Blitzing vs Prudent

**Saracen_Warrior** · 12-14-2004, 02:11

Do you guys like to be try and take over the world in the shortest time possible or go nice and slow so slow no one thinks anyting till they realize you control all of europe. I like to expand to a healthy size tech up then wait till I get a good king then use him to lead my armies so i feel like Alexander the great or sumtin and try and conquer the world with one king. Ill alos use other generals and armies, but my king will play central role and ill always use him in the death blow to a faction. Its also fun if i can get my king to kill antoehr king, although that hard to do. I can do it once maybe twice a game.

and i realized my screen name is saracen not saharan. i wanted saharan, but that ok saracen is cool too.

**Simovek** · 12-14-2004, 02:15

I play really slow but it always seems I never have enough armies to really go and conquer. I usually only have 2 or 3 stacks

**Sir Price** · 12-14-2004, 05:48

It depends, I don't like to backstab my allies for no reason, so if all my neighbours are friendly, I'll sit tight and develop my provinces. Maybe that's because I play GA, but sooner or later someone's gonna attack you anyway, and then it's on. My last campaign (Danes, GA) I actually did nothing for the last 50+ years, just so I could see what happened when the game ended with me having the most points. Not to exciting.

Bottom line: I usually play slow, but conquer in bursts, when someone violates my territory.

**Saracen_Warrior** · 12-14-2004, 06:08

I try and respect my allies. BUt i figure if they dont ahve many troops on my borders they dont respect me as a miltary power and thats an insult so that gives me a good enough reason to attack them. Or one time the sicilians were trading with everyone but me. Huh, think your too good to trade with me. I sent about 40 syrian assasins over. I was able to assasinate a bunch of em, but they had a million heirs. I still had to invade them. Then i figured the world would like to bow down to me so i took over the rest of europe. That was agood egyptian campagn on normal so it wasnt very hard, but still fun, because I assasinated a lot of people. That was suprisingly fun. I got rid of the horde, the spanish, and the hungarians just with assasins. Now thats too easy so i dont do that.

**derF** · 12-14-2004, 11:53

I start off slowly and keep military activity to a zero. This will give the opportunity to 1) See who my friends are, 2) Build a strong economy.

When ive identified my enemies, i build sufficient armies and deploy them on the frontier. When reinforcements are at a suitable level, i push forward and move the frontier.

This method takes a long time because i need to constantly reinforce my armies with the EXACT troops i want. But that time is used productively by settling the locals and setting the right religion and all that stuff.

**Ash** · 12-14-2004, 12:34

Maybe its because I always play civilizations which are forced into conflict, but generally I attack someone within 5 years in Early.

As the English (my favourite civ), it's simply impossible to stay at piece with France (and later HRE, Aragon, Spain/Alamohads).
In one of my first games ever I did try to respect my allies and even allied myself with the French. They didn't attack me for some reason and I ended up with a small kingdom completely being pwned by the Alamohads who steamrolled over Europe.

I came to the conclusion that respecting alliances is pointless since the AI doesn't respect them either. And that you need to conquer a sizeble territory before concentrating on building.
Otherwise the AI will use you as a doormat.
So it's blitzing as much as possible, only stopping once you get a sizeble empire with which to work with.