Best provinces?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I note that whenever I take certain provinces, I realize that I have dealt a severe blow to whichever faction owned them (especially in the early era).

Which provinces are a priority to be taken?

I find that taking either capital in the British Isles usually spells doom for that particular faction. They are the greatest money-maker of that faction and taking it deals nearly insurmountable damage to that faction.

Given that England has two castles right from the start, Nottingham or Caen are good strategic priorities, but taking either of those provinces is not entirely crippling for England. They can lose those castles and still hit back. But London is the heart... when London bridge falls down, the empire comes tumbling after.

Scotland simply has no other target. You could take their capital, raze it, and move on, and never hear from Scotland again for another 40 turns. If Scotland ever moves their military two turns distance from their capital, they can be instafragged with a simple seige n' raze.

The Danes... Obvious weak point would be Arhus, But I find that if someone takes Stockholm or Oslo, they not only strip major trading ports from the capital of Denmark, but also gain strategic footholds into Denmark which can severely distract them, as they are typically focused on the southern frontier.
Also, Arhus doesnt make tremendous amounts of money until it has something to trade with and grows some more. So, taking Arhus isn't that devastating. Stripping Scandanavia is how you weaken the Danes.

Poland's economy is so weak that taking their capital ensures they just lost the war. Russia, on the other hand, can take several hits, assuming they relocate further east. Russia has nine lives... no one province is the end of Russia.

The HRE... if you can take Vienna, you have a backdoor into all of the HRE's weak points, and you take their main source of income as well, the mines.

From Vienna, you can launch an assault into Prague and then west towards Frankfurt... a devastating path. Or, you can take their castles and divide their empire in half. Or you can slip down into Venice, cripple Venice, and then finish off Bologna and invade Milan as well... which is a nice triple play.

Vienna is a key strategic city. It must, must, must be held.

France, on the other hand, has a good economy and starting territory. Even after taking Paris and Rheims (which is fairly devastating if you raze them) they have a large enough military, florin reserve, and array of castles to continue to resist until the last man is dead. France is often difficult to beat.

I would suggest the best route into France would be Marseilles/Bordeaux. Take southern France to cripple their trade routes and demolish their recruitment facilities, and then play in the woods and avoid their main forces. Sneak a spy into Paris and smash it in a single turn... bye bye France.

Spain is over when Toledo falls. Spain requires Toledo's recruitment ability and it provides a highway into any of their other important holdings.

For Portugal, their capital is their weak point. They are like Scotland and Milan... once they go wandering off, they are a quick, quick death.

Sicily's early economy is too weak to withstand the fall of Naples. None of the provinces within Sicily's striking distance is worth relocating their capital to.

Milan cannot recover if either of their early cities is razed. Milan becomes a sitting duck once they move their army out of range to begin a conquest mission. A spy sneaks in, and a single stack wipes them out. No more relevant resistance by Milan. Milan may seem formidable once they do expand, but taking either of their starting provinces ensures death.

Venice can survive losing their capital... but if they cannot retake it quickly, they become somewhat irrelevant, especially if an assault into Serbia is successful and they haven't taken HRE or Byzantine territory. The trouble with Venice is that they can migrate all over the map.

Hungary is over once you take Vienna. If you take Vienna, you have the finances and the pathway into their capital, which in turn provides the finances and the pathway into any of their other relevant provinces.

Losing Constantinople spells death for the Byzantines, obviously. But if they lose their Turkish provinces, they must face the Catholics, which are much more of a problem than the Turks. If the Byzantines are pushed out of Turkey, their expansion becomes stunted, and they must play a defensive game. However, I also find that an even more crippling blow is taking Greece by storm, seiging their westernmost provinces and taking both of them at once. Such a blow will expose their entire empire from all directions. If Byzantium can hold Greece and Turkey, and patrol the seas, Byzantium is safe. (My favorite Turtle faction...)

He who takes Iconium or Antioch will be the enemy of the Turks.

The Egyptians are pretty much done if you take Jerusalem and Acre. This divides and contains their empire, making even a war of attrition manageable.

The Moors die easily... anyone can destroy them. A crusade into Cordoba means the end of them, especially when followed up by blocking the 'bridge' to africa.

=====================

That pretty much covers offensive targets. If you want to deal a long term, early game blow to any faction, aim at those cities.

Overall best strategic province:

Vienna. Anyone who can control this province will severely weaken Venice, the HRE, Hungary, and by extension, Poland. This province pays for itself and THENSOME. Not only can it single-handedly defend itself with a stack-o-basic-militia, but it can afford one too. Next, throw in one offensive stack, and you have a double stack ready to pounce in any direction, threatening the four most lethal eastern european powers.

If you can capitalize on Vienna's mines, then Venice, Bologna, Hungary, Prague, and the castles of the HRE become your next prime targets. If you can expand from there, you solidify yourself as a major power. It all flows from Vienna.

Once the HRE or Hungary falls, Venice will as well... creating a very large vaccuum for any expansionist to fill and snag 3 major empires and add it to theirs. Once this is accomplished, Milan, Sicily, France, Denmark, Poland, and Greece become threatened. The dominoes begin to fall, and all of Europe from Constantinople to the French quarter becomes your domain, and you can defend against Muslim incursions, the western powers, assassinate the Pope, train a spy network, convert the most important region of the map to your chosen faith, and you have the power to push into France and control the West. Sicily, Spain, England, and Denmark combined will not have the power to challenge you.

If the HRE becomes excommunicated, aim a crusade at Vienna, and send every single general you can muster with as many mercs as you can afford. If you are Muslim, you have other priorities... but send an Iman quietly towards Vienna and later, call a Jihad.

Got Orthodox troubles? Send your bishop towards Vienna and make it your home. Turn Vienna into your conversion/priest recruitment center and you will begin to severely weaken the Catholics and turn the balance of power towards the east.

He who controls Vienna controls the world.

=====================

Toledo is the strategic target for the Iberian game.

southern France should be the target for the Scot/English game.

Vienna is the target for all of the rest of Europe, followed by Northern Italy.

Constantinople/Antioch/Jerusalem for the Muslim/Byz/Hungarian game.

Bran for Poland or Russia, followed by an incursion into Constantinople or Vienna.

=================

Obviously after the early game, cities become far more important than castles. You only need a single castle, or a few.

In which case, the most upgraded trade city becomes the strategic goal, as well as any Fortress or Citadel, if purely for sacking and pillaging.

Late game, any province becomes crucial to tip the balance of power.

[Hoplite7]

I would disagree with Vienna being the most important province. I think a citadel on the island of Sicily is best. It is smack dab in the center of the world, so those after a world-conquest will use it for most campaigns. Training units constantly leads to guilds, which improve troops leaving the island's quality. You establish a very high-quality troop factory, that can ship armies anywhere a boat can reach.

I never considered the economic settlements to be most important. Damaging the AI economy, in my opinion, has very little effect on VH. Russia has a crap economy and still keeps those giant armies deep up north. That's just my opinion though, based on my campaigns.

Great guide though, I agreed with everything else.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I would disagree with Vienna being the most important province. I think a citadel on the island of Sicily is best. It is smack dab in the center of the world, so those after a world-conquest will use it for most campaigns. Training units constantly leads to guilds, which improve troops leaving the island's quality. You establish a very high-quality troop factory, that can ship armies anywhere a boat can reach.

I never considered the economic settlements to be most important. Damaging the AI economy, in my opinion, has very little effect on VH. Russia has a crap economy and still keeps those giant armies deep up north. That's just my opinion though, based on my campaigns.

Great guide though, I agreed with everything else.

I don't consider Sicily to be of major importance. For once, the faction of Sicily rarely becomes a major threat, due to the isolated and worthless provinces surrounding it. Unless Sicily marches directly North, it is of little concern, and even if it did, that means war with HRE, Milan, Venice, and anyone else vying for power in Italy.

The province of Sicily itself is rather nice, but the fall of Sicily does not mean death for the Sicilians. Indeed Naples is the major money maker, and Sicily ends up getting several other castles for relatively little effort. Sicily is only worth taking for the pillaging florins, IMHO.

What is within striking distance of Sicily?

Algeria, Tunis, Corsica, Sardinia, Naples (which Sicily already owns) Durazzo and the Greek Isles. Nothing that interesting or Earth-shattering. And as I said before, a march North into Milan, Genoa, Venice, or Bologna means war with the superior powers of Italy, something Sicily can't really afford from the very start, being exposed to the Moors, Spanish, and Byzantines.

Sicily is a nice province, but is of little overall strategic value. It is easily overlooked.

Bern, Magdeburg/Hamburg, Bran, and others are far better strategic Fortresses/citadels. Even Nottingham is a better castle because it not only has forests surrounding it, an island for protection, but can also actively support campaigns against the English, Scottish, French, Danes, or the HRE.

Sicily is not the center of the strategic world. Although the open seas provide a highway around the meditteranean, pirates, rival navies, the cost of building navies, and the lack of immediately adjacent provinces makes Sicily rather isolated and weak.

Although this province may in fact be used by the player effectively, the ease of converting this one province into a powerhouse does not necessarily turn the balance of power. For one, Italy's best military units come from their militia. So Sicily's rivals would not really capitalize on taking a castle from Sicily. Naples is far more attractive as an Italian province, and single-handedly shuts down Sicily's economy.

If I captured Sicily, I would keep it for it's recruitment capabilities. But it's distance from meaningful strategic settlements, and it's low priority on the capture list means that by the time I take Sicily, I don't need another low-income province.

Sicily does better as a city. Convert it and let Corsica be your citadel... Corsica is worthless anyway. Or take Bologna and convert that into a castle... far more effective, as it is within striking distance of every Italian power, and can easily wage war against HRE, Venice, Milan, Papal States, France, and Byzantium (just as easily, if not more so, than Sicily can. At least Bologna has a land route with valuable provinces to conquer along the way. A castle in Bologna allows all the other Italian provinces to fall, which are MAJOR money makers.

Sicily itself needs to be a trading port... which means it needs a city conversion. It's strategic value is economic, not military. Except in the early part of Sicily's campaign, but only for recruitment purposes.

I consider Vienna, Prague, Krakow, Budapest, Frankfurt, and Zagreb(gold) to be far more valuable than little Sicily, and if you are looking for strategic military provinces, Bran is useless economically and already has mountains and a fortress, with good prospects for destroying Poland, Hungary, Byzantium, Venice, and by extension, Russia.

The Sicilian province simply does not affect balance of power enough... not even for the Sicilians. It's valuable as a trading port, but it's also not earth-shattering to lose. Naples is the key to cripplin Sicilians.

Just more of my

===============

As far as damaging your opponent's economy, that doesn't negate troops on the field that they have already recruited.

Example: France. You can destroy 90% of France and find 3 full stacks waiting in ambush for you.

Russia's troops are the cheapest in the game to train and recruit. Give them time to build their economy, and they can churn out many, many stacks. Destroying their economy then is only a long-term solution. You need a short-term one for dealing with their immediate military.

Imagine if someone destroyed every major city in the United States. The US military would still be at nearly full strength. Major command centers are in remote locations. It would destroy the USA long-term, but for the immediate war, it would only make us very, very mad and initiate a carpet bombing/nuclear war. Destroying the economy would not win the war outright, especially when money is borrowed from allies and the troops are still eager to fight. That is similar to destroying the economy in M2TW, it does not stop resistance.

So, destroying the economy will not yield you immediate results. But taking away 10,000 florins of income per turn for any faction and then razing what used to be their economic center... that will absolutely destroy them long term.

Over time, those 10,000 florins per turn add up to hundreds of thousands, a massive debt, and deficit spending to fund current military. If you decimate their standing armies at that point, there is no such thing as meaningful recovery.

[predaturd]

agre with most of them

also vienna is the geographical centre of europe so it is the best province even after the HRE has been dealt with

[Askthepizzaguy]

agre with most of them

also vienna is the geographical centre of europe so it is the best province even after the HRE has been dealt with

A good spot to relocate your capital.

[Ramses II CP]

I would say that I usually treat Antioch as the most valuable province in the game. It's often the target of the first crusade which gives you the Pope points advantage, it's a high priority Mongol/Timurid target, it's highly defensible in itself, surrounded by castles, and it's one of the richest provinces in the world.

Strategic terrain concerns are negligible IMHO; unlike in the first MTW your armies can access any province from anywhere at the same essential movement rate, so even chokepoint control is of minimal use as it requires you to spread out the forces which, if concentrated, could likely destroy any attack the AI could muster.

Also, on the matter of capitals, I find I more often manipulate my capital to produce maximum revenue early in the game than to produce maximum loyalty late in the game. I'd rather have a capital that increases the value of holding spices even if it means reducing taxes in Dublin.

It's really all a matter of your priorities, though. I can see points in the favor of a lot of possible provinces.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I would say that I usually treat Antioch as the most valuable province in the game. It's often the target of the first crusade which gives you the Pope points advantage, it's a high priority Mongol/Timurid target, it's highly defensible in itself, surrounded by castles, and it's one of the richest provinces in the world.

Strategic terrain concerns are negligible IMHO; unlike in the first MTW your armies can access any province from anywhere at the same essential movement rate, so even chokepoint control is of minimal use as it requires you to spread out the forces which, if concentrated, could likely destroy any attack the AI could muster.

Also, on the matter of capitals, I find I more often manipulate my capital to produce maximum revenue early in the game than to produce maximum loyalty late in the game. I'd rather have a capital that increases the value of holding spices even if it means reducing taxes in Dublin.

It's really all a matter of your priorities, though. I can see points in the favor of a lot of possible provinces.

I consider Antioch to be a crucial province in the Muslim lands, but since it is usually rebel-held and neither the Turks nor the Egyptians would miss it, it's not quite the most important.

Iconium really holds more weight for the Turks, as the trade items in Antioch are relatively useless to the eastern factions.

Jerusalem cuts off Egypt's expansion or divides their empire. A more useful target.

But yes, Antioch is a nice bloated province which, if employed with western merchants, becomes a trade capital. Agreed on most points.

[Robespierre]

Vienna's a bit far east for the euro-capital. Bern would be more central but a big city like frankfurt or Paris or Milan would derive much greater benefit from the status. it will depend on how you think of Europe. for me, it stops along the rivers which are the natural eastern borders of Poland (or The Empire, in my campaign!) out on those windswept steppe-marches and dark eastern forests, its all castles anyway.

on the other hand Bucharest and Constantinople are such good towns that perhaps you do have a point.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Hence the debate tag for this thread... lol.

It's all debateable. Venice makes an excellent capital as well, far better than Rome or France.

[Hoplite7]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't consider Sicily to be of major importance. For once, the faction of Sicily rarely becomes a major threat, due to the isolated and worthless provinces surrounding it. Unless Sicily marches directly North, it is of little concern, and even if it did, that means war with HRE, Milan, Venice, and anyone else vying for power in Italy.

The province of Sicily itself is rather nice, but the fall of Sicily does not mean death for the Sicilians. Indeed Naples is the major money maker, and Sicily ends up getting several other castles for relatively little effort. Sicily is only worth taking for the pillaging florins, IMHO.

What is within striking distance of Sicily?

Algeria, Tunis, Corsica, Sardinia, Naples (which Sicily already owns) Durazzo and the Greek Isles. Nothing that interesting or Earth-shattering. And as I said before, a march North into Milan, Genoa, Venice, or Bologna means war with the superior powers of Italy, something Sicily can't really afford from the very start, being exposed to the Moors, Spanish, and Byzantines.

Sicily is a nice province, but is of little overall strategic value. It is easily overlooked.

Bern, Magdeburg/Hamburg, Bran, and others are far better strategic Fortresses/citadels. Even Nottingham is a better castle because it not only has forests surrounding it, an island for protection, but can also actively support campaigns against the English, Scottish, French, Danes, or the HRE.

Sicily is not the center of the strategic world. Although the open seas provide a highway around the meditteranean, pirates, rival navies, the cost of building navies, and the lack of immediately adjacent provinces makes Sicily rather isolated and weak.

Although this province may in fact be used by the player effectively, the ease of converting this one province into a powerhouse does not necessarily turn the balance of power. For one, Italy's best military units come from their militia. So Sicily's rivals would not really capitalize on taking a castle from Sicily. Naples is far more attractive as an Italian province, and single-handedly shuts down Sicily's economy.

If I captured Sicily, I would keep it for it's recruitment capabilities. But it's distance from meaningful strategic settlements, and it's low priority on the capture list means that by the time I take Sicily, I don't need another low-income province.

Sicily does better as a city. Convert it and let Corsica be your citadel... Corsica is worthless anyway. Or take Bologna and convert that into a castle... far more effective, as it is within striking distance of every Italian power, and can easily wage war against HRE, Venice, Milan, Papal States, France, and Byzantium (just as easily, if not more so, than Sicily can. At least Bologna has a land route with valuable provinces to conquer along the way. A castle in Bologna allows all the other Italian provinces to fall, which are MAJOR money makers.

Sicily itself needs to be a trading port... which means it needs a city conversion. It's strategic value is economic, not military. Except in the early part of Sicily's campaign, but only for recruitment purposes.

I consider Vienna, Prague, Krakow, Budapest, Frankfurt, and Zagreb(gold) to be far more valuable than little Sicily, and if you are looking for strategic military provinces, Bran is useless economically and already has mountains and a fortress, with good prospects for destroying Poland, Hungary, Byzantium, Venice, and by extension, Russia.

The Sicilian province simply does not affect balance of power enough... not even for the Sicilians. It's valuable as a trading port, but it's also not earth-shattering to lose. Naples is the key to cripplin Sicilians.

Just more of my

Well it would seem we have very different playing styles! (Either that or I'm a noob! )

I'm heavily navy-oriented, so I've made excellent use of the fortress-island in my campaigns. But I see what you are saying about navies, many people consider them very unimportant. (Especially since they cost a ton and have to autobalance battles, which the AI has the big advantage on VH)

I'm also more used to the Mediterranean/Middle East conquest. I've only played a large European campaign twice (England/Danes) and Europe is often an afterthought because of the large Middle-East empire. I'm currently playing a Hungary campaign however, and Vienna is a true cash cow. Probably 1/4 of my income comes from there. (I bet HRE regrets keeping a one card garrison!)

However I am also in a Byzantine campaign, making excellent use of Sicily as a troop factory. So I'll see which town wins, although I still suspect Sicily.

[Paradox]

I think the most important provinces in the eastern Muslim factions are Antioch, Acre, and Jerusalem. It is Acre that connects to Jerusalem, I think this is the province that is essential when you want to prevent Egypt's expansion. Just for historical accuracy, the first few crusades should involve Acre and Jerusalem.

[Guru]

Nobody has mentioned Helsinki? Since it didnt even exist by then, it's logical that it can't be even conquered...
What was the question again... What's the best province? Ehmm.. The best in what way? The best place for the capital of your Empire? Or the province that is the most important for a faction, the province whose losing would cripple its (ex-)owners most? Or perhaps it's the city with most beautiful women.. Or the one with the widest streets? Naturally it would often be the capital, regardless of the faction. Unless it's about those beautiful women.
I'd say the best province is Constantinople. It's pretty rich a city and it's the port between west and east. It was the center of the Medieval world, wasn't it?

[Paradox]

This is talking about the game, so the provinces that have a lot of influence on the map, generate good income, etc.

[Guru]

I'm sure you got my point though, I know this is a game forum...
What are the criteria for the best province and in what priority order? Money-making, for example, highly depends on the develepment of the city. The smallest villages can become cash-cows while they are quite insignificant in early game. In my current game, Novgorod is probably the trade capital of the world...
I'd say none of the provinces hold global importance. Local importance, yes. But locally very important Vienna doesn't interest the Moors, for example. For them locally important Timbuktu is of more interest. Which is the best place for your capital? Of course it depends where your empire is...
Hey, I'm just trying to debate, it was that debate tag which invited me here. It's a bit like asking "whats the best city in the world?" What kind of answers can you expect lol!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Yeah we see your point Guru. Or at least I do and I started the thread.

Yeah Vienna doesn't do a whole lot if you're the Moors or the Egyptians. But I believe that every other major empire, including the Turks, will eventually trapse through Vienna. Kind of like the Orange properties in Monopoly, or Illinois avenue, or B and O railroad. People are going to be landing on these spaces, and so it makes sense to own them.

If every major empire in the world will probably end up taking Vienna as part of their 45 provinces, it's value in mining and trade is rather high no matter what faction owns it, it's location is on the border of three major empires and next to a fourth, and if you own all provinces it ranks amongst the most profitable empire capitals, and is a major money maker even at the very beginning of the game due to mining, chances are it's going to rank pretty high on the overall most important provinces, barring the Moors and the Egyptians of course.

I am willing to bet even Scotland and Russia end up taking Vienna.

[Robespierre]

Hold That Thought, Askthepizzaguy!

clearly none can dispute that the most strategically important settlement on the map is (rrrrrollofdrrrrrums) Caernarvon.
once a faction controls this place, who can predict where the next blow may fall? once the explorers guild is completed, long-range-operations can be launched, even as far as the New World that will always have the advantage of surprise.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Hold That Thought, Askthepizzaguy!

clearly none can dispute that the most strategically important settlement on the map is (rrrrrollofdrrrrrums) Caernarvon.
once a faction controls this place, who can predict where the next blow may fall? once the explorers guild is completed, long-range-operations can be launched, even as far as the New World that will always have the advantage of surprise.

If you mean to imply with sarcasm that it is impossible to objectively determine a settlement's value in this game, then I refer you to the following objective facts:

Not all settlements have excellent trade resources or can build mines.

Not all settlements begin with a valuable base population.

Some settlements are far too remote to be worth any money to most nations.

Some settlements have zero strategic value, such as the one west of Timbuktu, the one south of Cairo, and the ones on the far northeast steppes.

Some settlements take far too long to be built up to any meaningful level (Helsinki) that makes them pretty much worthless for the most important part of the game, the beginning and middle. Long term strategy will never, ever revolve around them.

This is so true that you yourself know this, as revealed by your not-altogether-arbitrary selection of Caervarnon as an example of your failed point. By selecting Caernarvon, you explicitly argued that any arbitrary province can be valuable, but by selecting Caernarvon to highlight that point, you tacitly acknowledge that some provinces are indeed worth more than others, hence the irony is that you disproved your own thesis with your own sarcasm.

______________

The key to winning a debate is allowing your opponent to defeat himself.

[Philbert]

Pizza, is that just an elaborate way to say that you get his joke?

[Paradox]

Look at his sig.

Anyway, I don't think he was being sarcastic.

[PseRamesses]

In the northern part of the map Stockholm is a must. London is also a trade hub. I´ve always been very sucessful with Cordoba too. Venice is a gem. Constantinople is a true cash-cow and Antioch is always a shure bet.

[Grog]

Vienna made a good capital in my current HRE game. Near enough to the middle east to cut the 'distance from capital' penalty, without hammering trade income from constantinople eastwards/southwards. Strong income from early game if you run shortest path mine/economy upgrades, I had a high chiv governor with mining knowledge sit in Vienna early to mid game to get it cooking.. (he did go completely mad towards the end, but was still pulling 7k a turn..)

I tend to like 'pairs' or cores of territories as favorites. Ie: antwerp + bruge make a great trade hub, are close enough to reinforce each other with infantry same turn, and make fairly whacky florins from mid game.

Antioch + a middle east castle makes a great base for taking the holy lands with an early crusade as mentioned above, plus if you get over early enough there are a lot of rebel areas to snag.

Innsbruck and Bern kept as castles are a great pairing for overseeing the rhine heartlands to the North and the cities of north italy. (I tend to keep a high castle ratio..I like castles!)

Hmm what else? I have fond memories of Sofia playing as byzantine. What a great castle to man the northwest frontier, all that lovely plain to crush hapless militias and clunking infantry armies on with your wild horse armies as they march in from western europe.

In all though, I'd say my favorite province is Antioch. Strong city, can be cathdralled as a catholic in fairly short order, excellent trade area. Good hotspot for conflict from turn one until the timirids are finished. What more do you want?

[Robespierre]

sorry, I was tired last night. Clearly location, base pop, resources and trade do differ between provinces and on the basis of these Caernarvon is just not the best settlement on the map.. in fact its not as good as Venice, or even Vienna. you are quite right.
Venice. it controls the Transalpine routes. in the early middle ages, it was the only city with a decent postal service (read "Sailing to Sarantium"?)besiegers have trouble escaping due to it being on a small island. of course if i i want to hold this powerbase against a hostile world i will have to take Vienna. then to make Vienna secure it will be neccessary to destroy the poles, hungarians, and HRE. Its called escalation.
Caernarvon is a great launching-pad for long distance ops those, and piracy and commando raids.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

sorry, I was tired last night. Clearly location, base pop, resources and trade do differ between provinces and on the basis of these Caernarvon is just not the best settlement on the map.. in fact its not as good as Venice, or even Vienna. you are quite right.
Venice. it controls the Transalpine routes. in the early middle ages, it was the only city with a decent postal service (read "Sailing to Sarantium"?)besiegers have trouble escaping due to it being on a small island. of course if i i want to hold this powerbase against a hostile world i will have to take Vienna. then to make Vienna secure it will be neccessary to destroy the poles, hungarians, and HRE. Its called escalation.
Caernarvon is a great launching-pad for long distance ops those, and piracy and commando raids.

Forgive my harsh analysis of your post, but I did smell a whiff of sarcasm, and I also felt objectively speaking you hadn't really thought through your response enough, which further led me to believe you were being sarcastic.

I am not good at suffering sarcasm, as it is often a placeholder for real intellectual discussion. If I was in error I apologize.

[Old Geezer]

Hoplite7's choice of Sicily's citadel being the most strategic spot has much merit. It is rather like a turntable at a rail switching yard. It is, of course, of little use if you are not an aggressive player. If you are a blitzer (und nicht ein Donner) then once you take Sicily then you know that "you got 'em by the short hairs." If you start out as Sicily you should be aware that you are already in a mop-up campaign, unless you are three sheets to the wind and playing a game of scrabble and watching the unsupperbowl and eating nachos at the same time . If the map were centered on the Middle East, then Jerusalem/Antioch would be the most strategic area.
Sicily is important because it is always a high level fortress from which you can transport troops almost anywhere quickly. It dominates sea lanes. (It serves as Malta did the British in WWII.) You can launch a crusade from there and be to the Levant before anyone else. You can raid the entire Med. from there. You can quickly ship merchants to lucrative spots before they die of old age. It is easily defended. You can strike out in any direction and you don't have to maintain a large army at home as you do if Vienna, Milan, Paris, or Venice is your capital. I can't think of a better location to explain to a beginner what a "strategic location means".

[Robespierre]

but I did smell a whiff of sarcasm

I'd call it Irony since it is not meant to harm, and i take no offence

[Voivode of Romania]

True.
If you can capture Bucharest early in the game, it has a very high population increase (I had it up to 7.5% early in the game with Hungary). Since its population will rise so quickly, it is faster to upgrade the city. It will not take long for Bucharest to become a Huge City. It may or may not be the capital of your empire. So in the long term Bucharest is a must wether if its to boast your high population or for economic reasons.

[Fisherking]

Vienna is not that Strategically located of a city. It is two turns or more to any other city and land locked.
It may be a cash cow but that does not make it strategic.

Constantinople stands at the crossroads of east and west and controls the crossing points. That is strategic!
Any of the Italian Cities are more strigic than Vienna. Being central is not that big of an advantage.

Land locked settlements, unless they hold key choke points, just don’t rise to the level of great strategic importance.

Vienna can be bypassed north and south, east and west and not be terribly missed. It is not a thorn in your side not to control it. Dijon is much more important strigicly than Vienna because it makes it hard to go from Marseille to Paris.

What Vienna does have is lots of borders and some one already strong can use it as a staging point to move outward. It is rather supplementary or an enhancement to ones position but otherwise it is not as strategic as those provinces it borders.

I would even say that the inverse is true. It is difficult to hold Vienna without holding some of those provinces around it or have massive armies holding it. The whole of eastern central Europe is rather uninspiring to me strategically. Unless you start there you don’t need to go there to win the game. It is much easier to move along the coastal provinces bypassing and isolating some areas and concentrating on mobility and sea trade.

The HRE, Poland, and Hungary are the ones who must slug it out there and only the HRE and maybe Hungary is hurt by not having it.

I have not made up my mind about whether there is a “BEST” Province or not, but it ain’t Vienna.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Vienna is not that Strategically located of a city. It is two turns or more to any other city and land locked.
It may be a cash cow but that does not make it strategic.

Constantinople stands at the crossroads of east and west and controls the crossing points. That is strategic!
Any of the Italian Cities are more strigic than Vienna. Being central is not that big of an advantage.

Land locked settlements, unless they hold key choke points, just don’t rise to the level of great strategic importance.

Vienna can be bypassed north and south, east and west and not be terribly missed. It is not a thorn in your side not to control it. Dijon is much more important strigicly than Vienna because it makes it hard to go from Marseille to Paris.

What Vienna does have is lots of borders and some one already strong can use it as a staging point to move outward. It is rather supplementary or an enhancement to ones position but otherwise it is not as strategic as those provinces it borders.

I would even say that the inverse is true. It is difficult to hold Vienna without holding some of those provinces around it or have massive armies holding it. The whole of eastern central Europe is rather uninspiring to me strategically. Unless you start there you don’t need to go there to win the game. It is much easier to move along the coastal provinces bypassing and isolating some areas and concentrating on mobility and sea trade.

The HRE, Poland, and Hungary are the ones who must slug it out there and only the HRE and maybe Hungary is hurt by not having it.

I have not made up my mind about whether there is a “BEST” Province or not, but it ain’t Vienna.

Firstly, we are talking about provinces on the whole, not just the cities themselves. Dijon isn't worth taking if not for it's borders. Therefore you yourself have already included that as criteria.

Second, although there are other cities which are potentially greater in income (Constantinople for one, Italian cities for another) I can think of few cash cows which can build mines from turn one and are already strongly developed, and sitting on the border of three major empires.

If you do not consider land locked provinces to be of major importance merely because they are land locked, let's look at some provinces which are not land locked and are virtually meaningless.

Cagliari and Sardinia, for one and two. I don't think I've ever made a real effort to take these provinces unless I was Sicily, Milan, or conquering all 108 provinces. Technically, Dongola is not landlocked, seeing as it has a port which reaches Cairo and Jedda. But I think we can all agree it's virtually worthless, even IF it has excellent trade resources. You CAN completely overlook it.

But if we are saying for the criteria of most strategically important provinces, if one does not conceivably need to capture it, therefore it is not important, that is a poor criterion. Rome itself, a massive city very strategically located, in the middle of the world connected to just about every major trade power in the meditteranean, obviously can be easily missed, and in fact MUST be missed for most factions because taking it from the Pope is usually more trouble than it is worth. It's more valuable to give it back to the Pope if someone else takes it, just for reputation and papal points.

So if your playing style involves taking only mediterranean port provinces, obviously you couldn't ever care about Vienna. However, most factions, such as Scotland, England, France, Denmark, HRE, Poland, Hungary, Russia, Byzantium, Milan, Venice, and several others, will most likely end up taking Vienna as part of their 45 provinces, and it's starting value is quite high, it's mining worth is even higher, it can defend itself very well with even only militia, which it can afford all on it's own, making it self-sufficient, and it borders 3 major European powers in a highly deadly location. (attacking the HRE from that vector is often fatal, attacking Hungary from that direction usually ensures the loss of their greatest city and Capital, attacking Venice from that direction allows you to take not only their gold mines, their strategic castle, but also Venice itself, crippling all 3 major powers from a single starting point.)

Given all of those points, and the fact that other than Venice itself (less strategic in my view, because there is only one way in or out and is often isolated) there is probably no greater capital city in the world once all provinces are taken, and it's value to so many different factions, I rank it the highest value province, given all the campaigns I have played.

Now, the highest value? That's very much debateable, I agree. But I have yet to see a single argument which proves otherwise. Unless you are arguing merely for a Muslim faction, or perhaps Portugal or Spain, Vienna's value is intractable.

So perhaps, from a minority point of view, Vienna can be overlooked. But from an "all faction" standpoint, as well as an economic and military one, Vienna is valuable more than any other I've encountered, with several close runner-ups.

Feel free to disagree, of course. But so far I've seen no evidence another province contains all of these positive points, or more.



Thank you for your rebuttal, however. I appreciate the debate.

[Cheetah]

Vienna is a cash-cow and very easy to defend. One bridge to the north, a few mountain path to the west, closed from the east. The only open side it to the south. Thus it makes an ideal border province from an invader coming from the south. Which means any italian factions, byz, egypt, etc. So whenever I play these factions I try to take Vienna as my chechkpoint in central Europe.

Also, when I pick provinces I have two major criteria: (i) obviosly how much income can I get? (ii) How easy is it to defend? I am not much worried about crippling the AI given that the AI is already much crippled ....

Based on these criteria Vienna is one of the best cities.
Here is a list of some other cities that I always try to grab:
- Zagreb (makes a good pair with Vienna)
- North Italian cities obviously (Venice, Milan, Genova, Florence, Bologne), if I cannot get all 5 at once, which is rare, I might settle with 3: Venice, Florence, Bologne, these can be defended with 1 stack (though Venice needs specail attention because of the bridge).
- Thessalonica (another cash-cow)
- Constantinople
- Antioch

If you have all these cities then you have practically won the game.

Somehow I am not too eager to grab Jerusalem.

Not necessary but it wont hurt to get the following two for gold and ivory:
- Timbuktu
- Dongola

[Fisherking]

Vienna is a cash-cow and very easy to defend. One bridge to the north, a few mountain path to the west, closed from the east. The only open side it to the south. Thus it makes an ideal border province from an invader coming from the south. Which means any italian factions, byz, egypt, etc. So whenever I play these factions I try to take Vienna as my chechkpoint in central Europe.

Also, when I pick provinces I have two major criteria: (i) obviosly how much income can I get? (ii) How easy is it to defend? I am not much worried about crippling the AI given that the AI is already much crippled ....

Based on these criteria Vienna is one of the best cities.
Here is a list of some other cities that I always try to grab:
- Zagreb (makes a good pair with Vienna)
- North Italian cities obviously (Venice, Milan, Genova, Florence, Bologne), if I cannot get all 5 at once, which is rare, I might settle with 3: Venice, Florence, Bologne, these can be defended with 1 stack (though Venice needs specail attention because of the bridge).
- Thessalonica (another cash-cow)
- Constantinople
- Antioch

If you have all these cities then you have practically won the game.

Somehow I am not too eager to grab Jerusalem.

Not necessary but it wont hurt to get the following two for gold and ivory:
- Timbuktu
- Dongola

Vienna is open in a couple or three places on the east and has two southern routes in. The north and west can be out flanked.

- Thessalonica (another cash-cow)
- Constantinople
- Antioch
great cities, T town is my fav...

@Pizzaguy:

From an all faction standpoint then it is Jerusalem, because everyone needs it except the HRE. But realistically it is not that hard to get. It is hard to hold on to though.

Vienna still is not that important. I have taken it in most of my games but it has seldom been a goal unless it is to wipe out the HRE.

I would say that Hamburg is more important than Vienna and starts strong and has mines…also a potential port. It has easy access to other provinces and it is difficult to hold those provinces if you are at war with the owner of Hamburg. It is a priority or at least a milestone location, once you’ve got it.

As to the province of Greater Austria, if you will, Vienna is poorly placed in its ability to exert control over the boundaries. Armies there can effect the bridge to its west but little else. That same bridge is as easily held against you from the other side. A strong enemy can roam at will about the area and rebels are hard to track down or even see without many watchtowers.

Budapest is much better situated and equally positioned, perhaps even better, than is Vienna and is of greater strategic importance, though still it can be overlooked. Vienna to me is just another objective after (insert location here).

As the Hungarians it does block western expansion and is an early objective, but even the Poles can do without it if the HRE is not too belligerent. To say that it is necessary to hold in any game is just a bit of a stretch for me.

I am sure our playing styles differ, obviously, I find uses for the islands in the Med and leapfrog south and east. I would rather reach Thessalonica by a southern route than get bogged down and slowed by bad roads and snow for those few provinces in central Europe. If you are going to have rebels and or heretics that is exactly where you will find them…almost every turn, to the point where it makes the area more trouble than it is worth.

I play pretty expansionist by the way, but I don’t blitz. I choose my units and work heavy on economy in the beginning. But I do my best to keep up the expansion in a sustained and supportable manor. Maybe a little more role playing.

Sure, if I am playing as HRE, I am there. But if I don’t have to be there I leave it alone. It only takes 45 provinces and one has to be Jerusalem. That is on the sea and quickly reached by sea. The provinces in Turkey are secure once you move through by the way. There are only a few ways in, unlike central Europe, and defensible choke points. There are more ways into Austria alone then there are in all of Turkey.

To me there are just so many places more worthwhile than Vienna, mines or not.