Your opponent has a big army on your border; it's tempting to try to punch through it and wipe it out. It sure seems like such an approach would increase your security! But, in fact, that's rarely true. If you can attack your opponent on a front where you'll face fewer of his or her armies, you're likely better off doing that.

The logic behind this is simple. First of all, by taking a strategic territory, you can cost your opponent armies over the long term -- if you knock them down to a lower multiple of three territories, they'll lose one production, and, if you plan really well, then you can knock them out of a continent. That will cost them armies this turn and next turn, too.

The best part is that, next turn, your enemy will have to reply by first putting their house back in order, then attacking you. That might involve breaking up that big concentration, to defend a larger border, or weakening it by using it in attacks. Even if the large army isn't broken up, it's unlikely to get larger while the broken border is being restored.

And, best of all, by attacking the weaker border, you've kept your armies intact, preserving a wider range of options in the future.

Of course, if you can deal a crushing blow by destroying a large army and taking and holding a strategic territory, then do it. The indirect approach is only the best when you both have hammers of about the same size; if your hammer is larger, then bring it down on your enemy's head and smite them mightily.