When I play Byzantium (hard/early) I like to try to hold on to Naples. I like the challenge. I cut their taxes to the bone and if they survive the first rebellion, I build a fort and spears and try to hold on until I can get my fleets up and running.
But I'm beginning to think this is a strategic mistake. It has nothing to do with wasting resources but by holding Naples I stand right in the way of the Sicilians who eventually attack.
I began this game as usual. I bribed the Kahzars, took Serbia, and then went after the Turks. All went well until the Sicilians crossed the straits of Messina and my noble, neglected outpost fell to their swords.
But, even though i was the defender most of the western powers sided against me. Italy, in fact, invaded Serbia by sea shortly after and though I slaughtered him I'm now faced with the two majoir sea powers aligned against me. It makes trading difficult.
I usually like to take on Egypt next and pay for the war with an expanding trade empire. Now I'll have to suck up to those crass barbarians to get some peace and trade.
I knew holding Naples wasn't cost effective but now I see it puts a major drain on income by delaying trade with the central med.
------------------
He moves, you move first.
[This message has been edited by DojoRat (edited 10-10-2002).]
Bookmarks