
If I decide instead to attack, then I stand to gain territory if I win, and if I lose I simply lose I gain a truce which lets me rebuild and lose some prestige, piety and money depending on what type of war and how badly I lose, none of which is a big loss in my eyes. Of course, I can declare holy wars and such back against them, so considering that I know they'll declare war at some point is there any benefit to waiting instead of just attacking?įrom what I can tell, if I'm on the defensive I stand to lose territory if I lose, and if I win (white peace since getting 100% warscore would probably be too difficult) I simply gain a truce for 10 years and I can't press the advantage and try to get something tangible from the victory without breaking the truce, and dismissing/regathering my armies from far away. Of course this now means I'm facing down both the HRE and the Byzantines who will both happily declare holy wars on my territory when not busy elsewhere. I started as Palermo (Shia just to be clear, only other Shia state of worth are the Fatimids) and I'm now Sicily and have all of the kingdom of sicily and a few duchies in Italy.


Is there any advantage to being the defender in a war rather than attacking? Quote from: DemonOfWrath on July 02, 2012, 10:15:07 am Hey guys, I'm currently stumped with my current game and it seems to boil down to one question.
