MTW DEADLY SINS

[gollum]

Hi,
these are in my opinion these gameplay elements that are allowed by the game engine and yet they are absolute game breakers, cheats and cheeky to the extreme for the SP part of the game.

In no particular order;

1. Manual Pillaging.
This is very common especially among new SP players. They often concentrate their armies into superstacks that invade AI core territories one by one and once they get them they raise them to the ground. Somebody i know calls it *shopping* and literally his whole economic approach in the game is based on this strategy. Once i was watching him play, and i wished i could take the AI factions and repay him the coin, but i was rewarded from the many crushing defeats he suffered (until i finally informed him that his faction leader, a coward, is better left at home).

The interesting thing is that in the original STW, not MI, you couldnt manually pillage neither disband units, just like the AI, making the game play in a much more equal footing. Many times players cite that STW was most challenging due to the totality of the roster being useful (no redundant units like in MTW), but it had a lot to do with campaign parameters as well; manual pillaging, disbanding were not an option setting the AI and player in an equal footing, ports and other investments were expensive and time consuming, and there was no optimisation of taxation - even if it was only your newly conquered province that was having low loyalty, you had to drop the taxes of the whole domain (a nice feature that reflected the uniformity of policy). In this way you could not optimise the economy (and the AI couldnt either).

Manual pillaging should be frowned from main hall dwellers as it is a number one challenging campaign killer - the AI cannot repay you with the same coin.

2. Systematic Prisoner Execution - Ransom refusal.
Well perhaps some would disagree with the argument that *experienced players massacre prisoners so that the AI can get new troops over a long game*, but this partly benefits the AI. In reality, the AI factions would take ages to remake the lost men and anyone knows that if you want to take them over quickly it is best to kill prisoners. The player tends to have a constant flow of produced units so actually refusing prisoners in many cases is a benefit.

The thing however is that the AI does not have this choice - he will always offer the prisoners back, and buy his back.

Main hall dwellers should role play their campaings and hence keep the massacre prisoners option for special occasions like crusades/jihads or a particularly hated enemy ruler that disrespectfully betrayed a treaty etc and should always offer the prisoners back as well as buying their men back when they are in the green.

3. Mercenaries
Mercenaries are a nice gameplay element and yet, to be honest if used at will especially at the opening phase, they can simply win the player the campaign in a flash (i reach 60% victory this way well before the Mongols arrive). Only cautioned/flavored mercenary use can benefit a campaign and even that is a considerable advantage that only the player enjoys we have to remember. Say, buying billmen and militia seargents as the Byzantine to deal with the Mongols takes out from the challenge.

Main hall dwellers should avoid mercenary use as much as possible, ideally comletely.

4. Disbanding
Disbanding is a function that gives unmatched flexibility to the player - has the era changed and you get new spears and menatarms? Disband to get the new ones. Have you not making profits because of the large garrisons you have been building? Disband to make economic way. Needless to say that the AI is stuck with the men he builds and he often has as the only tool war for getting rid of them and the maintenance costs that go with them. Again in the original STW, the player like the AI could not disband, placing things on an equal footing and bringing strategic choices to the fore. Back then you had to actually estimate how much border troops you needed and if your estimates were wrong you had to pay the price ie fall on the red, much like the AI.

This is all the more true with ships in MTW - in many cases ships become the stone that literally chokes AI factions after they lose their trade function. The player on the other hand can simply disband them, which literally makes the difference between life and death, game wise.

Main hall dwellers should frown on disbanding and stick to the situation that their choices bring instead of using means not available to their opponents.

What other such *sins*, others have noticed?

!it burnsus!

[PershsNhpios]

I thought I was guilty of all 4 for a moment, but then I made these arguments for myself at least;

(A fine thread Gollum),

1. I pillage every now and then, when I need the cash. Especially I tend to enjoy destroying economic centers if I am a backwards Kingdom and wish to bring higher powers to my level.
But I do not assault specifically for this purpose, nor do I engage in pillaging for the money, nor do I choose to pillage often - because for the first 150 years I want all that infrastructure intact for my own use! Every building destroyed is a grief for my invading army!
Especially if a Citadel is lost!
The only time I pillage is when, as I have stated in other threads, I am playing Overlord and wish to reduce a neighbour whom I deem overly-ambitious. But by this stage I am the superpower in my region, I could destroy easily the neigbour in question, and I hardly need the money. This then for me is an option that adds to my freedom of play and control in the later stage of the game, not a sin.

2. Perhaps I am simply lucky, or hallucinating! But my AI often refuses to buy prisoners, and has sometimes denied me the chance to ransom my own men! Indeed, the screen simply never appears! I lost a King in that manner once!
I kill prisoners in the roleplaying manner you mentioned. In my recent Aragonese campaign I was lenient, until the Arabs did a particularly nasty deed and I slaughtered 1200 prisoners as retribution.
Usually I won't consider it if there are more than 400 - but it depends on the nationality of the prisoners, and also the attitude of my King - (I roleplay for the AAR!).
Nonetheless, as you mention there are disadvantages for both mercy and cold-blooded murder.

With the use of mercy, one receives money and can in fact witness civil war within the enemy, but also returns a considerable part of their military to them at times. When one is cold-blooded, the general starts on a road to moral loss within the army, he is denied ransom money, the chance of starting a civil-war, and also he frees the enemy revenue for the maintainence of new troops.
I captured 800 English as the Scots in one game - they were outdated, scattered units.
Had I kept them alive, they would have outnumbered other English units and ensured continued financial loss and poor quality of the English army. Instead I gave them a chance to produce some new Chivalric units with +3 armour.
There are circumstance fair for both decisions, and the AI is given the same choice apparently.

3. In the same way the random conduct of the game has never shown you how the AI can choose with it's prisoners, and never shown me how Volga-Bulgaria can take more than 2 provinces, I also have never seen particularly worthy mercenaries for hire.
They have always been Naptha Catapults, Mangonels, or mounted crossbowmen for twice the currency they deserve.
I always manage more economically in all cases without them.

4. In my recent Aragonese campaign I had 7 1500 man Feudal armies when the year came to 1205.
I did not disband, because then my main defense line would have been weakened.
Instead I used my income to create one Chivalric army, I moved that to Tolouse, and the Feudal army in Tolouse was sent against the Holy Roman Empire.
I disband units only when, for example; I have lost all but five units of a certain brave cavalry group, and I send a fresh unit to them, merging the two, and deleting the remaining five recruits. It makes things very tidy.
I often assist the AI, by destroying scattered eight-man units when they become my prisoners.


There are no doubt many players who do abuse parts of the game, there always are, and they enjoy it still.
But I always play with a realistic style, and I take things very literally whilst in the game!

----

But one cheat I certainly am guilty of using, for the sake of my interest in the political developments of the world is .matteosartori. especially in writing up an AAR! It can be so ruinous of suspense at times, when there are four provinces of a faction you are targeting invisible to you - and you simply cannot know their true troop strength!
Then you say to yourself; "Well, I will just peek at how the English crusade is advancing in Nicaea".
And before you can stop yourself, you are there, peering into Ile de France or Novgorod, right-clicking every unit in sight and calculating the exact numbers of all your rivals in man-power.
It can be very destructive of the difficulty one faces, and it never allows the player to witness those circumstances when they think; "What?! Poland has just been at war with Kiev for the last fifteen years? And they won - although they lost most of their military in the process? That 1400 man stack they had in Brandenburg was everything they could muster? But now they have rebuilt?! Oh!! Fooey!!"
Instead you can guiltily plan everything with a terrible advantage.

Yes! After typing this, from now on - I will use .matteosartori. but I will also have my view centered on the Mediterranean and only gaze at the minimap. That will satisfy my wish to know the world-wide events, and also keep me in doubt as to the decision of striking my neighbours.

A good topic, Gollum, I will pay attention to advice offered - although I am already quite fair and forgiving with the AI - I am very human in fact!

[gollum]

Hi,
matteosartori does not count, all the more for writing AARs incidentaly you can add the -ian mode in your MTW shortcut and simply press g for god mode. Saves you the typing time. You can even check AI faction progress and economics by pressing the keyboards numbers, in order to change faction. Save game before youdo so though cause otherwise you might not be able to return in your faction.

You can also add -green_generals that makes all generals and not only heirs die and their stats deteriorate over time instead of staying the same.

!it burnsus!

[caravel]

A fine thread indeed and agreed with all the above as that's pretty much exactly how I play the game.

I would add:

5. Dismounts
The AI cannot dismount his Chivalric Knights to CFK so the player doing this is something of an exploit. The player can check what he's up against, shuffle his reinforcements around and then dismount as necessary. The AI does not have the option to dismount it's units. The FFK and CFK the solution is a bit of modding to make them available in the main campaign and the removal of all dismounts. I've seen some mods that use dismounts to change one unit type to another before battle (the dismounts function does exactly this so with a bit of simple modding you can dismount peasants to spearmen if you wish), this is pointless simply because the AI cannot make use of it. The player should simply never use dismounts to ensure a fair battle.

6. Jihad spamming
The player can direct Jihads as a lethal weapon and influence exploit at the enemy. Simply build as many jihad markers as you can. Invade a province, let it rebel and then launch all of your jihads at it. The result is maximum influence for your faction leader and a huge army that you can select the cream of the units from (Nizaris etc) and disband (#4) the rest. Because crusades don't allow for multiples they are really not the same kind of exploit. Jihads really should have been unique as with crusades. If you want a fair and challenging game, limit yourself to only one Jihad and only build it when it's needed.

7. The Inquisition
The AI doesn't usually train ten Grand Inquisitors and send them around and about burning everyone elses royalty. Need I say more? The player should limit himself to 1 GInq and 2 Inq at any one time. I myself have modded out GInqs and made Inqs papacy only. This way you actually always come up against them rather than deploy them yourself.

[The Lizard Pope]

A fine thread indeed and agreed with all the above as that's pretty much exactly how I play the game.

I would add:


7. The Inquisition
The AI doesn't usually train ten Grand Inquisitors and send them around and about burning everyone elses royalty. Need I say more? The player should limit himself to 1 GInq and 2 Inq at any one time. I myself have modded out GInqs and made Inqs papacy only. This way you actually always come up against them rather than deploy them yourself.

That's a good idea, I never use inquisitors to burn people. They quickly become too powerful

[gollum]

Because crusades don't allow for multiples they are really not the same kind of exploit. Jihads really should have been unique as with crusades.

Actually i saw more than once the Ai factions having two crusades out against the same enemy but not the same target province. I think that it may be possible to do this simply by using two chapter houses, but to keep with the spirit of the thread this should also be frowned upon by main hall dwellers.

!it burnsus!

[DEB8]

7. The Inquisition

The AI doesn't usually train ten Grand Inquisitors and send them around and about burning everyone elses royalty. Need I say more? The player should limit himself to 1 GInq and 2 Inq at any one time. I myself have modded out GInqs and made Inqs papacy only. This way you actually always come up against them rather than deploy them yourself.

Agreed - SIN !

[DEB8]

2. Systematic Prisoner Execution - Ransom refusal

....my AI often refuses to buy prisoners, and has sometimes denied me the chance to ransom my own men! Indeed, the screen simply never appears!

Nonetheless, as you mention there are disadvantages for both mercy and cold-blooded murder.

With the use of mercy, one receives money and can in fact witness civil war within the enemy, but also returns a considerable part of their military to them at times. When one is cold-blooded, the general starts on a road to moral loss within the army, he is denied ransom money, the chance of starting a civil-war, and also he frees the enemy revenue for the maintainence of new troops.

There are circumstance fair for both decisions, and the AI is given the same choice apparently.

As the AI appears to get the same choice/s as the player ( witnessed - as first quoted line above ), how can this be a sin ??

[Caliburn]

Hmm, I must say that these deadly sins have a lot in common with the deadly sins of the old. Depending on the interpretation, deadly sins are really ...well, deadly, when they cause desperation. After all, everyone is slothful, lusts after things, has pride etc., but not everyone goes to hell, if one believes in such a thing.

So. There must be leeway in these babies as well ;)

My additions:

10. Using armour and weapon upgrades. Esp. armour upgrades destroy the unit balance.

11. Using better generals than the computer. I find the system of adding valour effects from command stars destroys the gameplay in many situations.



A "few" comments on the earlier ones:

1. Manual pillaging is in most cases a dubious strategy, as it hinders future development. With navies it's not that serious, as you can reinforce your armies from your core regions with few problems.

There is one interesting point, though. Vikings may be a special case, but they also seem like a nudge toward trying out a strategy that not everyone uses, razing instead of conquering. A bit like the Irish faction having to depend on javelinmen or die. For me it's hard to see manual razing as an exploit.

2. Systematic prisoner execution

Well, the word "systematic" is the key here. I can't see anything wrong (gameplay-wise, not morally ;) in executing slav warriors and Spanish javelinmen in the thousands, when I don't want to spend my time in a situation similar to using a pogo-stick in a swamp - fighting wave after wave after wave against crap the enemy sends me is boring, and if I didn't slaughter them, they'd be there next year as well.

Fighting those crap units again would make the game more challenging in a way similar to making cardboard boxes in a factory.

Gameplay-wise, the same goes with horse archers. It can sometimes take a long time to win a battle against horse archers, and just to make things quicker, I don't mind putting them to the sword.

At least the generals get morale penalty vices if the enemy are systematically executed.

3. Mercenaries are silly, the system is simply broken. And it's not too often when I'd want to use any of them, as those "special" ones can't even be retrained. Almughavars might add flavour, but they don't - there aren't enough to go around. Often I end up with a "parade" stack, which has no use as I don't want to spend units that can't be replenished.

4. Disbanding offers a load of different exploits, like peasant governor spamming.

Yet, as the game goes on, and the empire spreads, factoring every single factor becomes very similar to the aforementioned cardboard-box-factory style game - it feels too much like work. In most cases disbanding isn't required, as old forces can be reshuffled to be used as garrisons (it never hurts to have Feudal Sergeants waiting for a French re-emergence near Ile-de-France). I still won't feel bad if I notice I've spammed 8 javelinmen units in Swabia. Money is not a problem for the player in any case - those 8 javelinmen might be required in some landlocked region, but instead of starting a 3-turn shuffling process I might just disband them and train new ones in Swabia or something.

5. Dismounts are a good point in the case of knights. It's sad that we never get to fight Dismounted Chivalric Knights without modding on the campmap. Many troops dismount into useless units or too small units to be useful.

6. Jihads and Crusades can both be used to strategically drain competitors, esp. in connection with inquisitors. They can be an easy exploit, if you're willing to fiddle with zeal.

7. Inquisition is like using assassins, but instead of having to send a shitload to die (remember the cardboard boxes?) they don't die, and gain valour and thus become an exploit.

8. The pause button removes the technical fiddly part inherent in RTS. MTW isn't chess, but if I want to consentrate on using several tactics in one battle (javelinmen, horse archers, light flankers, ambushes in localized situations), I won't feel sorry for the AI. The computer doesn't have fingers, after all.

Simpler tactics don't need the pause button anyway.

9. Unrestricted camera is cheesy, that is very true.



The most "fair" would be to use autocalc in every situation, at least in theory

[caravel]

Glenn, pause and an unrestricted camera are certainly two more to add to the list, though I play the game in "-ian" mode where the camera is not restricted anyway. It can be useful when you're men are positioned on a steep hill and you cannot get a decent view.

10. Using armour and weapon upgrades. Esp. armour upgrades destroy the unit balance.

11. Using better generals than the computer. I find the system of adding valour effects from command stars destroys the gameplay in many situations.

Both of the above are parts of the game that are flawed, though I would not class these as "deadly sins". Overall I'd say that these are simple flaws in the game design. The general should confer advantages of morale and discipline and an ability to rally routing troops, it should not give huge valour bonuses that melt away when he dies. Armour and weapon upgrades cause severe imbalance and should not have been included in the first place. They are mere "toys" for players that like to outclass the AI and defeat it with ease.

1. Manual pillaging is in most cases a dubious strategy, as it hinders future development. With navies it's not that serious, as you can reinforce your armies from your core regions with few problems.

There is one interesting point, though. Vikings may be a special case, but they also seem like a nudge toward trying out a strategy that not everyone uses, razing instead of conquering. A bit like the Irish faction having to depend on javelinmen or die. For me it's hard to see manual razing as an exploit.

I think you may be confusing manual razing with auto razing. All factions raze a few buildings when conquering a province, this is automatic. Even your own faction will do this, i.e. your men may inadvertently knock the fortress down and quickly rebuild it as a citadel hoping you won't notice. Your men are sloppy and need better training...

Manual razing is where you, the player, click the destroy/disband button on the info parchment. The AI cannot do this. Also this kind of razing can cripple the AI economically.

2. Systematic prisoner execution

Well, the word "systematic" is the key here. I can't see anything wrong (gameplay-wise, not morally ;) in executing slav warriors and Spanish javelinmen in the thousands, when I don't want to spend my time in a situation similar to using a pogo-stick in a swamp - fighting wave after wave after wave against crap the enemy sends me is boring, and if I didn't slaughter them, they'd be there next year as well.

Fighting those crap units again would make the game more challenging in a way similar to making cardboard boxes in a factory.

Gameplay-wise, the same goes with horse archers. It can sometimes take a long time to win a battle against horse archers, and just to make things quicker, I don't mind putting them to the sword.

At least the generals get morale penalty vices if the enemy are systematically executed.

You're right about this one, I'd say that I personally find that it's easier and somewhat of an exploit, to give the AI back his crap and demoralised units to support and field again. If you keep to this strategy you will eventually trigger a civil war - especially if the AI eventually refuses to pay for that lot. It's far kinder to the AI to execute the prisoners on the field unless there are important nobles among them. Executing also deprives you of the ransom, and may rescue the AI's ecomony from the support costs and paying the ransom itself. Despite this, I never execute prisoners unless I'm particularly annoyed, I also always release rebels.

The most "fair" would be to use autocalc in every situation, at least in theory

Well autocalc can also be manipulated very easily. If you're playing an autocalc campaign, there is no sense in training or teching up for missile units, you may as well build nothing but swords and cavalry, as when a battle is autocalced, it's only the melee stats that are taken into account.

[gollum]

After all, everyone is slothful, lusts after things, has pride etc.

Most is correct, everyone is not.

but not everyone goes to hell

I very much doubt weather your knowledge of the issue is firsthand.

So. There must be leeway in these babies as well

It depends - for some maybe yes. For some no. Nobody likes absolutes, because they supposedly take from his freedom - and yet it is only the egotistical freedom that gets offended. This is why its hard for most to accept absolutes but always need to dilute them with relatives, that allow the extra spice of self indulgence.

Using armour and weapon upgrades. Esp. armour upgrades destroy the unit balance.

Very true - in fact i only play mods that take them out.

Using better generals than the computer. I find the system of adding valour effects from command stars destroys the gameplay in many situations.

Very true - in fact this is one of the points that RTW has an edge over MTW - the general s stars add only morale and not valor. The AI sometimes pays you with the same coin but its not difficult to see that the player can do this most of the time. Incidentally the -green_generals addition to the shortcut helps with this as generals that die lose stats over time.

Manual pillaging is in most cases a dubious strategy, as it hinders future development.

It isnt - if anything it guarantees victory for the player, not in the most glorious way, but victory guaranteed nonetheless - it literally chokes the AI factions - do it systematically and find out for your self. I was astounded by seeing how effective it was and how the AI factions were helpless when this acquaintance of mine played this way. The guy was making no financial investments of his own at all but was using the builds of the AI in a literaly vampiric fashion.

There is one interesting point, though. Vikings may be a special case, but they also seem like a nudge toward trying out a strategy that not everyone uses, razing instead of conquering. A bit like the Irish faction having to depend on javelinmen or die. For me it's hard to see manual razing as an exploit

The Vikings need the benefit of pillaging while the game is young so that they can fill their coffers make good their losses and invest in settling. However repeat the pillaging cycle too often and leave settling for too late, and the Saxons/Mercians become too large, large enough to stop the pillaging and let the Viking that hasnt acquired green pastures of his own starve.

You can settle right away in Mercia without using manual pillaging and win the game well before half the time span allowed.

Its immaterial how you see it - the main question is whether the AI can do it to you or not every time he needs the money or every time he feels like it, and it cant.

Well, the word "systematic" is the key here. I can't see anything wrong (gameplay-wise, not morally ;) in executing slav warriors and Spanish javelinmen in the thousands, when I don't want to spend my time in a situation similar to using a pogo-stick in a swamp - fighting wave after wave after wave against crap the enemy sends me is boring, and if I didn't slaughter them, they'd be there next year as well.

Fighting those crap units again would make the game more challenging in a way similar to making cardboard boxes in a factory.

You raise an interesting and valid point, that is the easily recruitable units in vanilla are hopeless and useless. Ideally the easily recruitable units should be always semi decent and useful. CA by introducing 3 more javelins than the original bloated the early game with them (the AI prefers low cost/low maintenance troops) making the challenge as you note go levels down. Javelin units in particular should be simply taken out - the AI does not use them in conjuction with spears in open field battles and the whole becomes ridiculous. Another exploit for the player. In MTW 1.0/1.1 there was only one javelin unit the Murabitins that were semi-decent spears/melee too. In 2.01 there are plenty more; Spanish, Slavs, Jobaggy all recruitable from a fort.

And yet this does not take away from the reality of the *sin* - the fact remains that wether the battle is challenging for you or not, the AI will have troops to fight you back if you offer them back or not if you massacre them. Wether the next battle will be challenging or not is an entirely different issue, based on different parameters.

In most cases disbanding isn't required, as old forces can be reshuffled to be used as garrisons (it never hurts to have Feudal Sergeants waiting for a French re-emergence near Ile-de-France). I still won't feel bad if I notice I've spammed 8 javelinmen units in Swabia. Money is not a problem for the player in any case - those 8 javelinmen might be required in some landlocked region, but instead of starting a 3-turn shuffling process I might just disband them and train new ones in Swabia or something.

In order to evaluate the magnitude of the exploit, you dont average it over the whole of the game timeframe - just look at it when its needed. Disbanding is indispensible at certain few instances, and the player can simply then do it - nobody wants to sink in -20,000 florins. Yet the AI cant - instead he ll do some risky invasion that will make the player utter a *phew* for the AIs stupidity, and yet its because he cant take off the maintanance weight in any other way.

Now you say that because these instances are few, the exploit is not significant - and yet it is because it alters the way of things at moments of crisis.

Incidentally CA in their wisdom, not only continued to allow these things in RTW, but they made them part of the gameplay(!). In RTW, people will tell you to build peasants in overflowing population cities and transfer them by disbanding in poor agriculturally cities to level them up. In BI, only the player can change religion of settlements, because he only can manually raze temples of opposite religions. The AI has to live with all the unrest bonuses and weather them.

Compare this with the thoughtfulness of design in MTW, that factions of different religions always autopillage buildings of reigions other than their own in newly conquered provinces, to make space for their own religious line of buildings.

Jihads and Crusades can both be used to strategically drain competitors, esp. in connection with inquisitors. They can be an easy exploit, if you're willing to fiddle with zeal.

Depends how you use them, prolonged and persistent inquisitor use in the long run is detrimental and brings zeal down. Jihad spamming is an undeniable exploit though.

Inquisition is like using assassins, but instead of having to send a shitload to die (remember the cardboard boxes?) they don't die, and gain valour and thus become an exploit.

Assassins are nowhere near as effective because they can operate safely only in your territories, otherwise they get caught by enemy border forts. Also inquisitors do not die everytime they fail as you say, so most of the ones you build hang around till game over. The level is simply not comparable.

The pause button removes the technical fiddly part inherent in RTS. MTW isn't chess, but if I want to consentrate on using several tactics in one battle (javelinmen, horse archers, light flankers, ambushes in localized situations), I won't feel sorry for the AI. The computer doesn't have fingers, after all.

You ever tried mp? No? Wise decision - dont.

Unrestricted camera is cheesy, that is very true.

Nowhere near as cheesy as the pause button in my perception.

!it burnsus!

[Caliburn]

MP is a different case/game alltogether.

For me, single player campaign is not a rehearsal for multiplayer. I won't shy away from using the pause button, as it allows me to get past technical limitations (select/move/attack orders all use the same button) and allows me to keep things together on the tactical level (Napoleon didn't have a pause button, but he had officers that could take care of lower level micromanagement tasks...).

The downside is that my point-and-click-technique will not develop, i.e. I won't be so good at multiplayer. But I prefer other games for true real-time management, games with a stronger focus to this kind of a technique. RTS games like Warcraft 3 come in mind. It would feel utterly ridiculous to use the pause button in that game, as a lot has to do how to optimize building processes and powerups while attacking/defending.

Of course it's my personal preference, and it has a lot to do with me not wanting the game to feel too much like work.

Oh, and seating an army right by the battle map border is pretty cheesy as well. But we all know that allready.

It's interesting how things have changed between games. Manual pillaging is still allowed in the new games, but as strategic resources (unit buildings) are required in localized areas for reinforcements. Systematic prisoner execution is less overpowered, as the enemy can often field another 2-3 stacks in the next turn or two, they're not always bankrupt.

Mercenaries work very differently, mostly they add flavour and the AI can use them to their advantage (to boost those militia stacks that look tiny before they siege your capital in M2). Disbanding is a double-edged sword, as retraining retains the unit experience.

Dismounts have been separated into separate units, which is kind of funny, but at least the AI won't be hindered by that. Jihads and crusades have a different dynamic, hard to say if it's better or worse. It leads to other exploits in M2. Inquisition is an annoyance only the AI can (randomly) carry out, adding flavour.

The pause button is there, but not that useful, as select/move orders are on different buttons and HAs can actually skirmish a bit. In Rome, battles are a bit fast, though. Neither of the new games require a lot of micromanagement, as battles are simpler.

Camera eploit is still a camera exploit. At least the general bonuses work better, although M2 chivalric/dread general effects are overpowered in my opinion. Armour and weapon upgrades aren't quite so overpowered.

[gollum]

MP is a different case/game alltogether.

For me, single player campaign is not a rehearsal for multiplayer. I won't shy away from using the pause button, as it allows me to get past technical limitations (select/move/attack orders all use the same button) and allows me to keep things together on the tactical level (Napoleon didn't have a pause button, but he had officers that could take care of lower level micromanagement tasks...).

The downside is that my point-and-click-technique will not develop, i.e. I won't be so good at multiplayer. But I prefer other games for true real-time management, games with a stronger focus to this kind of a technique. RTS games like Warcraft 3 come in mind. It would feel utterly ridiculous to use the pause button in that game, as a lot has to do how to optimize building processes and powerups while attacking/defending.

Yes and no. Its actually the same game, and in fact mp players can outmaneuver the AI not because they are faster but because they have better judgement and can filter info from the interface better.

It seems that you think that the technical/particular/tangible is an obstactle to the theoretical/abstract/non-tangible, and yet the two are not in competition - reaching the non-tangible means transcending the tangible, not skiping it altogether. To make a simple example no-one can write poetry without knowing the alphabet, and watching TW at the highest level (which is inevitably in mp - and yet can be manifested in SP battles just as well) is nothing less than poetry in my view.

just remember that even the best players were once upon a time newbies - everyone can reach high, assuming that he is not afraid to dive in the sea of technicalities and learn how to swim.

!it burnsus!

[DEB8]

10. Using armour and weapon upgrades. Esp. armour upgrades destroy the unit balance.

11. Using better generals than the computer. I find the system of adding valour effects from command stars destroys the gameplay in many situations.

Completely disagree re both...

[ These are both integral to the game system - so how can they be sins ??? ]