Blitzing vs Prudent

[macsen rufus]

I guess I'm prudent in that I never START a war, and I'm doing Turk Late GA right now, so I've gone really slowly on conquest in favour of trade and development. I also try to avoid "game" loopholes that seem unrealistic, so don't do too much mobbing with agents. But bribery is good when you have the cash... I had William Wallace subduing Scotland for the English, once!

Rebels are just asking for it, but allies I respect until they stab me in the back. I keep borders strong, so anyone who goes for me will exhaust themselves on assaults, lose influence, collapse into civil war - THEN I counter attack, and keep some territory for the effort. Most of my disasters, both tactically and strategically, have been due to overstretching my forces or resources, so I try to resist the temptation.

But once the conditions for attack are met, then blitzkrieg and pillage, certainly.

[Marquis de Said]

I like to play GA, but will also conquer additional land that is strategically/economically feasible, especially if a back-stabbing neighbour attacks me first. I often like to take on little colonies here and there, then lose them when they it gets too difficult to hold onto them.

In my current Turkish campaign, I conquered all of the steppes, up to Novgorod and Livonia, then "managed" to lose them all, first to the Horde and later to their successors, the Rebels. Now all the steppe provinces have at least a castle and more developed infrastructure than Spain, Central Europe, Italy or North Africa
As someone already mentioned, little rampages with Muslims are always fun, because you can later follow them up with Jihads.