How often do you actually fight battles?

[professorspatula]

I thought I'd return to MTW after a fairly lengthy hiatus and resume a few campaigns I'd never gotten around to finish. However, after about 25 hours of gameplay in various campaigns, I realise I've only actually fought a very small number of battles, many nothing more but skirmishes.

Firstly, I resumed a XL mod Crusader campaign. With around 6 regions in the holy-land and the Crimea under my control, I intended to sit back and build up my trade fleet and only attack other aggressors. But aside from being excommunicated twice for defending my fleets against the Genoese, and performing a multitude of inquisitions and assassinations, nothing of note happened in around 10 hours of play. My borders are mostly safe and my neighbours are too preoccupied with bashing in each other to hassle me so my Grandmaster gets fat whilst I twiddle my fingers.

I then reloaded a Volga-Bulgarian campaign that I gave up on after a very short time. I'd survived most of the Golden Horde onslaught by launching a multitude of Jihads to take back my lost lands. I'd also auto-calced a few battles and remarkably survived against all odds - my massively out-numbered force somehow holding back the tides of darkness. So when I resumed the campaign, I didn't have much I could do because income was barely in the black and my neighbours were all much stronger than I was. In the end I launched the last few Jihad markers at the neutral Russians just so I could build up an army fast to take some territory. I fought one impressive battle featuring a mass of my spearmen and a couple of light cavalry units against a massive Mongol cavalry army and won, but that was the only battle in about 4 hours.

Wanting a campaign where I get stuck into fighting, and to experience something a little different, I started a new Viking campaign. Those norsemen love nothing more than fighting and pillaging, but after about 6 hours of rampaging across the British isles, I realised I'd still not actually fought more than a mere skirmish in all that time. I'd got fat by looting regions and abbeys, and stormed a few keeps using auto-calc battles, but I'd still not fought a proper decent series of battles. I know that battles beckon when I decide to finally make inroads into conquering the map, but for now it's all about patience.

So my question is - how often in your campaigns do you actually fight battles? In RTW you tend to fight lots of battles, though seldom decisive ones. In a 4 hour session, I'd probably had at least 4 decent sized battles, sometimes many more. But in MTW I find myself slowly considering options, building up my forces and wondering when the time for a decisive battle will be. I'm not an aggressive player, which is probably why my battles are rare, but it just struck me at times just how much time is actually spent on the campaign map, as opposed to the battlefield.

[Matrim]

It is probably because you are not aggressive, as you say. As in your Volga campaign, your neighbors are much larger than you, because they do their best to bash each other to bits. "Carpe Diem" as they say, you know, seize the carp.

But seriously, I can play any faction for little more than an hour before I've nearly doubled my size, in most instances, or at least fought a couple of battles. That all depends on the faction, of course. I tend to start with the one- or two-province factions so I have the pope's backing of excommunication, if I'm catholic, or I do my best to whittle down the outskirts of enemies or take advantage of rebellions. By the time my trade fleet is up, I begin pouring florins into barracks and stables, and then jump on mine enemies. Something I've noticed, though, in many of my campaigns--the AI factions rarely let me sit idly by. As soon as I've rubbed one faction out of the map, another attacks within a few years.

So to answer your question... I fight battles almost continuously. These periods are broken only by, perhaps a decade, when I'm building up in a mad rush. What difficulty are you playing on? That may have something to do with it, as well.

[caravel]

I usually fight every open battle until my faction is so big that the campaign becomes boring. The only battles I don't fight are sieges, I tend to either starve them out, use subterfuge or auto resolve the assault.

[Scurvy]

Very much depends on who I am playing as, but normally maybe 1 battle every 10 years or so, although sometimes more early on in the game...

:2thumbsup:

[predaturd]

I do virtually all my battles myself. the last time i auto resolved was a good 9 campaigns ago as the sicilians and i only did that because the game kept crashing half way through the battle.

one of the greatest battles ive ever fought is the 4000 man defence of khazar from the golden horde, follwoed closely by the 300 man defence of antioch vs 3000 turks.

the last campaign i did (ended abruptly by nvidia card problems) i had all of modern day germany, britain,spain,france, and morroco in just under 19 hours of playing. no lack of action for me, cept for rubbish technology geting involved.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Guys..he's not asking how often you manually fight battles as opposed to auto calc'ing them.

He's saying that in his campaigns, battles seem to be scarce. He's asking how often battles occur in your campaigns.

[caravel]

Guys..he's not asking how often you manually fight battles as opposed to auto calc'ing them.

He's saying that in his campaigns, battles seem to be scarce. He's asking how often battles occur in your campaigns.

If this is the case then it all depends on the particular campaign, era and faction. I find that the Viking era campaign is less aggressive than the 1087-1453 era campaign. I have often gone through the former and had nothing occur for over 50 years, and I mean nothing. Every faction was allied to every other faction and no wars occurred until I started one. In my opinion this is a flaw in the Viking campaign itself more so that a problem with the game overall.

[Matrim]

Guys..he's not asking how often you manually fight battles as opposed to auto calc'ing them.

He's saying that in his campaigns, battles seem to be scarce. He's asking how often battles occur in your campaigns.

I know, I thought my reply was somewhat on target, though a little muddled. So let me simplify:

Depending on the faction, era, and difficulty (the latter most important of all), and perhaps even the mod, battle occurrences are variable. I've fought entire nations that flee until their last province, and I've fought others that contest ever province, even when outnumbered a very great deal. As to why you are not fighting more battles, as I said previously, I believe it's because your own playing style is not one of concern for the enemy AI, so they leave you alone. When I'm sitting idly by, smaller and early, they leave me be. But as I grow more dominant, they try to eliminate me. So, try to be more aggressive.

[Roark]

I fight every single battle.

[Martok]

For me, the frequency with which I end up in battle (regardless of whether I fight them manually or auto-calc) really depends -- the era I'm in, which faction I'm playing as, and how aggressive I am are all major factors. For instance, the Castille-Leon (Spanish) and the HRE tend to have a fair number of battles early on, whereas factions like the Almos and Danes tend to have long periods of peace.

[drone]

I generally fight quite a few battles, but that's probably due to my style of play. I don't like long periods of peace and quiet, so I tend to force the issue on a regular basis. I also prefer factions with high quality/low quantity army stacks, which probably keeps the enemy from retreating as often as they should.

[Empirate]

Usually, I get battles whenever I want battles. Meaning if I play it aggressively, I end up fighting quite a lot of battles, and I do fight all except sieges myself. However, if you turtle and build up, then your armies will usually be able to outnumber as well as outtech every AI army on the map. This makes the AI eager to retreat, as it should. So if you play it nonaggressively, you'll also push the AI into retreating when you actually DO want to pick a fight. Except if you limit your armies to mediocre tech and numbers, but what's the point in turtleing then?

I like that the AI withdraws from you - at least in theory. It leads to bigger defending armies and shorter borders for the AI. It also means that you have to plan your invasions carefully. BUT: the AI likes to leave a large part of its defending forces in the castle when it withdraws. Then, more often than not, you starve them out in two turns, costing the AI a bunch of units and you virtually nothing but a little time. This means the AI cannot amass mighty armies. But it will still increase unrest for withdrawing, and without corresponding benefits. This is a flaw in the campaign AI.

I once played a very laid-back game as the Sicilians: took only Naples, then turtled and built up. A few centuries later, the French basically had the western half of the map. I actually got the "another faction is close to winning" message. So I fielded three stacks of Halberdiers, Pavese Arbalesters, and Chivalric Knights, all Gold armored with correspondig Master buildings, churches, shrines etc. to send against the French. I gained a foothold in Cordoba, and from there my three lousy stacks, super-high quality with middling generals though they were, faced down about 30,000 French troops. And the French ALWAYS blinked first: They withdrew wherever I met them, always leaving a large force in the castle to quickly starve out. I leapfrogged my armies and managed to push the French back up to Bretagne (at which point they collapsed in civil war) without fighting a single battle. At one point, four and a half French stacks stood against a slightly depleted one of mine, and withdrew instead of giving battle. This was a really frustrating TW moment for me - I had hoped to surge on a wave of glorious conquest instead of BEING GIVEN the world!

[Martok]

Yeah, that is a major flaw in the game's strategic AI. I agree it's quite frustrating when a faction constantly retreats, especially if it's their last province. :wall: For that reason, I generally do my best to keep my armies on a rough parity with that of the enemy, especially when I'm attacking.

[macsen rufus]

My campaigns tend to go through expansion and consolidation phases, periods of intense bloodletting followed by longer spells of wound-licking and economic recovery. Generally I agree with Empirate - I get battles when I want them (and when I drop my guard and the AI spots an opportunity ~D)

Sometimes I'll drop a particularly heavy stock on to the enemy if I can't be bothered fighting, then they usually retreat. Last night I think I managed ten or so battles - unusually for me, I'm playing a GA game (English, early, XL3), so have Crusades going, the French, Germans and Danes all after Flanders (usually at the same time - meaning 1v3 defensive battles....), and the Middle East, as ever, providing a bit of a challenge in terms of loyalty and neighbours with bad attitude :laugh4:

As for the Viking campaigm, I've also had protracted periods of peaceful co-existence, with all factions in one humungous alliance. Impressive as such a display of diplomatic accord may be, it's no fun :clown:

[Seabourch]

Quite often during the early gand mid games but for the late game, only when I think auto-calcing will give me an undesirable results.

[bamff]

I have seen no shortage of battle and bloodshed in my campaigns....

In the early stages, I will confess to generally being the instigator, as I try to carve out a little territory. Once established, I concentrate on my economy, and generally find no shortage of other factions lining up to try to reclaim some of my hard fought gains.

Often I put up with their raids for a while, but when they reach a point of real annoyance, I set out to put them to the virtual sword.....then I find my "empire" has grown to the point that lots more AI factions want a piece of me, and so the cycle resumes....

[Matrim]

Lately, and I don't know if it's because I haven't played much in 3 years, or if it is something more akin to the XL mod, but depending on my economy, primarily my trade fleet... whoever seems to be doing the most trade otherwise will begin attacks on my shipping lanes before they attack me on land, even if we share a large border.

It also depends on my location, if I'm in a corner, I don't see much aggression, unless all the other land is gobbled up, but yes, once I'm provoked thoroughly, I bring the funk and the noise.