20

Because any idiot can use an hammer.

**Martok** · 06-12-2008, 17:36

Maybe, but smashing things is fun.

Not that I don't enjoy playing intelligently, but admittedly there's something to be said for just bulldozing your way through sometimes.

**PracticalEnglish** · 06-15-2008, 01:13

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.

**PBI** · 06-15-2008, 08:57

Welcome to the Org, PracticalEnglish.

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.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 06-16-2008, 10:42

Originally Posted by Martok

Maybe, but smashing things is fun.

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....

**Yaropolk** · 06-16-2008, 17:06

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.