AGEOD Forums

There is no RoP sub forum for strategy so I apologize for posting here. At first, as Prussia, I began targeting objective cities but soon found that I was spending months in siege while Austrian armies ran about. I wonder, is it better to target the cities or to target the Armies and gain Vps through destruction?

I think so on a normal way just because I do not see a lot of breaches on Fortresses; and also because of supplies problems: when you are stuck in an area for several turns, you can easily be isolated.

So my conclusion is:First defeat enemy armies, then besiege cities. MN is a part of surrender routine, so big victories leads to loss of MN for your opponent, so more chances to surrender when besieged (better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick :thumbsup

I always try to target enemy armies... ALWAYS.
I will even loose strategic cities to gain some time and then be able to "trap" some enemy armies inside when I come back to retake them.

Generalisimo wrote:I always try to target enemy armies... ALWAYS.
I will even loose strategic cities to gain some time and then be able to "trap" some enemy armies inside when I come back to retake them.

This is good against a human opponend, but for the AI it is better to go after strategic objectives as the AI simply has too many stacks to target them all if you are playing as Prussia.

Carnium wrote:This is good against a human opponend, but for the AI it is better to go after strategic objectives as the AI simply has too many stacks to target them all if you are playing as Prussia.

.. then you take them out one by one... sooner or later, you will win...

IMO, this issue is very closely related to the question of besieged forces surrendering quickly in another thread.

My understanding is that 18th cent strategy revolved around maneuver and the taking of fortified towns by systematic siege because the defensive technology of the Vauban-style fortress was superior to any available offensive technology.

If in the game fortresses are as formidable as they were in real life, players will naturally gravitate toward the same strategy solutions as the actual commanders - the weaker force will refuse battle by withdrawing into or behind a line of fortresses.

Occasionally, as in a few cases in real life, a commander will succeed in out-manuevering his opponent and forcing a battle despite the enemy's fortress-screen.

Typically though, as in real life, a commander seeking to destroy the enemy field force will be forced to dismantle the fortress-screen by systematic siege before he can advance against the enemy field force.

The reason 18th century warfare was dominated by siege-craft wasn't because the commanders didn't appreciate the value of seeking to destroy the enemy's field forces - it was because they didn't have a choice, given the relative advantage of the defensive over the offensive.

If the game makes fortresses much weaker than they were in real life, the players will be freed from this reality of 18th c. warfare, seeking decisive combat will happen far more frequently than it should, and the game will seem much more like a 19th c. simulation than the Age of Frederick.

If fortresses in game resemble their real-life role, then mjw's original question will largely be settled by the same considerations which dictated actual 18th c. operations - players will usually have to target the cities before they can target the armies.

squarian wrote:IMO, this issue is very closely related to the question of besieged forces surrendering quickly in another thread.

So far I think fortresses are working nicely in RoP. In my current game I've spent an entire season besieging Königsberg (, I had three strong Infantry- and one Cossack-Columns in the area, part of my force has now started to withdraw to St. Petersburg, the rest will try to winter out at Memel and at a Depot I built). Another army of mine spent much of the season besieging Münster and Lippstadt, the later is likely to fall before Winter (2 breaches, at the first opportunity I will storm), the other will have to wait for the next year. Another Army is besieging Kassel with an enemy Column locked inside and a relief Army approaching, I will almost certainly have to break of this siege as well. On the other hand yet another Army successfully won the siege of Königsggratz after many months. The Prussians for their part have been besieging Troppau for months now, once even creating a breach...

So sieges in RoP are tough affairs, even if you have well organised forces (with siege artillery, regular artillery, engineers, good supply). Sieges will also decide the outcome of the game as you will have to overcome those hurdles to your lines of supply and communications...

Forcing the enemy to battle is of course also important (you can't really sustain a siege if the enemy risks attacking into your rear, separating you from your supply source), if you can destroy an enemy army fine, if you can send it off till next season also good, but don't risk your forces in a pitched battle (unless something big depends on it, like my attempt to prevent the Saxon surrender (retaining that Saxon Column is a great boon worth risking a beating)...

caranorn wrote:So far I think fortresses are working nicely in RoP.

I'm glad to hear it - I've been through one campaign so far, mostly under 1.01e, and I admit I saw a few worryingly quick sieges. Sounds like you've seen a much more normal pattern of fortresses holding out while the parallels are dug, batteries emplaced and breaches opened - as it should be.

you can't really sustain a siege if the enemy risks attacking into your rear, separating you from your supply source

That pretty much summarizes 90% of the field battles in this era - so if you're fighting battles either to maintain your siege or relieve your fortress, the game is working the way it should.

I'm waiting (impatiently!) on the next patch to see for myself.

squarian wrote:IMO, this issue is very closely related to the question of besieged forces surrendering quickly in another thread.

My understanding is that 18th cent strategy revolved around maneuver and the taking of fortified towns by systematic siege because the defensive technology of the Vauban-style fortress was superior to any available offensive technology.

If in the game fortresses are as formidable as they were in real life, players will naturally gravitate toward the same strategy solutions as the actual commanders - the weaker force will refuse battle by withdrawing into or behind a line of fortresses.

Occasionally, as in a few cases in real life, a commander will succeed in out-manuevering his opponent and forcing a battle despite the enemy's fortress-screen.

Typically though, as in real life, a commander seeking to destroy the enemy field force will be forced to dismantle the fortress-screen by systematic siege before he can advance against the enemy field force.

The reason 18th century warfare was dominated by siege-craft wasn't because the commanders didn't appreciate the value of seeking to destroy the enemy's field forces - it was because they didn't have a choice, given the relative advantage of the defensive over the offensive.

If the game makes fortresses much weaker than they were in real life, the players will be freed from this reality of 18th c. warfare, seeking decisive combat will happen far more frequently than it should, and the game will seem much more like a 19th c. simulation than the Age of Frederick.

If fortresses in game resemble their real-life role, then mjw's original question will largely be settled by the same considerations which dictated actual 18th c. operations - players will usually have to target the cities before they can target the armies.

I really do not understand how this contradicts what I have said.
When you want to take out enemy armies, you must do that carefully... sometimes, that involves a siege, sometimes it involves breaking an enemy siege... or whatever.
What I was saying is, if I had the opportunity to fight around Dresden with an Austrian Army... or take Prag because it was left ungarded... the answer for me is obvious, I will try to do the utmost to win the battle in Dresden... later I can take Prag if the opportunity arises again.

I think that was the main question of the first post... if you prioritize preparing to fight major armies, or going for major strategic cities.... I will do the first one.... because, as you can read, the first one leads directly to the second one in the long run...

Also, about how sieges work in ROP... I have stormed many fortresses already, and my experience was sometimes frustrating... I had to cancel the siege because of the winter many more times than I wanted. So, i guess you can be happy about that...
I am not complaining about this... it was frustrating because I wanted to win and the siege failing prevented that

squarian wrote:I'm glad to hear it - I've been through one campaign so far, mostly under 1.01e, and I admit I saw a few worryingly quick sieges. Sounds like you've seen a much more normal pattern of fortresses holding out while the parallels are dug, batteries emplaced and breaches opened - as it should be.

There are a lot of factors that are involved during a siege (siege equipment, cohesion, NM, etc).
If you bring your siege equipment in full force, and the enemy is not prepared to defend himself from that... they will probably loose, and quite quickly.
The thing is, if both sides do their part... you can be sure that sieges will not be quick nor easy.

Generalisimo wrote:I really do not understand how this contradicts what I have said.

I don't believe it does - or was intended to.

My point is just that in a way, the question is moot - if the game represents 18th c. warfare well, the question of targeting armies vs. fortresses should be settled for you: the fortress will be necessary to get at the army.

Generalisimo wrote:There are a lot of factors that are involved during a siege (siege equipment, cohesion, NM, etc).
If you bring your siege equipment in full force, and the enemy is not prepared to defend himself from that... they will probably loose, and quite quickly.
The thing is, if both sides do their part... you can be sure that sieges will not be quick nor easy.

Sure - I'm not worried about exceptional circumstances, like an improperly garrisoned and provisioned fortress or some unexpected event like a moronic commander, magazine explosion, epidemic, or whatever - all of those things could happen and shift the odds away from the normal expectation.

I'm only concerned that the game represent the norm in normal circumstances: a well-provisioned Vauban fortress, barring sheer idiocy, treachery or horribly bad luck, should pose a very serious obstacle.

squarian wrote:I don't believe it does - or was intended to.

My point is just that in a way, the question is moot - if the game represents 18th c. warfare well, the question of targeting armies vs. fortresses should be settled for you: the fortress will be necessary to get at the army.

Ah, much better now. Then yes... we agree.

But I think that the one that started this thread was asking how to focus his strategy between these two options:
a) To go for Strategic Cities: doesn't matter if there are enemy forces around or inside the structure. Storm the fortress to get the NM and VP gain. Position your armies and prepare your strategy to take the key cities on the ledger. Highest VP, higher importance.
b) To go for enemy Main Armies: focus your strategy on the enemies armies... to crush them to ashes ASAP. If they are heading to Dresden, you go to Dresden, even if that means you will not take the unguarded Koenigsberg in the next turn. You focus on taking out the enemies armies to get the VP & NM from there.

I was saying I go for option 2... this is different from what you were saying... it is more or less, "the way you play the game"...

I just finished the short campaign 1762-'63 (as Prussia, a good next step after the saxon campaign: fairly short, leaving out the Swedes and no russian front).

I went for the objectives. I attacked Kassel, Saxony and the silesian border fortresses. Athena offered battle at each of them, with significant forces. At the same time she exploited gaps in the frontline (especially in my the center) striking deep, eventually besieging Magdeburg, Braunschweig, Hannover, Frankfurt Oder, Berlin...
I achieved my initial objectives, while Athenas spread out forces, battling my armies and campaigning in my rear, in many cases achieved little. Yet, with all here forces in my rear I basically had to stop most offensive operations and had to use significant forces to heard all them kittens in my rear. At the end I got no further step forward and Athena was besieging Bremen and Stade

Long story short, you can siege fortresses and Athena might offer you battle with significant forces, making (a) look like a viable strategy. But if you allow here at the same time to get into your rear, even if she achieves little, after some initial success it will cost you significant time, effort and resources to catch all here roaming troops and secure your rear. And that might prevent you from making any more progress to achieve your actual objectives...

So with that sample of one stalemate with option (a) I currently lean more toward (b)
(but I had also some 'sub-optimal' battles, losing two corps, that definatly have affected the result; so this is not my final judgement against (a) )

caranorn wrote:... Another army of mine spent much of the season besieging Münster and Lippstadt, the later is likely to fall before Winter (2 breaches, at the first opportunity I will storm), ...

You can already give the order to storm if you need just one more breach. The check for the next breach is done at the begining of the turn and if successful, your troops will storm the fortress that very same turn. And no need to hesitate, Athena does the same

Except if there is a relieve force underway that you might want to meet with a defensive stance...

WhoCares wrote:You can already give the order to storm if you need just one more breach. The check for the next breach is done at the begining of the turn and if successful, your troops will storm the fortress that very same turn. And no need to hesitate, Athena does the same

Except if there is a relieve force underway that you might want to meet with a defensive stance...

Nah, the problem was that my column in Lippstadt was inactive that turn, the following one I did indeed storm at carry that place...

On the other hand the Prussians did manage to relieve Kassel. I'd already decided I could not win the siege before winter, but as I saw their relief force arrive I decided to stay put for another turn, thinking my force would prevail. Two pitched battles occurred where I took the greater casualties but they retreated. Then I decided to finally withdraw from an unsustainable situation, the Prussians pursuied and my two columns got a bit more battered. Finally their retreat was covered by a third, fresh column arriving from France...

I'm seing really fun situations in the game right now. My Hanovrian campaign with three strong French columns I'd deem a minor victory (won battle, failure to take Münster but successes at Wesel and Lippstadt). My Hessian campaign a minor defeat (recaptured positions taken by the Hessians early in the year, but failed to take Kassel and all three of my original columns battered (few lost elements, but many losses among the hard to replace German troops). Pommeranian campaign a stalemate (Swedes firmly positionned after initial setbacks). Major victory in Saxony (almost all of that state recovered in one season, several significant battles, though none decisive). Bohemia/Silesia, minor victory (all territorial losses recovered, though Tropau has just been breached by the Prussians in Winter and one of my columns will have to leave winter quarters to relieve that fortress). East Prussia, major defeat, various reserve forces mauled in Saint Petersburg before the Prussians were ejected to Kurland, Memel captured but Königsberg siege failed and Army withdrawing back to Russia with probable casualties due to winter. 1758 should become an interesting year :-D ...