Blitzkrieg or steady progress?

[Macilrille]

Now you all know I like to play slow, so that is not the question here; whether to blitz the map and win by turn 50 or take it slow to get to face the enemy's hardest units.

No, I am rather curious about how you go about it when you decide to defeat a faction.

Do you:
1. Blitz them by passing their field armies to strike at their weak cities in the rear areas?

Or

2. Do a WWI steady progress where you defeat the field armies, then take the cities- certain that they cannot get relief, but taking more losses and allowing them to build new units?

I try to blitz, but often find that the siege engines needed for fast defeat of cities slow me to a crawl, so I have to fight at least some field armies. To me it is a conundrum.

You?

[dannyalex]

I was in the same problem like you ,so i start all over again a new campaign and focus to a steady economy and military power with higher\elite units only,not militia whats so ever...i choose to claim old Gondor borders at one save and in the other one try to move my entire faction into the old Arnor kingdom...so defenitelly the second choice for me

[Macilrille]

If I understand you correctly that was not exactly my question. Can you elaborate on whether you go for Blitz or WWI style when you do decide to annihilate someone?

[dannyalex]

If I understand you correctly that was not exactly my question. Can you elaborate on whether you go for Blitz or WWI style when you do decide to annihilate someone?

so defenitelly the second choice for me


and what have you done with that sub mod of Dunedain?

[dannyalex]

If I understand you correctly that was not exactly my question. Can you elaborate on whether you go for Blitz or WWI style when you do decide to annihilate someone?

...so defenitelly the second choice for me

and have you done with that sub mod of Dunedain?

[Funeh]

If I understand you correctly that was not exactly my question. Can you elaborate on whether you go for Blitz or WWI style when you do decide to annihilate someone?

i focus to a steady economy and military power with higher\elite units only,not militia whats so ever....so defenitelly the second choice for me

didnt he just said it?

[Macilrille]

I think you are getting me and Ngugi mixed up; he is the nice and friendly Swedish Loremaster. I am the nasty, arrogant and grumpy Danish one ;-)

But I believe he is working very hard on it. I have not heard much from him lately, which I ascribe to that reason, though university starts again Monday and that could take some of his attention as well.

[dannyalex]

i dont speak about the last alliance mod....

[Macilrille]

i dont speak about the last alliance mod....

No? I have nothing to do with any Dúnedain mod. Not as far as I know. I was part of the EB2 for a year or so, but that is all the modding I have done- and that is not for TATW, and I was a historian there, not a modder.



No Funeh... no...

Let me try to elaborate:
-Build up economy, infrastructure, etc = Turtling
-Fast expansion = Blitzing.

But historically Blitzkrieg, which is what I wrote, is something else.

Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war" listen (help·info)) is an anglicisedterm^{[1][2][Notes 1]} describing a method of warfare whereby an attacking force spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorized or mechanized infantry formations, and heavily backed up by close air support,^[6] forces a breakthrough into the enemy's line of defense through a series of short, fast, powerful attacks; and once in the enemy's territory, proceeds to dislocate them using speed and surprise, and then encircle them.^[7][8] Through the employment of combined arms in maneuver warfare, the blitzkrieg attempts to unbalance the enemy by making it difficult for them to respond effectively to the continuously changing front, and defeat them through a decisive Vernichtungsschlacht

As you see this is close to what what I described; moving past enemy strongpoints/field armies, to destroy his rear/cities. This method can be used after an extensive time of turtling (historically the Phony War/Sitzkrieg can be described as such) when you decide to actually attack.

And that was my question; when you decide to do in someone, what methos do you use? Do you attack the field armies and destroy them, so they do not advance on your cities or come to the aid of the cities you siege? Or do you move past them fast- taking a chance- to destroy the enemy's rear/cities?

Personally I sort of turtle for a long time, then try to do a Blitzkrieg, but find that often my armies move too slow, so I have to destroy the field armies as well.

[jpempire]

Gondor, restore ithilien secure the southern and west borders allways using ww1 style after I conquer cirith something (cant remember the name) I just blitz like german style all the armies just run down Mordor with always backup.
No orc survivors yet ...

[CatoTheYounger]

When i play as Gondor I always play to build up my economy and armories and barracks to high levels so I can afford to field armies of professional soldiers with the occasional levies with fully upgraded armor . I hold the rivers and organize my infrastructure. Yes you have to be ready for when the Dark Lord declares himself and sends waves from all the evil factions at Minis Tirith. But if you can hold the bridge at West Osgilath and the Castle and Cair Andros and protect the undeeps near Pelargir with ships you can thwart them.

I don't usually launch a Major offense until close to turn 100. By then I can afford A southern force of two armies led by Imrahil to reclaim the Old Gondorian lands south of the river and A Northern Army led By Boromir/Aragorn/Farmir to reclaim Ithilian and take the fight to Mordor.

To play the game with non upgraded levies in a mad dash to capture towns before either side can afford large or proffosenal style armies is not for me. Mordor will always outnumber you so it's more fun to me to send the best Gondor has against the masses of Moranon Guards,Uruks,Troll and NazGul And that damn troll artillery.

[Macilrille]

Again the question is misunderstood. But thanks nonetheless.

[insolent1]

Its a mix of both for me and would be dependant on which faction I play. Some factions are strong early game while others rely on the later unit rosters. Taking settlements is the best way to hurt the AI but with garrison scripts and the spawned armies that this sometimes create it can be a gamble. Destroying armies has its benifits but it also has a downside as it might allow the AI to recruit a replacement army that is better than the one you destroyed. I would say a mix is the best approach

[eugenioso]

Now you all know I like to play slow, so that is not the question here; whether to blitz the map and win by turn 50 or take it slow to get to face the enemy's hardest units.

No, I am rather curious about how you go about it when you decide to defeat a faction.

Do you:
1. Blitz them by passing their field armies to strike at their weak cities in the rear areas?

Or

2. Do a WWI steady progress where you defeat the field armies, then take the cities- certain that they cannot get relief, but taking more losses and allowing them to build new units?

I try to blitz, but often find that the siege engines needed for fast defeat of cities slow me to a crawl, so I have to fight at least some field armies. To me it is a conundrum.

You?

The problems with blitzing are that, sometimes, you will need a sizeable garrison in order to hold locations AND keep them from going rebel. Also, if blitzing, assume you will leave enemy armies behind you, ready to strike at vulnerable cities. The result is your main army getting attritioned and unable to replace losses (bar the odd mercenary unit), so the best bet is to go slow.

That is not to say that the old-as-mtw1, rtw and medieval 2 total war viking raid force is not useful though...

[CatoTheYounger]

Blitzing is not for me because I like to capture and hold. I don't like to have to recapture cities over and over. If you bypass armies in the field and rush to attack one city after another you often lose the cities behind you.

I prefer battles in the field and against Mordor I have had some epic battles where two of my stacks went up against 4 of their armies. Orcs everywhere but fun. Crush their armies on the field and advance to their cities. Secure the area and consolidate. That's the way I play. WW1 trench style is more for me. I like battle lines and borders being pushed and extended. Feels untidy to get too far ahead of yourself. And hard to reinforce.

[Taskeen]

I tried to go around taking city after city as Silven Elves, mostly because I kept getting council missions to capture things, which would reward me with more units. This went and on and until I kept getting so many free units that I went bankrupt from upkeep and I tried to keep up by invading every rebel, mordor, or orc place I could manage, but kept getting stalled trying to take holdouts of the Orcs of the Misty Mountains. Eventually I had practically every family general on one army and annihilated Moria, which still didn't help lol. Eventually -10000 income, so I have to start over...

[CatoTheYounger]

Disband units next time

[Flinn]

as per the OP

I go with a mix of the two, basically I blitz their most important economical/recruiting cities; whether I eradicate any field army or not before taking the cities, it depends on the faction I'm playing (as a general rule, cavalry/archery factions I prefer to be on attack so I kill everything before sieging, infantry factions I prefer to defend so I actually wait for field armies to attack me while I'm sieging the settlement).
Once the enemy "heartland" is in my hands I usually move to another target and use smaller armies with new generals to mop up or contain the enemy (depending on if I want to eradicate them or only taking their good settlements and disminish them).

Furthermore, usually I try to roleplay, so sometimes it depends on it (i.e. as dorfs I go for Moria before of any other settlement of the MM)

[Jmonstra]

I prefer controlled, sustainable expansion over a mad rush to the finish line. When I expand my borders I usually post sizable garrisons on the frontiers and take advantage of any forts in the area to be used as reserves for a nearby beleaguered settlement. These home defense forces are my first line of defense in the event of an enemy counter attack and can be redeployed as my borders expand to guard the new frontiers. Their job isn't to crush enemy armies (although sometimes they can), but rather to weaken and delay advancing armies. My garrisons are usually about 5-6 units in size, so the enemy can't afford to commit to a battle with one of my field armies when such a strong force is menacing their rear/flank etc, so they usually try to overwhelm the garrison which a much larger force and suffer significant losses when doing so. Afterwards my field armies can mop up the survivors with few casualties. It works out well, for the most part. It's an expensive strategy though.

As for taking to the offensive, that depends on the mod/difficulty. A VH/VH campaign using MOS for example would see me targeting enemy cities and using them as strong points to hold back the Doom Stack flood and entails a much slower advance in the end game. Shorter campaigns on reduced difficulties levels usually has me using spies to seek out enemy armies for destruction since victories in the field are much more meaningful.

[Turtler]

I find the OP to be a bit of a loaded question, to say the least. Especially given the way he phrases it, with the latter "naturally" being assumed to take more losses than the former. Which if anything is not what I agree with at all. If anything, I find I take far fewer losses when I've built up elite/professional armies and the resources to support them than I do when I try and militia stomp the enemy while they're still getting ready. And that's not because I totally suck with militia; I've curbstomped my way through National Revolutions for Napoleon (artificial professional enemy troops for the wiiin...) and have even taken on playing as the Aztecs and rebels on occasion (the former of which is currently storming Iberia and the Middle East), and am considering trying to win the American Revolution campaign for Empire using only Minutemen (for reasons that are complicated to explain).

It's because a well equipped, well balanced, well trained force is something I find is always preferable to just churning out whatever you can ASAP. And I believe the OP's phrasing of the quesiton indicates a highly damaging slant on that (no disrespect, that's just the ibe I get).

On top of that, I don't think either really suits my usual/preferred style.

While a looot of things depend on the mod, the scenario, the faction I'm playing, or the like I usually prefer doing a combination. I guess the way the OP would say is that I would lean towards 2, but it involves a systematic, constant buildup-and-advance throughout. Whenever I have an option, I dedicate the first few turns to building up both what buildings/infrastructure I can to improve my position and unlock the "higher levels" of the initial tiers, and at least one (and more likely a few) stack(s) of high quality (for the early game) combined arms troops (again, for what I can get in the early game) with siege equipment. The basic army stack in my concept is a combined arms, modular, and hopefully independent command that *should be able* to operate as an independent task force. Think of it like a Kampfgruppe, if we are talking about Blitzkrieg analogies.

The ideal is that one of these can open up a new front all by itself if it has to.

Once I do *that*, I go foreward and start launching offensives on my first targets (often all the enemy provinces I border, though not usually in this mod). Most of the time I don't even wait for 100% stack strength(s), much less eons for more advancements. Usually, the latecoming reinforcements can trail along behind the front army and catch up to it (especially as the front army usually gets slowed down wiping out enemy armies, knocking over enemy strongholds, etc, and the fact that they have siege artillery).

So like that, I press on as much as I can, crushing the enemy's field armies and moving to siege/storm their front line/frontier strongpoints. I almost *always* attack and try to bowl them over in the first turn to wipe out that force. At which point I can pause a bit, split off weakened units to recover and/or hold down the fort with some other troops, accept fresh reinforcements, and then continue on at that pace to the next target(s) on a path towards the enemy's areas. Whether or not that involves them traversing the enemy's rear areas or bypassing them is moot. I will upgrade my army and turn out obsolete units as frequently as possible when I get the chance.

Truth be told for all the blitzkrieg romanticism, I don't see the rear areas (as defined by their settlements) as being very weak (if anything a lot of them can be very strong), and I don't see any particular value to having an army dedicated to operating far behind enemy lines 99% of the time. And in particular, I don't see Medieval II's engine (or most of the TW engines in general but this in particular) rewarding it. Almost all of the time, the risks of having your own lines penetrated and enemy raiders running amok in the rear are onesided and never really manifested by the AI having that problem. And unlike real life, some games, or even TWs since Empire and 1648 you can't really fantastically screw with somebody just by being on their rear roads. Almost everything is centered around their fortresses, so bypassing a fortress is rarely if ever worth it and when it is it's certainly not because they get debuffs from raiding the turnly sword caravan.

The main facilities you can capture or destroy to really screw with them are their strongpoints (cities, castles, forts, etc). And those you can get by just attacking them as you progress along your campaign. So I find it is just better to make a campaign plan that will take you to the enemy's most valuable provinces. Then pursue it with a powerful force, a methodical approach, quick-but-steady pace, and secure rear lines and areas.

If need be, I can and will couple that with defensive operations, like holding Osgiliath or other choke points with a "rock" that can withstand vastly superior attacks and even gradually counterattack to break through when the enemy's weakened enough while my other armies are accomplishing other objectives. Or maneuvering around to collapse the enemy's flanks. All in all, massaging the tech curve because it should be my friend, and being methodical in my campaigning but without giving the enemy time to maneuver or catch its' breath (or as you said, recruit that many more units). Especially since I'll be knocking over their strongpoints ASAP to limit their recruiting.

There are a few exceptions to the approach I mention, mostly for the quantity over quality factions. For those, bloodying your militia in aggressive, early, and possibly unglamorous attacks on enemy strong points can be worth it because the offensive is at a premium. If you are really desperate and not particularly skilled it might be worth it to even throw expendable armies into losing battles just to inflict losses on the better but fewer enemy. Why? Because a longer game is to your detriment because as time goes on you will get weaker in relation to your enemies unless you actively start cutting them down and never let them recover or catch their breath.

Even then a lot of the philosophy is the same (independent, strong stacks, early assaults, constant pushing, how I maneuver), but the value of your time is far more and the value of any individual army is far less. Which is why I usually do go on the attack ASAP with evil factions in this mod and keep it up as much as I can, accepting casualties I'd be far less willing to have normally just to get ahead of the enemy's tech curve. Which again, I'll be pre-empting by knocking over their strong-points so they can't have a nice time to recruit and build up their bases.

Obviously, to each their own and I hope we all enjoy. I just hope this has been somewhat interesting to read.