They're all out to get me, I tell ya!

[[RDH] Spetz Natz]

This ever happened in your campaign?
You find yourself at war with pretty much every
faction?
Talk about being in a tight bind

Faction: English
Factions wiped out already from game:
French, Spanish, Danes, Poles, Almohads, Germans

Factions at war with me:
Sicilians, Italians, Egyptians, Turks, Novograds,
Golden Horde.

Faction (one&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif allied with me:
Papacy (thanks a lot Pope&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

My problem is, all this constant warring on five
different fronts is draining my armies and resources.
I'd like to call ceasefires on all of them...but that seems
to be an impossibility.
Every turn, I send about 2 or 3 high-valour emissiairies
to propose ceasefires to ALL enemies, but they get rejected
EVERY time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif .
I'd like to take a breather, but it seems that all the
factions I mentioned I was at war with are allied to EACH
other (with the exception of the Horde). So you see, they
ARE ALL OUT TO GET ME http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

And another thing: the Byz and Hungarians (neutral factions) reject my offers of alliances as well on every turn. WTF?

Any quick advice on how to calm everybody's horses down
(no pun intended)? Any way to subvert my enemies' alliances?
(i.e. force a war between any two of them to break their
treaty?).

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Puzz3D]

My understanding is that, at a certain point in the game, a trigger makes all factions turn against the human player.

[[RDH] Spetz Natz]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Nov. 20 2002,11:45)]My understanding is that, at a certain point in the game, a trigger makes all factions turn against the human player.
Ouch If this is true, than I'm (sorta) glad that
I'm not alone here. LOL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Lord TangMo]

If you are playing the pre patch version, you may send in the spies to your enemies’ provinces and provoke riots. This will make them much busy for their interior affair. Then you can get rid of them one by one. I have no idea about those post patch version. I haven’t tried it yet.

[[RDH] Spetz Natz]

Nope. Post-patch.
But I know what you mean. Before the patch, 3 or 4 spies
could easily start a rebellion. Now...nothing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Hosakawa Tito]

Once your empire reachs a certain size all the other factions seem to gang up on you. Your weaker opponents especially appear to be more inclined to commit faction suicide in one last act of defiance than to sue for peace.
I can understand factions that are near your equal in size and military might being overtly hostile, but when a faction that is nearly wiped out still wants war instead of a ceasefire...dosen't make sense. Reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail after our hero lops off his limbs and he still wants to fight," Tis merely a flesh wound, I can still bite" http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Azrael]

Hey Spetz, that bites.

If no one's going to ally with you and your rescources are being drained, personal experience has taught me that expansion is the only way out of a deficit.

You might want to try controlled attrition. It's annoying having to fight everyone at once, so don't.

Decide where you want to expand, and play games with the places you're not going to.

Move into places where you want to fight and win, or where you can fight and win.

If possible, move an army into a place to tie up an adversary, and then abandon the attack that Unit is making.

Just take your general out of the army before you send it in, so you don't suffer from any of the hesitancy or good runner vices.

Play attack and defend also. As the English, I used this tactic to defeat the Alhomeds. They had bucket loads of armies, and by a series of wise attacks and defences, I managed to wipe out their forces with lesser numbers. I would attack and win, they would send 2 X my army to reclaim the province. I would abandon. A large army would follow. From a strong defensive position, you can inflict serious damage to your enemies numbers.

Kill all prisoners in battle. If you ransom them, they can fight against you again. Especially if your enemy has alot of troops.

Also, if one of your homelands is pushed into by a foreign faction, there is a good chance of a loyalist rebellion in that province, though you can't really bank on it.

Hope some of this can help brighten the dark days of your empire.

Azrael

[FesterShinetop]

Quote[/b] (Puzz3D @ Nov. 20 2002,11:45)]My understanding is that, at a certain point in the game, a trigger makes all factions turn against the human player.
Does this also apply for a GA game? Never really noticed that. I use to keep a relatively small empire, collecting my points and annoying other factions getting in my way.

Spetz naz The influence of your ruler also plays part in the negotiations doesn't it? If you have a very strong and powerfull ruler your adversaries are more likely to accept your offer of an alliance (and also the experience of the emissary counts into this).

[LadyAnn]

I thought about the possibility of having to fight war with every faction (when you play Egyptian, or any other Muslim faction, you kinda assume the Christians are going after you. Game related comment only, please). So my strategy was always the following:

1. find choke points and control them, so that if you have to defend your empire, you only need to defend a few places.

I chose the following provinces: Georgia and Constantinoples control the gate to Egypt from the North and East. Cordoba/Morocco corridor controls the entrance in the West. Since Constantinoples is an important wealth and technology center, I gave Greece and Bulgaria the buffer zone. Egypt never advance further north than Georgia to avoid the Horde and I don't have to fight Polish/Novogrod people at all.

Later, I chose to take out Italy and decide to fortify Venice/Tuscany neck. This give me assurance that if I have to, I can still control the Med and south of these points.

Then it seems to be convenient to take out the French. So I decide controlling the Flander/Venice corridor would be beneficial. I only border the Pope, who can't attack anyone, Spain, who can't get out of the Peninsula and still has to worry about the Almohads, Almohads who are at war with Spain, and Hungary. I never see the Dane nor the Pole.

This leads to number 2:

2. Limit your exposure of borders. I don't care if the Danes are at war with me, they have to walk across the Germans. Same as the English, who still have to fight the French. The Poles? they are sandwidched between Germany, Novogrod and Byzantium-in-exile.

But if you are exposed to everyone by bordering too many factions, you will be in trouble.

Annie

[Hippolyte]

Although Azrael's superb post is very nearly complete, I would like to add something relating to expansion. It makes little sense to expand into territories before your home territories have attained a sufficient degree of loyalty. I have found that, in my impetuous early games, when I attacked several opponents at the same time the end result was identical to that of Spetz Natz. It is impossible to hold onto many territories which have ambivalent loyalties and then expect to garrison newly conquered territories while defending against the inevitable AI attacks. As others have stated, often the Ai will behave in an entirely suicidal manner, very nearly throwing itself upon your defenses in spite of the cost. This is fine if you are fighting only an opponent or two, but it becomes impossible when you are engaging nearly every other faction. I have also found that subtlety in planning your engagements pays dividends in the long run. The attack/defend cycle works magnificently. Sometimes, however, even this will begin to stretch your resources. At this time you need to decide which territories are worth defending and which you will obliterate before your enemy's onslaught. If you have kept taxes in these provinces low (to name only one variable) a revolt by loyalists after it is conquered by the AI is a good posibility--but not something you should rely on. Thus, make sure you have core territories that you will develop to their fullest, preferrably territories that are adjacent to one another (though this is often impossible). At this point a strong navy comes in very useful, both for garrisoning/re-garrisoning as well as diversionary attacks against the AI. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif One last thing: expand carefully and not too rashly. Keep in mind the most important territories nearby and especially develop those with excellent trade and resource potential.

[Katasaki Hirojima]

You huys have played as the RUssians against th orde right? Once you've stretched your Econ to the limit your army numbers are still very small and if you attack in any way you leave yourself open to a devestateing counter attack. My armys have thus campaigned all over the place. Moving from sweden and repetedly sacking Danish Norway for cash while my southerarmy went back and forth against the mongol horde, eventually the Danes, who destroyed themselfs, collapsed I took their land, while loseing my homeland to the Mongols. I brought the main part of my army back leaveing only garrison and fought the Mongols with a full army, but at other borders I'm being overwhelmed. However, the process I'v started of chaseing the mongols around is wearing them down more then me, I'v taken Kiev from them. My lands are barely loyal, I keep very low taxes in most of them and garrisons.

I'm at war with technically three factions, the Mongols, Danes and Rebels. The Danes arn't a threat anymore, as I along with the germans and Mongols destoyed them and took their land, which will give me much stregth to fight the mongols off eventually. SOoo you CAN fight very mobile warfare, sometimes its the only way to win, even if the costs are dire.

[Sad Tomato]

i was playing as the danes, i had possession of most of western europe, everything was fine and dandy, execept the egyptians kept declaring a jihad on Tunisa but i could handle that. all of a sudden (in two turns), everyone execpt for the Turks (far, far east) & the Poles (sole allies) declared war on me. i had not had any contact with some of the factions but they still declared war. i could not get ceasefires out of any of them no matter how good my emissaires were and how bigger mess i made of their provinces.
i am tending towards the trigger idea. at some point in the game, every ai faction will turn on the human faction and won't stop untill the human faction exterminates them.

for example the French, only one province left, their armies consisted of heirs and artillery and thats it, armies of dubious loyalty (including heirs), surrounded by far superior forces but would they work a deal? no.

[MizuKokami]

if there is a trigger, is there a way to turn it off? i've been wondering why i am at war with everyone, and even my allies attack around 1170. influence is supposed to affect the way others relate to you, and a trigger would superceed that attribute of your king. that's just not right. i'm not at war with the computer. the computer is supposed to provide individual opponents that have goals of their own. in other words, the king of hungary wants to rule the world, the prince of novogrod wants to rule the world ...etc....not, well, "you reached a certain point, now it's time for everyone to gang up on you." foolish suicide attacks that would end up destroying the faction just to get in your face and make it more difficult for the humans. what the heck...right?... they can just respawn with elite forces later in the game anyway. "why yes, i am the king of england spawning in tripoli"... BAH" triggers, are just evil. big time evil. they teach devils how to be evil. it's like stacking the deck in a card game. it's cheating. why the hell do we bother to build up our kings influence if it does us no good anyway? if i am doing everything right building my empire, ie, not stepping on any toes, not getting excommunicated, building my lands up, stockpileing wealth, keeping the loyalty of my men up. etc..... i deserve the victory, cause i did what was neccisary to achieve victory. but a trigger that snags that victory out of my hands by makeing even my allies turn on me in favor of an excommunicated king that has no influence? the attribute of your king is there for a reason. it's to give personality to your generals and kings. and if your king's atributes are ignored just to make the game do something that is supposed to create a bigger challenge for the players, why do we have the settings easy, normal, difficult, and expert? isn't that what those game settings are there for, for the increased challenge? i realize that at some point, my allies should turn on me, after all, it is a world conquest game, and i will have to turn on my own allies once in a while. but everyone all at once. is there anyone out there that thinks this is a bit much? doesn't anyone feel my pain in poland?

[Nelson]

As the Danes I controlled the Baltic regions, Lithuania Novgorad, Moscovy and all of Britain but Wessex. I had ships in every area and was making a fortune with trade. Early in the 13th century my principle trading partners decared war without provocation, one of whom did not share a common border with me anywhere. Income fell through the floor.

The moral of the story is don't expect to rely on trade for very long once you become a mighty kingdom.

[insolent1]

I've had some funny campaigns where every single faction that was left was at war with me. 9v1 eh sounds fair...
anywayz the best way to force a ceasefire that i have found is to make the offending faction/s have a civil war they will then beg you for a ceasefire(they will not ally with you). This from my experience is actually something that has always worked no matter how big & terrifying my empire is

[MizuKokami]

and the moral to my story...don't stab your friends in the back, just because you are programmed to.

[Fearless]

Yup..............it's a tough game The best way to overcome these problems is early diplomacy. Try not to go to war with faction that are allied. Take a quite defensive stance. Bide your time and concentrate on trade and building. Let the enemy come to you. Only attack when there is no other alternative. This seems to have worked fine for me. When I am eventually at war with everyone I don't care as my armies are quite considerable. ( Played on hard level)

[Rosacrux]

If you grow too big, they'll come against you. That is, if you controll a couple of the "greatest in" factors (wealth, loyalty, military size) it's bloody inevitable to fight against the whole Europe.

I wish they have modelled this better, in a more realistic way, than the old trigger. It seems kinda silly, to gang them all up against the human player just to balance things.

Oh, whatever, I shouldn't complain, I love this game, even with it's flaws.

[+DOC+]

There has to be some kind of ganging up against the toughest faction, especially if it's the human player. Otherwise the game would be too easy and i'd rather suffer mass enemies than have a stroll in the park...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Rosacrux]

sure, if you are numero uno or even close, let them come, any human player should be able to handle it. But if you are #1 in happynes and #1 in income (both quite easy to reach, even from the very beginning of the game) while having only a modest army and a few provinces (nothing flashy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif ) they still come all after you.

And that seems wrong. I think.

Beejeesus, I am becoming a little http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Hippolyte]

I'd like to add that, in defense of the AI, medieval European factions were very aware of their contemporary's power-shares. For example, when the Grand Vizier and the Turks lay siege to Vienna in 1683 (yes, after the so-called Medieval period) the relieving force was not simply comprised of HRE satellites. There were Germans (Swabians and Franconians) as well as the Electors of Bavaria and Saxony, Poles and others. It was Sobieski who said afterwards, taking a cue from a famous Roman, "We came, we saw, we conquered." This became more obvious after the Middle Ages (Europe was always ganging up on countries which overstepped their traditional spheres of control, i.e., France of Louis xiv and Napoleon, Spain, Germany a number of times, etc.) but was nonetheless apparent, to a smaller degree, in the dark ages as well. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif
Still, while the French did anticipate and actively encourage the Turks nearly successful (they literally came within inches of taking Vienna) attack since they had their own interests that conflicted with the preservation of the Holy Roman Empire, it is difficult to envision a cross-religion coalition of Islamic and Christian factions targetting one particular faction as happens in mtw. Certainly there is no historical precedent for the often ridiculous alliances which spontaneously spring up during sp games (when the trigger is pulled?). Regardless, many of mtw's supporters (myself included) wanted the game to be more difficult prior to the patch; it has become so since While improbable and unlikely (I defy someone to list a game/s that is/are truly historical--let's face it they are simply diversions and essentially a form of escapism), I appreciate the challenges inherent in such ai tendencies as it makes victory (elusive at best on the more difficult settings) all the sweeter when it comes. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[insolent1]

Hippolyte
Yes the game is more challenging since the patch but thats mostly to do with the tatical side of teh game. The startegic AI is still completely unchanged. I have played this game now extensivly with every faction. The only real difference I have felt is that it takes me slightly longer to achieve victory this is due to having to wait for the high period before I can begin my steamrolling over europe. Personally I feel until diplomacy is introduced into this game which will allow the AI to coordinate attacks against the player this game has lost its challenge for me. I actually just took out the cd rom from one of my drives for teh first time since I got the game & am now going back to playing my first person shooters. I live in hope that expansion pack will be released & it will include a lot of diplomacy which will alllow the AI to be more challenging strategically. Totalwar is the only strategic/tatical game that I have ever & probably ever will play. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[[RDH] Spetz Natz]

Thank you all for the advice. Great stuff gents.

I pretty much have realized that NOBODY is gonna listen
to my emissaries (despite the fact that my current faction
leader has max influence), so if they want an alliance/ceasefire, they can call ME http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

As for strategy, I have taken a more subtle approach: the old English "slash and burn" technique. Say, find a particularly remote but highly developed Turkish province, bribe the one army that is present there (I have 90,000 florins on average per end year LOL), destroy everything in the province and let my "newly bought army" get wiped out from the Turks marching in to reclaim their province.

Doing enough of this will take a while, but it is a very
subversive way to weaken the enemy. It worked smoothly with the Almohads


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif