Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
8 Posts

Kingmaker» Forums » Strategy

Subject: Area Control-is it worth it? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Scolari
United States
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So I have been thinking about possible strategies with this game and one that I was thinking about is to grab a royal heir and then take your armies and concentrate in one area of the board using your armies to take as many towns and castles as possible. Now from what I understand, people do something similar, they get their heir and then go to where they have a bunch of castles and extra troops and start the turtle. However what I am wondering is what happens if you do this and then take additional towns and castles. Aside from gaining votes, does it give you additional defensive and in some cases offensive advantages The way I see it:
The Advantage
-If you take towns, you gain Parliament support.
-You give yourself a large defensive area which either deters enemey attacks(as it is too risky to siege every town and castle to get to you and risk losing nobles)
-or if the enemey is stronger than you are, it gives you time to run away and possibly time to ally. If you control enough castles and towns, you can seriously impede enemy movement so that you can easily move around in your area multiple spaces keeping your distance while the enemy is forced to move one or two spaces and then be stopped by a castle or town controlled by you.
-Gives you an area to sally forth from when opportunity come knocking without leaving you too exposed.

The Disadvantages
-To take said castles and towns means you risk losing nobles which means you could find you and your heir suddenly very exposed in your "safe zone"
-If your noble is king or your nobles have offices or titles that get called away, your defensive zone could be rendered useless when they are called across the map
-Take resources away from destroying other armies and killing other heirs

So what does everyone think.

Oh and we'd be using advanced rules and several of the variant cards (Gales at Sea, Refugee, traitor, vacillating nobles, French mercenaries etc...)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave Dawn
United States
Monroe
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My two cents - not worth it. The risk of losing important nobles is too high.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Timothy Sullivan
United States
Glen Carbon
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you hit all of the main points (based upon my experience). To me the biggest downside is the risk of losing a noble in battle.

I think you did leave out one advantage, though. If you take a town or home castle away from another player, the other player's noble will be forced to remain outside of the castle when responding to a raid or revolt. This gives you an opportunity to either force a battle (which would be useful if your forces outnumber the noble, but not by enough to do a seige) or to ambush the noble (if your forces are outnumbered).

Every now and then someone in our group (often me, out of boredom) tries this strategy. I rarely see it pan out as hoped, and a majority of the time he ends up losing a noble and grumbling "what was I thinking?" for the next hour. shake
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Waldron-Blain
Canada
Edmonton
Alberta
flag msg tools
mb
I think you are overstating the benefits.

Conquest is only really important in the early game where you need to get royals and claim roads. Except on roads, castles and towns don't do anything to slow your opponent down, and you risk losing far more votes through noble death than you can get by capturing towns.

If you are very evenly matched in parliament, I can understand trying to knock over a few of your opponent's holds. I actually really wish the game did more to encourage this by making it more rewarding than it is.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Winter
United States
Newcastle
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
Not worth it at all, IMO. No matter how strongly you fortify, eventually an event card or Parliament is going to call an important noble to a vulnerable location far from his base, where he'll be jumped and killed. KM is about controlling Power, not Territory.

Steve
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Smith
Canada
Coquitlam
B.C.
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
There are times when I'm turtling when I have done this. I tend to use minor nobles to do the fight, so I don't care if I lose one. Capturing the towns is standard - you get the common's votes. If there are just a couple royal castles, I'll snap them up if they are owned by the enemy faction. Not worth it if they are neutral.

I don't bother with noble's castles - usually I WANT them to teleport into my area.

Note that I play with the advanced rules, so the risk is not so high for the stronger force. I would NEVER try this with the basic rules.

Warm regards, Rick.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Finseth
United States
San Luis Obispo
California
flag msg tools
A fantastic university for studying...
badge
SPACE!!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find that if you use the are-control tactic you likely get cornered into a region by opponents who grow in strength, and who can easily use ships to go very close to you. You're also at greater risk of having nobles killed by bad dice, and if you stay too long in a city or whatever you're holed up in, you face an increased chance of getting hit by a plague.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Beeler
Canada
Sarnia
ON
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
The Main and only real Advantage
-If you take towns, you gain Parliament support.

If you use the faction noble card York or Lancaster loaded up to 200 troops you do not risk any death in battle.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.