Strategy vs Battles

[BlackFireStorm]

Another inane poll. I find it hard to choose between the two. There are so many threads to the strategy side of the game, but battle tactics are so important too. What do you all say?

[lanky316]

I prefer to do my organisation on the strategy side, it means that I do play for periods of time without a battle while I make sure the set up around my attack is ready. I tend to make sure that I'm in a good enough position to go for it automatically but anything vital or a defence of my army I'll do myself.

The recent highlight being my 12 men holding out against a small but heavily outnumbering besiging army on the battlefield by running out the back door and hiding in a wood in the corner of the battlefield. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[squippy]

I say... never fight a battle you don't know you will win.

[Shono]

I enjoy both, said he sitting on the fence http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Saying that, with the battles you can reduce your casualty rate by fighting them which benefits the strategy, so I always fight them even if I dont want to or know its going to be a chase round the field.

The only down side with the strategy is the burden of many territories. It is a shame you cannot select some of your more outlying territories to auto build on a territory by territory basis and have some kind of varibales you can change as to the path they take or the type of troops you want to build.

[handyandy]

I like both eqaly i do only have the demo. I do how ever like to just stand and charge somtimes but others i like trying to perfct the perfect stratergy. If you were not talking about battles i am sorry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Battles are to me much more fun than the strategy, hard to say why. The whole point of the game IMO.

[Sjakihata]

I am sorry to say, but as it is now the is no strategy part in TW series. There never were. You only play it because of the nice battle engine.

If you want STRATEGY (which I actually prefer over battles, but voted first option because we speak tw wise) seek other games or play RPG where you have OPTIONS. You have no options in TW.

And to move a spy a princess and a couple of armies is IMO not strategy.

[Hamburglar]

I like fighting the battles the best BUT I really only do it in Campaign mode. I almost never play Custom Battles etc. I like keeping track of my men over the years instead of just never seeing them again. Plus I like the interesting forces and uneven battles you see in the campaign.

In MP and such, the armies are always too equal. I like fighting those Last Stand battles with my King's unit and a unit of 200 spearmen holding a bridge against the enemy.

Or fighting the Horde

[magnatz]

Most strategy, but I like the occasional battle.

[BlackFireStorm]

I must admit, I was expecting this poll to go right towards the Battles - Strategy is just a distraction, given the number of people on the boards who play multiplayer. I guess part of the attraction of MTW is the mix of the two phases of play, both very different and IMHO very addictive. Thanks for the input everyone.

Blackie.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (Sjakihata Akechi @ Sep. 24 2003,14:10)]

Quote[/b] ] If you want STRATEGY (which I actually prefer over battles, but voted first option because we speak tw wise) seek other games or play RPG where you have OPTIONS. You have no options in TW.

I vigorously disagree. All of movement is strategy. Put your army in the wrong place and you might as well not have it. Move at the wrong time and you might as well have given up. Don't move soon enough and you might as well not have got out of bed. Movement is strategy, strategy is movement.


Let your rapidity be that of the wind, your compactness that of the forest.
In raiding and plundering be like fire, in immovability like a mountain.
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt. [6:19] - Sun Tzu

[seghillian]

For me, it's pointless to make this choice. I love the game as a whole. When I'm in a battle, I'm concious of my overall objectives on the strategy map, so my objective goes beyond the sole objective of winning the battle. I may well be concerned to preserve my troops for future actions, or to inflict damage on an opponent's most important troops, so I can finish him later. Fighting a battle without these overall objectives is slightly less interesting.

Equally, the strategy map on it's own would get a little dull. It's good to get the economics right, train and then marshall your forces to the right place, and then transfer to the battlefield. I do autoresolve if the battle looks tedious (eg. I have overwhelming force) but mostly the battles are fascinating.

[Hamburglar]

I agree with you Seghillian.

The problem with fighting single battles and multiplayer is that it is WIN AT ALL COST.


Sometimes in Campaign mode you realize that those troops WILL be needed in the future and that sometimes it is worth it to call a retreat when things turn bad rather than fight to the last man on a slim chance of victory.

Also some times if the enemy has a 8 or 9 star general I will focus most of my efforts on KILLING him, rather than winning the battle. If its a not-important battle I sometimes will just try and kill him and then retreat. His surviving army is gonna be a lot easier to kill next year when they have a 1 star guy in charge of them.

[Devastatin Dave]

I had to go with both. I really enjoy both aspects of the game. I'm hoping RTW will have more teeth on the political and infrastructure part of the game. But we will see.

[Gregoshi]

Greetings and welcome seghillian. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

I have to agree with the both camp for many of the same reasons they stated so well.

[Archlight]

I'm a fan of both, they two phases integrate well together, and I'm not much of a strategist, so that part is challenging for me. The tactical battles are fun too. I like playing armchair general

Now I just need to get good enough to stop using the pause button.

[MILITARYMAN]

Strategie or Battle??
Well to be honest you cant win wars without a combination of the two.So i voted i like them both,but its the strategie what wins the day?unless someone swipes you and your army runs off.HA HA http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[nokhor]

i think both are excellent but i only play the first about the first 5-7 battles and auto-resolve the rest. partly from boredom, partly from the lenght of the battles. and i just autoresolve it through.

also makes it more challenging because i play ironman rules. if my 8 star general loses and gets -3 morale or if an ally launches a sneak naval attack, tough. have to counter it all strategically with no reloads and auto-resolves only.

[Alrowan]

for me its both, but not as one might think, i love the strategy side, and i autoresilve about 90% of my battles, but that is only due to playing no MP so much, that i have become completly disatisfied with the lacking AI.

[Scipio]

Gotta be strategy I mean strategy is what it all comes down too I mean im reading a book about the punic war and it has quite a lot of parts in the history where if the romans were to have gone an hour later or been a couple of miles away could have seriously changed the outcome

[Lord Rom]

Battles by just a little. The battles are so awesome in this game, there's not much difference in it as in a real battle except for the suffering Multiplayer is very strange compared to the single player game, all the valor buying really distorts the combat. But it is so fun Facing live(or mostly alive) opponents is an adrenal rush http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ShadesPanther]

I agree with Alrowan after playing online sp battles just get boring. I usually control it if its an important battle or I am heavily outnumbered

[Jeebus_Frist]

I must confess that I am a strategy nut. As a direct consequence I only play glorious achievement mode and I always put extra effort into achieving the goals attributed to my faction. In order to defend myself against my numerous unpredictable neighbors I do my best to develop small, but powerful, forces that can handle various types of situations. I get the most fun out of being outnumbered in seemingly hopeless situations and snatching a stunning victory from the jaws of defeat with a well timed brutal cavalry charge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I suppose each person's tastes are different and we should all tailor the game to suit our personal needs and keep gameplay fresh. I pay special attention to avoiding the things that I feel make the game to easy for me such as extensive trading networks, spy revolutions, and sponge crusading through a rival catholic's territory.

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

[sparrow]

Well, the main reason why I bought Shogun and MTW was for the epic battles....
Despite that, I do like the strategy equally. For instance, at the moment in my current game, my empire covers nearly all of Western Europe apart from Italy and I am in a war of attrition against the horde, slowly gaining ground--I think they have lost the will to fight;-). I need to keep troops in the rear to answer to any immediate threat, whether it be a revolting province or a serious counterattack. I need to develop my infrastructure in order to pay and train my ever-growing military. This part is equally important and interesting as the battles.
Without that strategy element the game would get boring quickly wouldnt it? BUT, I wish CA could have combined the 'revolutionary' game engine they created with an equally 'revolutionary' strategy element, rather at the moment its based on the RISK model. I really want to see a more detailed diplomatic model, where I can form lasting alliances (instead of them breaking them at a whim cos you are getting too powerful..at the moment there seems to be no reasoning behind things), send troops to help them, etc.
Perhaps combine the diplomatic mechanics of Civ (or Galactic Empires..) with the real-time-battles of MTW and I think you would have an awesome game..like two games in one
Heres hoping for RTW...

[The Dragon]

both equally for me

[mercian billman]

I prefer strategy, but sometimes I just can't resist a good fight http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Playing as the english I completed the conquest of France, and the British Isles, I've decided to turn my focus south, and fight the Spanish, and Almohads, while using spies, and assasins to weaken the HRE.

IMHO there's nothing funnier than watching your opponents border provinces rebel http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[ichi]

Not equally, but I truly enjoy both. Trying different strategies with the various factions, testing the limits of what works and what will bring down an empire, that's fun.

Fighting the battles, getting the high ground and working over the AI or an online opponent (or getting worked over, and learning from it) is really fun.

It's the synergy - the combination - that makes it great. To plan a campaign and then pull it off, both overall strategy and battlefield tactics.

ichi

[Taillefer]

Confess that I am still an adrenalin junkie,and when the ' head hurts' with Harpoon3 much prefer the buzz of battles.
(Both SP and MP VI )

Two unrealistic elements in MP are not knowing what units you face and no constraint on losses.

There is some fun in guessing what the opponent will field and perspiring when you get it wrong, but in real medieval warfare neither side would be totaly blind. Informers, spies, turncoats would have varying degrees of success and there would always be an area of information uncertainty -' will Fairfax get there in time with the cavalry ' 'Can we count on the Earl of Blagh ?' Thats why as someone has said -'Movement is strategy.' You start from a baseline of knowing what opponent mustered last
time and you calculate what else he can now field.

Could this be incorporated into the software and is it desirable ? Say the host could set a slider setting the degree of
pre-game exposure - you get to see say 50 - 80% of opponents unit types (not numbers) Likewise in reverse.
Of course Hosts could set this up anyway outside the software.

With losses, it would be great to see a survivors rematch - that would sort out the the real strategists. Again alternatively
the software could apportion penalties for excessive losses, perhaps, dare I say it resulting in a draw.

Taillefer.

'England expects.......a win ' http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Paxx]

I enjoy playing battles pretty much, I often play custom battles along with campaigns. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Fragony]

I love the 'whole' game. I like playing the battles, and I enjoy building up my empire and getting my GA points.
I think Medieval strikes the perfect balance between strategy and tactics, and nothing beats fighting your first battle with your homegrown valour 2 chivalric knights(viva la france). The only gripe I have is with the diplomatic system, CA should have watched and learned from Alpha centauri, there should be a lot more options.

[barvaz]

You know the feeling when reading a good book and the plot evolves in parallel moving from one sub plot to another just as it gets most interesting ?

This is how I feel when playing MTW - when on the campaign map I am so hooked that I don't want to get into battle but once I start the battle, I have so much fun I don't want to get back to the campaign.

I guess I love them both equally.

- barvaz

[Tempiic]

Im missing the I love both but I find the strategy part of the game too shallow to enjoy option

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Squippy wrote:


Quote[/b] ]All of movement is strategy. Put your army in the wrong place and you might as well not have it. Move at the wrong time and you might as well have given up. Don't move soon enough and you might as well not have got out of bed. Movement is strategy, strategy is movement.

I couldn't have said it better myself...
Both the strategical and tactical aspects are important to me. In fact, I think they can't really be split apart.
Actually, that's one of the reasons why I don't bother with MP...



In relation to what Sjakihata said:


Quote[/b] ]I am sorry to say, but as it is now the is no strategy part in TW series. There never were. You only play it because of the nice battle engine.

If you want STRATEGY (which I actually prefer over battles, but voted first option because we speak tw wise) seek other games or play RPG where you have OPTIONS. You have no options in TW.

And to move a spy a princess and a couple of armies is IMO not strategy.


I couldn't disagree more
Games like CIV, AoE, the ancient MoO and the like, are management games, not Strategy games...
I know, because I used to play them obsessively, and in reality they have really very few things relating to REAL Strategy.
If you would like to know about what is REAL Strategy, I can recomend you a few books about the subject... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif




Quote[/b] ]Let your rapidity be that of the wind, your compactness that of the forest.
In raiding and plundering be like fire, in immovability like a mountain.
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt. [6:19] - Sun Tzu

Squippy: Love your sig... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Have you read mine?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Jeebus_Frist wrote:

Quote[/b] ] I only play glorious achievement mode and I always put extra effort into achieving the goals attributed to my faction.

Me too... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif



Quote[/b] ]I get the most fun out of being outnumbered in seemingly hopeless situations and snatching a stunning victory from the jaws of defeat with a well timed brutal cavalry charge.

You're right. Those victories have a special flavour http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif



Quote[/b] ]I suppose each person's tastes are different and we should all tailor the game to suit our personal needs and keep gameplay fresh.

I have the same view on that subject.
You don't like it?
Use another aproach or... ...if all else fails, change it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Theredlemming]

I used to be obsessed with the stratagy and am only now becoming a fan of the battles. Large battles intimidate me and i tend to Autocalc tem if i have a good general. I like the sort of 400 against 400 style battles

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Forgot to mention my choise... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

It goes like this:
50%Battle
50%Strategy

[Voigtkampf]

Both the strategy and the tactical part are very exciting and make TW an exceptional series

When the game begins, I just love to fight the first battles... As I mostly play with the HRE, the French almost always open the hostilities. Though the game description claims otherwise, I always found HRE to be more difficult than the French, no matter the setting. I have, as French, practiced tactics of blitzkrieg at a very early stage against English provinces and conquered (I always play from EARLY era) Flanders; if I can hold Flanders, I'm safe from English and can move south to the Iberian peninsula where I set up a defense perimeter on either Navarro - Aragon or Aquitaine - Provence line, and with about 3 armies in each province I'm rather safe from any invasion from that direction - for the moment, at least Having secured my borders to north and south, I turn on the vast Holy Roman Empire and it's scattered armies and have half a Europe within blink of an eye Germans, on the other hand, have six catholic neighbors and somewhat poor provinces with insufficient income, so they always get attacked by French, Polish or Italians. I adore fighting those smaller battles with up to a dozen units on each side, knowing that, if the troops on my right flank waver, my whole empire will fall before the invaders Later, as I mass thousands and thousands of soldiers, I prefer auto solve than to drag on for hours, fighting a battle already won...

As for strategy, it's a brilliant part too, and it's promising to get even better with RTW Respective fellow knight who spoke how there is no strategy in TW series will find me disagreeing about that. Strategy, both in matters of building infrastructure, deploying armies and using your agents is filled with opportunities. For example, rather than using assassins against enemy Egyptian generals - who tend to fail miserably against
higher ranking officers - I used a quite different technique in order to stop the Egyptian massive advance after they conquered Constantinople. The technique, which I dubbed spy-rush (in resemblance to mindless tank-rush introduced by C&C games), was simple, yet remarkably
effective; I have produced a larger group of spies, minimum of eight to ten, and have sent them over Spain (under my control) to North Africa and than to Egypt. Concentrated spy effect caused almost immediate uprisings and rebels taking over control, destroying a number of facilities in provinces. As soon as I have created the wanting effect, I would move to the next province, stirring up even more trouble and repeating the
cycle, sending replacement for captured and killed spies. The Egyptians were forced to abandon further progress and concentrate of suppressing rebels. Of course, they have succeeded in that task, but at cost of their aggressive initiative and a lot of their most developed provinces being crippled, lowering substantially their ability to produce high quality troops and wage war. And, the best part was that I even wasn't in war with them


Old Sun Tzu would have approved, I believe... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[HawaiianHobbit]

Stategy, but I fight most of my battles.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]Old Sun Tzu would have approved, I believe...

No doubt about that... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I use the same tactic

But, if I'm at war with them I also use another one: Naval domination.
After that, I just ravage their provinces with an expeditionary force... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[Black Arrow]

Im about 75/25 for battles but the strategy does put stuff nicely into context and some days you can let the AI do the fighting and stay home in the mess with an ale..

[FoundationII]

I like battles more than strategy, but if I play strategy I don't fight the battles, it takes too much time.

[Balamir]

I've neer played SP since I tried MP so that means battles deinitely.

[taoistlumberjak]

I'd lean to the cincinnatus thing. Love being a general, only will strategize (strategery - GW bush.) when i absolutely have to.

I can also organize a damn good army. Unfortunately, i always go broke...

[Somebody Else]

Personally - and many others seem to have the same view - nothing beats taking on an army of two or three thousand with three or four hundred men, and winning. Admittedly, the last time I tried I lost. [The first wave of Mercian dogs was dispatched - with heavy casualties on my part. I had to suffer the ignominity of my ~40 remaining Huscarles (who were totally exhauseted) being swamped by a thousand or so peasants.]
But that wouldn't have happened without the strategy map - it's very amusing to rampage around the AI provinces - the inexorable march north with armies of Huscarles... something of a migration... It's great building up the facilities to churn out an unstoppable horde of high level units - and organising vast multi-front campaigns. Reducing a faction to nothing in two turns is rather amusing...
Anyhow - this post is long enough. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Cruelsader]

I agree with ichi that it is the synergy - the combination - that makes the game great. Battles against AI without any other consequences besides winning or losing one engagement would quikcly grow boring. The strategy alone would get dull especially because the AI is not challeging for experienced players and because the presentation of information is not well organized. It is the well implemented combination of strategy and battles that makes this game really outsanding.

[Tempiic]

Hmmmm.... seems people are thinking there's no strategy in battles alone... quite odd, since strategical and tactical decisions are made on lots of different levels and scales...

To say it roughtly, strategy is determining what you going to do.... tactics is determining how you going to do it...

Example, deciding whether to defend that hill or not would lean heavily towards strategy.... while - once you reached the decision you are going to defend it - figuring out how exactly you are going to defend it, would lean more closer to tactics

[Shamus]

I tend to lean towards strategy, but I never auto-resolve a battle. If I felt confident that the AI would make the right choices in sieges and smaller battles, then I would probably auto-resolve them. However, the last time I asked the computer to auto-resolve a siege, a disgusting number of my men died. It was as if they had opted not to use the siege equipment, and instead tried to use their bare hands to take the walls down.

[Loki]

Hi All

The longer I play MTW the more I'm getting into the stratagy. I must admit that when first playing the game, I was in a mad rush to get to the next battle and test my tactics.

I've had great good fun and countless hours of enjoyment playing MTW, experimenting with various factions etc. My latest mad experiment is exercising my Sun Tzu, Musashi, and von Clausewitz, by not fighting ANY battles that I am not SURE to win. I am doing this by using auto resolve for EVERY conflict.

So lately I'd say Stratagy... BTW for anyone interested this is a fun and unique way to play this game

[BlackFireStorm]

Quote[/b] (Tempiic @ Dec. 08 2003,16:17)]To say it roughtly, strategy is determining what you going to do.... tactics is determining how you going to do it...
Intersting point, Tempiic. I've always though of the difference as being one of time. Strategy is long term, tactics short term. As you point out, there is no reason why you can't consider this structure within the confines of a battle alone. However the use of Strategy to describe the non-temporal http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif side of the game (ie you can take as much time as you like on the campaign map) is a useful handle. I can't think of another name for it that works as well - can anyone else?

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Just of the top of my head:

Strategy - concerning to the study, planning, preparation and deployment of a campaign (not just military forces involved).
Tactics - implementation, coordination and execution, on the field of battle, of the structure (army & logistics) able to beat the enemy.

But you might want to read a good Military History book or manual where such concepts are defined. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Voigtkampf]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Dec. 08 2003,18:12)]But you might want to read a good Military History book or manual where such concepts are defined. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
No need for that... Lord Aymar is right http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I have spoken Haugh http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Tempiic]

Well I am mainly basing this on some management book... and yes there is a third thing next to strategy and tactics, but i forgot the name...

Yes time is often used as well to distinguish between tactics and strategy... But these two concepts are found on all levels and often are linked to each other, one influencing the other...

On the campaign map, when playing turks for example, an initial strategy could be to take over constantinople as fast as possible... Your tactics will define how you are going to take it asap http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

deciding how to make up your armies is both strategy and tactics as well... First defining what you want to do with your army, then finding the units who will do that job best based on availability, costs and performance, while keeping eye on possibility of quick replacements.

Thing is that you cannot seperate strategy from tactics, one without the other is meaningless.

[Ludens]

I don't know wheter the difference between strategy and tactics are clear cut.
Okay, they are in TW: strategy is the map, tactis is the battle field. But in my own (mental) dictonary, I just see them as two different levels. Tactics are tricks to win, strategy is the implementation of tactics in a grand plan.

You can assign those to levels where YOU want, this is entirely a personal decision. For example: you could call the battle-tricks tactics, and the map-tricks strategy, or you could place them both on the map-level: a tactic would be to attack garrisons with small armies to destroy them, instead of with large ones so they would retreat and form up with a bigger one, resulting in a massive battle. Strategy would be first destroying the Turks and the Hungarians.

Different levels, and every one has to assign them themselves.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]and yes there is a third thing next to strategy and tactics, but i forgot the name...
You're right. It's the operational level.
But this has been defined much more recently, probably around the midlle or last quarter of the XX century.
As of now, it looks something like this:

Military components of an operation:

-Strategic level:concerning to the study, planning and preparation of a campaign (not just military forces involved).
-Operational level: deployment and tactical implementation of the necessary structures & logistics to sustain the plan and operation.
-Tactical level: implementation, coordination and execution, on the field of battle, of the armed forces able to beat the enemy.

[ichi]

Goal: Desired outcome
Objective: measurable/definable situation to be attained

Strategy: the specific way one plans to achieve goals
Tactics: the specific things you do to achieve objectives

Strategy is what you plan to do
Tactics is how you go about doing it

Strategy is the plan
tactics is the implementation

ichi

[Finn]

I have been auto-resolving most battles, simply cos a) i wasnt that great at battles yet, and b) my machine was absolutely dogging in the battles (slide show, hit pause, work out what has happened, give new orders, unpause, slide show again, pause to find out what happened repeat etc)

Although last night i managed to fix it (driver update, and who'se bright idea at nvidia was it to set AA on by default????) so i'll probably be doing more battles from now on to try and improve..

[Sun Tzui]

I like'em both, and only seek to autoresolve if I'm pressed for time, to save the game You know.....*just one more turn honey I'll be with you in a minute* http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-tongue2.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] ]and who'se bright idea at nvidia was it to set AA on by default????
Yeap, that's a bummer, until we know what went wrong... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif




Quote[/b] ]You know.....*just one more turn honey I'll be with you in a minute*
ROTFL http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

More like an hour, don't you think? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink2.gif

[spud_gun]

I prefer the battles myself, nothing better than telling 4-5000 men/horses to go create a bloody mess on a nice peice of grass oh and maybe kill a few of the bad guys too http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_knight.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_charge.gif

[Count Fudgula]

Using the strategy is the map and tactics are the battlefield definition, I'd have to say...umm...I can't decide.

We do spend way more time staring at the map than at the battlefield, but we can't wait till we get to that field.

Looking forward to a huge battle with an extremely powerful Spanish empire in Navarre (as the French), was made more enjoyable when I realised I could send in a couple of Grand Inquisitors the previous year to soften up (toast) the Spaniards best generals.

MTW is a fantastic combination of both strategy and tactics I reckon, and I can't think of anything else that comes close, 'cept STW, of course

[Kampfen]

Quote[/b] (Sjakihata @ Sep. 24 2003,14:10)]I am sorry to say, but as it is now the is no strategy part in TW series. There never were. You only play it because of the nice battle engine.

If you want STRATEGY (which I actually prefer over battles, but voted first option because we speak tw wise) seek other games or play RPG where you have OPTIONS. You have no options in TW.

And to move a spy a princess and a couple of armies is IMO not strategy.
Well, I beg to disagree. Strategic decisions are those you make when you decide to build a fort instead of farmland or troops. Spies and assasins, yes or no? I take such and such a territory and it'll cause that faction to do this or that. And that will cause those guys to do that.

No, if you think there is no strategy involved in this game, I think you are missing something.

As to my vote, both. Early on, strategy is everything but battles are great fun. Later, if your strategy has been good, the plethora of decisions bogs the strategy part down and the Empire becomes a managerial nightmare. Constantly moving up old troop types and plowing them under to make way for new types, scouring the provinces to make sure some duke or earl didn't become illiterate because he had an odd number of toes. Looking for his replacement. And is a million florins enough to instigate general war and hence interrupt all seagoing trade, risking bankruptcy by having too many mouths to feed? No now it's time to auto-manage more and battles and tactics become the saving grace. Can I say grace and battle in the same sentence?

It's all good.

[katank]

agree with Kampfen about strategy. sifting through stacks to find suitable governors for provinces, maintaining loyalty, spying on enemy territories, planning invasions, deterring invasions, trying to get out of bankruptcy is truly a micromanaging nightmare and can be soooo time-consuming in the later stages of the game but is also kinda fun.

I love to do early rushing strategies of guts and glory, throwing every thing I have at a neighboring faction. I do this on both strategic and tactical levels.

I like battles, especially those epic horde battles but still like strategy a tad more.

[lancer63]

I see battles as a consequence of my actions on the strategic mode. Each modifies the other, therefore they're interdependent. And I like them both.

[nightcrawlerblue]

I prefer to let my minions (the CPU) handle the battles while I do all the other stuff. I haven't gotten good enough to win most battles yet so I auto resolve. I'm practicing on Custom Battle in the meantime. I also prefer to auto-resolve because the battles take so long to finish.

[Gregoshi]

Quote[/b] (lancer63 @ Mar. 01 2004,17:42)]I see battles as a consequence of my actions on the strategic mode. Each modifies the other, therefore they're interdependent. And I like them both.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif Brilliantly said That is why, although fun, MP online battles seem shallow - for lack of a better word.

[RZST]

darn, i would prefer battles but sadly my 3 year old notebook does not like battles involving 1000+ people on the screen :(.

i vote strategy since well, its the only thing i can play without slowing notebook down :)

[Nowake]

You shouldn't have one without the other.

[Simovek]

Well for myself personally I really can't stand the strategy map part of the game. I hate spending tons of turns building my armies just to how I want them. It just annoys me to no end. But then again, I find that MP or custom battles also bore me because there is only the battle, theres no feeling of if I lose this battle my entire empire falls that you can get with campaign.

[Doug-Thompson]

I enjoy strategy more, even though strategy never gives the thrill you get when you pull off a successful ambush on a bunch of knights with a few militia and peasant rabble.

Good strategy takes some of the fun out of battles, oddlly enough. Good strategy gets you to a battlefield with more men, better trained and equipped, with a good mix of units and led by better generals.

[gaijinalways]

I voted for both strategy and battles. I have played/play many strategy games (business syms)and also enjoy other battle games as well. Medieval is a good combo of the two,　regardless of what many think of the AI in battles.

[VividYoshee]

I'm a strategy nut, although it just isn't TW without the epic battle system. I wish the strategy AI was better, but I say the same for pretty much every game. I am eager to see how it is improved in RTW.

[NewJeffCT]

I like the strategy part, but I love a good battle when it comes along. Sometimes in early, when your army isn't too big yet, I love having 4-5 units against the AI's 5-7 units. Then, you can really use your tactics in the battle. Or, when you have 4,000 to 5,000 men against the invading Golden Horde's 15,000+ and you are down to the last waves of the Horde and you're also down to your last units as well...

But, that said, I like deciding what buildings to build in what order, developing my empire economically so the peasants will have good farmland to feed them and keep them happy, speading my religion to all corners of the map. Learning to balance my army & my florins while maintaining the defenses along my borders.

[Hakeem928]

It is neither the strategy nor the battles which make this game so appealing, but rather it is the interplay between the two.

[VikingHorde]

I like both.

[Kekvit Irae]

I autocalculate my battles unless I wanna try something new, or when I have no chance in hades of winning.

[yonderboy]

Here's my simple little reply:

I really love them both. Honestly though... playing a full campaign game (I pretty much ONLY start on Early) where you play EVERY single battle would not only take a LONG time, but, sadly, would be somewhat tedious due in part to my ultra-micromanaging. I don't quite mean boring per-say, but definitely tedious. I have a tendency to auto-resolve a lot of the obvious or tedious battles. Anything that I think well, the computer might screw this one up or this looks pretty hopeless then I'll instantly click the Personally Resolve button, no problem whatsoever When it comes to castle assault, it's an easy equation. If I have siege equipment, then I'll do it myself. If not (i.e. if the battle would be a lot of hacking walls while getting shot) then I'll let the computer handle that. All that aside, I do truly love the magnificent battles. Too bad that most of my friends don't have a clue about battle-strategy and therefore it's a foregone conclusion that I'll win. I don't do much online w/ Total War since I'm a huge addict of LAN'ing... I always had 6-10 friends withing a few miles willing to pack up their machines and come over for a weekend (sometimes a week) of gaming. Oh how spoiled I've been. I used to look at online gaming w/ a frown since in the beginning it was very difficult to find worthy/polite opponents, etc... But I'll probably have to take another look now that Total War has such a large, worthy fanbase.

[tehNellie]

To add my tuppence to the poll, at the moment I concentrate more on the strategy side of things.

I think to dismiss it as a distraction and claim its somehow civ lite is to do it a dis-service. I will grant that the AI is pretty stupid in that, for example, a nation being heavily pounded will refuse cease fires time and time again and continue, for example to destroy your trade routes and harass any apparent weakness in your lines, leaving you absolutely no option but wipe them from the face of the earth (how anyone can get anything done without relying heavily on trade is beyond me, I wouldnt be past peasants in late period without it). It is a shame that the AI isnt more competant, but its no worse than CIVIII or any other build and conquer game I've played all of which will happily sacrifice themselves to conquer a temporarily weak province regardless of the fact that its neighbours contain 3/4 of the strongest best equipped armies on the map.

The battle engine may well be the main selling point for many (most?) people when it comes to shelling out for a Total War title, but I personally much prefer the Strategy side of the game at the moment. I've learnt the tech tree, just about figured out what to build and where and can happily stamp over the entire map before I've even developed the later units.

Maybe I'm just not too hot on medieval tactics as I seem to do just fine in Napoleon Total War personally commanding the battles, but as with Shogun (which I eventually played almost exclusively in Strat mode becuase I just couldnt get to grips with the battle system) I skip a lot of the battles in MTW and rely on my superior strategic planning to just swamp any opponent with larger numbers of better trained, better equipped armies.

Perhaps I just need to do more reading, but I also find that I lose more battles fighting the control system and end up not being able to see critical units or portions of the battle field sufficiently well to be able to react to changes in the action. I prefer defensive battles to control, but the best positions to defend tend to be the worst positions to actually view and control armies from in my experience. Hence I actually end up controlling the less serious fights and leave the critical battles for the AI to determine which should, in theory run totally contrary to standard gaming wisdom.

[nightcrawlerblue]

Lately I find it nearly impossible to not auto battles. My computer just doesn't like to handle MTW. Even in some of the smaller battles (under 600 men) it doesn't do too good. If I try to do it with over 1,000 men it is too horrible. I have to pause every few seconds to see what happened.

[PanzerJaeger]

I havent played a campaign in 10 months, but i chose the second option bc i did enjoy them when i played 'em. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Kekvit Irae]

Quote[/b] (nightcrawlerblue @ Mar. 25 2004,19:44)]Lately I find it nearly impossible to not auto battles. My computer just doesn't like to handle MTW. Even in some of the smaller battles (under 600 men) it doesn't do too good. If I try to do it with over 1,000 men it is too horrible. I have to pause every few seconds to see what happened.
What is your processor, memory, and video card like?

[Bhruic]

I'm not sure that civ-lite is really a bad label for the strategic side. The major strategical elements are what to build in what order, and what province to attack/defend. If you are competent at your job, that really doesn't provide a lot of options. From what I understand of R:TW, they are working to improve the strategic game a lot, which is good. But for now, M:TW has a much stronger tactical game than strategic. IMO, of course.

Bh

[tehNellie]

To be honest you could argue it either way.

On the strat side, do you build everything in every province? Do you have a few specialised production centres? Can you cope with a surprise attack blockading/destroying your shipping? Do you have sufficiently good planning to cope with an attack in the most awkward provinces you control and so on. Yes ultimately developing a province is a case of building a,b,c and then churning out units. But if it is going to take you 15 turns to get those units where it is needed when the brown smelly stuff hits the spinny thing, then you've failed.

Believe it or not I managed to totally forget about the Golden Horde when I was holding the northern black sea territories until they appeared. OOPS. I lost Kiev and Khazar in two turns and then had the neighbours join in the fight against me with bugger all but standard defensive forces in the remaining provinces (ie I was totally un prepared for all out war in that region of the map). That I was able to hold the rest and retake Kiev next round whilst holding off everyone else tells me I got my contingency planning right and is the first time I havent seen the Golden Horde in single player stamp all over the map, that personally, I find very satisfying. On the one hand something from an Out of Character viewpoint I should know full well was going to happen got totally overlooked, yet the inherent planning of my empire was enough to combat that in addition to two planned wars on other fronts and a couple of smaller empires trying to take of advantage of it

On the battle front, I really dont actually see a huge amount of difference. Can the Army you have in place defeat the one attacking you or that you are attacking? if not on paper, can you use your own guile to overcome this deficit? If that crack unit you were relying on routs can you still overcome that loss and fight back? etc... Once you learn the relative unit strenghts, an even battle becomes relatively straightforward if you play to your advantages. Do I stand and fight that massive cavalary army with my archers or retreat to my fortress and next go let them charge my swiss pikemen instead?

I just see the main difference being how you like your fix playing TW. Do you like the immediacy and thrill of charging 1000s of men into battle and personally commanding the action or does the somewhat more sedate pleasure of your overall empire planning winning you the race do it for you?

Both work for me, I just find it a lot easier at the moment to control the campaign overview than I do to control the battle where the interface hampers me as much as something unexpected happening.