Conquer Club

I was just thinking about zone denial. When you break an opponent's zone, do you generally leave the bulk of your troops in their zone's region or in your own?

I've noticed that when you make their former territory a choke point, it tends to provoke retaliation into your zone if they break through, however if you let them take the zone easily then they are content to regain the zone and focus more on bolstering their defenses.

Which is better, to break and retreat, or to break and hold it?

break and hold if you can

Situation dependent -

if you try to hold, be prepared for the fight to go all the way.
How important to that player is that zone? On a small map probably very. On a big map, maybe not so much.
Where's his reserve? How quickly can he call them up?
What's happening on your other borders - can you afford to commit to this one?
What do you want to gain from the situation? The whole territory, denial of bonus, a kill, distraction etc?

Oh, it sure is confusticating.

That makes sense. Context is key.

I'm just having trouble reacting to situations as specific as yours. My knee-jerk reaction is "Oh crumbs, that guy has a zone, only I can have zones!" And then I do whatever it takes to impede him while preserving my little sphere of influence.

Sperpurber wrote:That makes sense. Context is key.

I'm just having trouble reacting to situations as specific as yours. My knee-jerk reaction is "Oh crumbs, that guy has a zone, only I can have zones!" And then I do whatever it takes to impede him while preserving my little sphere of influence.

Definitely not a winning strategy. Timing, it's all timing. And reading other people. What's in their interest. Make them be puppets in your plan.

it def depends, but i like to break and retreat

xelabale wrote:

Sperpurber wrote:That makes sense. Context is key.

I'm just having trouble reacting to situations as specific as yours. My knee-jerk reaction is "Oh crumbs, that guy has a zone, only I can have zones!" And then I do whatever it takes to impede him while preserving my little sphere of influence.

Definitely not a winning strategy. Timing, it's all timing. And reading other people. What's in their interest. Make them be puppets in your plan.

I just figure that I'll pick up on this level of strategitazation as I play more games, hopefully.

For now, it's gauging who's the strongest on the table other than myself and undermining them.

Other player's have mentioned the key. Break and hold if you have the strength to put up with CONSTANT assault.

If you don't have that strength, if you don't want the fight to go to the end, break and retreat.

Break and retreat will you with many more options than breaking and holding.

There's also a third option, which is pretty useful, where you break, and retreat most of your troops, but leave 2-3 to hold that territory. You maintain a defensive advantage on your own territory, you cause the enemy to spend more troops than normal retaking the territory, but you don't provoke a war to the end (usually).

Sperpurber wrote:I was just thinking about zone denial. When you break an opponent's zone, do you generally leave the bulk of your troops in their zone's region or in your own?

It depends on what I'm trying to get out of it, to be honest. MOST of the time, I don't want them to regain it...so I try to hold. However, there are situations when I may just want to temporarily break it for one reason or another.