Do you fight wih your heart or with your stats?

[scudknight]

I've seen alot of "breaking down the numbers" if you will, of the game itself. Almost scientific tests of delay time to charge and damage to the frontline of enemy numbers - penalties for valour, plus for longbowmen from wales, slope advantage and the number of blades of grass on the field.

My question is - do you play the game down to these very standards, or do you simply see the units as they are on the field and in your mind as they charge?

Or is it a quick combination of both in your head as the battle progresses? Personally, I tend heavily towards the common sense factor instead of the heavy game mechanics I tend to read over.

"I see peasants - charge knights" not "I see peasants - check wind velociy, rouse left knight flank close, pull crossbowmen forward, bring back archers on the hil, set to aim, calculate number of probable deaths on first charge, possibility of immediate rout." Just basic emotions really, that may lose me more battles than I'd like, but deep down I feel that memorizing how to beat the game at its own game is kinda like hitting the pause button every few seconds. Although I'm sure I'll get many of the opposite view here.

Discuss

[Wishazu]

Quite simple for me, i just try to pick a balanced force and to make an appropriate response to an enemy attack with the unit best suited to it. obviously i`ll try and get in the best position i can first though

[pdoan8]

I use both.

"Know your enemy. Know yourself." - I consider this is stats. In order to successfully conduct a battle, I need to know the units stats, mainly their advatage and weakness.

"Know where to fight and not to fight" - For me, this is common sense.

I often spend time to look at unit stats, advantage/penalty of terrain, formation, effect of weather and fatigue level... I don't need to memorize all of the exact number, but only to know what type of troop is best for what, possible advantage, weakness and penalty. In the battle, I always consider unit stats before giving the order to a certain unit. Throwing heavily armoured troops against the enemy with AP weapon means giving the enemy an advantage. Using shock troops with good att but low in def to engage head on with the enemy melee troops is not as good as using them on the enemy flanks. Always try to fight where I have the advantage. Fighting up hill is bad. Trying to get to the same height as the enemy before beginning the battle is better. Ambush the enemy in the forest with a spear/pike or Cav unit is not as good as using sword/shock unit.

Sometimes, stats reflect the common sense or vice versa (often, built in game system). Faster cav with high charge are meant for charging enemy flank or rear while the slower should take the front. Defending higher ground is easier. Missiles have better range if fired down from higher ground. Applying the Rock - Scissor - Paper system.


Quote[/b] ]I think that common sense and stats usually coincide: they have been programmed that way

Exactly what I try to conclude in my post.

[Ludens]

I think that common sense and stats usually coincide: they have been programmed that way. Where do stats end and common sense begin?

[scudknight]

It's like, at what point does it become winning the battle, or beating the game at it's own programming using it's preset or changed codes? either one being it's extreme.

""Know your enemy. Know yourself." - I consider this is stats."

To this statement I disagree a bit, because although I have an idea what damage a lance would do to a group of CMAA, I do not have the foresight of certain things in real life to help me in that decision other than my own experience, which would be a bit unrealistic if I sent out lances of knights in charge formation to die just to set it up again to see a different result. Maybe I'm not explaining myself correctly. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[Crazy Duke]

Stats is very important of course, I don't want to loose my army for nothing, but when I'm on the field, facing with enemy, I'm trying to play with my heart, imaging I'm leading the real army, and use all my knowledge in strategy to beat him, no matter how is he strong.

If he's too weak, route and kill them all, if he a bit stronger, kill as much as my unit can do and siege him later.

I would like to have multiplayer game battle with someone, but unfortunately my phone connection is too slow, and it's very difficult to make all things work fine.

[desdichado]

for me too much statistical analysis is no fun. I play MTW to have fun, not to re-live a subject I did in uni a couple of years ago. I have not installed VI so I have never had the advantage of the pre-battle deployment screen so often I am fighting an enemy of whom i have only vague notions of their quality.

This does mean I sometimes have battles where my supposedly elite troops get chopped to bits by some insane high valour peasant scum and leads me too curse the opposing general (who was 9 star apparently), MTW and anything else that comes to mind.

But thats the way I like it. I make my decisions in battle based on what I think I know (and should be) and sometimes they're wrong but I never want to get into the "well my valour 4 cmaa should beat his valour 3 byz inf with 58.2% losses" etc. War is never that precise.

But if other people want to play it different I have no problem with that and I have certianly learned a few useful tips from Puzz3D and the like who seem to have somehow memorised every useful stat and then some

[Doug-Thompson]

A better mix of better troops, and more of them. That's how to fight. The battle should be won at the strategic level, before you press the "begin battle" tab.

[Beirut]

It's all heart with me. (Since my memory is shot to ****)

I'll go into a battle purely on how I feel.

[Satyr]

I do some of each. I try to know the strengths and weaknesses of all the troops in the game in a general sort of way. I try to take advantage of this on the battlefield. For instance, I had to charge my pavise crossbows into some alumgavars last night. I knew they would lose. I just needed them to keep the enemy occupied long enough to get my cav back from chasing routers. It worked, they were verging on routing when my cav flanked the enemy but that was all I expected of them.

If I need to charge the enemies general with some heavy cav, I will pick the unit with the best valor to do that. I usually strive for these sorts of matchups.

I am very aggressive in the campaign portion of the game (well, in battle too) and so I am often fighting an enemy that has more and better troops than I do. If I can use my troops the right way, I can win. Knowing each units stats in relation to the other units on the battlefield lets me win these battles most of the time.

[Aelwyn]

I use a combination. Sure its good to say you're gonna play as you feel, but if you know nothing about stats, then its harder to calculate the best way to attack. If you know a bit about the stats, then you can decide how quickly a unit of yours will lose vs another unit, so its easier to choose matchups. This can help you get an advantage when mere flanking isn't an option (like in a crowded 4v4).

[Phatose]

Play by common sense. Too many stats for me to keep track of to play by stats in a battle, especially once the battle is joined and the fog of war descends. Not like I can look at enemy CMAA and determine if they're the valour 1 ones or the valour 4 ones, which kinda makes it tricky.

I do my stat jockeying on the campaign map, and let the battle play by feel.

[gaijinalways]

Battles are a combination of valor (especially your general), types and quality of your troops and terrain and positioning. Even the AI does things to try and throw you out of position(especially on expert).

So in relation to this last point, surprises sometimes carry the day. I have had peasants charge archers head on (spread your peasants out and charge the archers) Sometimes the archers rout or at least lose time regrouping as they can no longer fire on the troops you were trying to defend (you didn't think it was the peasants). Even in Shogun, and in Medieval, I've had Cavalry dash into the forest to attack troops (once in one of the historical Shogun battles all the archers were in the trees, I sent heavy cavalry straight on as it was going to take too long to flank and I was taking casualties left and right, and the heavy cavalry even took down a few soldiers that were supposed to guard the archers). With the computer, of course you can focus on units, and run them around as they chase you or try to avoid your missile troops, but sometimes hitting them when they don't expect it is best. Th AI does this with artillery set at the edge of the battle screen. Sometimes you are chasing what appear to be routers and suddenly boulders everywhere. Of course, these artillery don't come into the battle unless you venture far out, but they protect the retreating or routing troops.

SO my main point is field different combinations but be flexible. I have had the computer run Scotsman at my archers uphill but their valor was high enough they cam e and routed my archers off even after the Scots took heavy losses.
So you never know what will work until you try it

[Thoros of Myr]

I play by both logic and stats, tho stats take a back seat to logic when I dont have time to or energy to mincro-manage.

As far as battles go I always take a quick glance at the stats of various units but when it comes down to it I really don't care if they have a 9 star general and I have a 2 star gen with "good runner". I just try even harder to gain an advanatge and it makes the victory that much sweeter~:D

I don't believe in "grooming" troops as it's unrealistic. IRL you can't simply play with the lives of 1000s of soldiers and hope that 300 hundred came back as hardened warriors. That would result in too many revolts.

[ichi]

Head or Heart?

I play with my liver

I process as much of the info as I can, filter out the necessary bits, then bleed all over the place.

While some might eschew the stats, remember that thorough knowledge is essential to any of life's endeavors. There is knowledge and there is wisdom, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

At Emergency Medical Technician training they teach that one should "know what you are doing, and why you are doing it" Once you have the knowledge then the fun comes in putting it to good use.

ichi

[Random Ronin]

I try to avoid attacking any enemy without a 3-1 advantage, plus the best available upgrades, so I can rely on auto-calculate to win battles with little loss, or even avoid most trivial battles that would only be a waste of time by scaring the enemy off just by the sight of my masses, no blood spilt. Saves much time, money, and forces most battles following to my favour, being defender.

In defense, where I can establish my forces in a variety of patterns, rely on the enemy coming at me, not just waiting in some corner, I use common sense, archers always have a spearmen unit in front of them, cross-bow in front of spearmen to take the sting out of the enemy's heavy troops, then careful maneuver of swordsmen, while my knights, waiting off to the side, suddenly slam into the flanks and rear of the enemy, slaughtering the bulk of them. I retain my axemen and polearms as reserves, securing breaches in the line. In STW:ME, it is the same principle as placing muskets in front of Yari, with archers behind the Yari, preferably on a slope as to allow maximum force of fire, and keeping Nodachi and Naginata behind the archers. Once the enemy gets too close, pull back muskets, let Yari absorb the blow, then rush in archers once they used up ammo, letting them do their thang in melee, and if any of my troops seems on the verge of collapse, a charge of Naginata will quickly turn things in my favour again, then when the enemy is on the verge of panic, a charge of Nodachi puts them to the route, and if I desire, cavalry wipe out the fleeing enemy. Same holds for MTW, only the units are not so balanced in their stats as the STW samurai and much more vulnerable to class contrasts, spearmen being totally owned by swords, archers being pwned utterly by anything, knights being a one hit killer that has to keep falling back to charge again, and so on. In short, you got to keep your eyes on the battle, not trusting any of your troops to hold their own, for all that has to happen for you to lose is that lone group of swordsmen amongst the thousands of enemy spearmen, to go cutting through your spears, ripping a hole in your line, slaughtering your archers, and just f***ing you totally.

[Knight_Yellow]

Common sence.

i dislike Players who use their knowledge of units stats to win games.

its no longer a game when they have to analyze the code to help them win.

[Sociopsychoactive]

I play with common sense.

I don't look at stats, party because it takes away th fun, partly because I'm not a computer, and partly because staring at bunches of numbers makes my head turn to jelly.

I rather think or myself as playing it as if it were real, I will take into account the strenths and weaknesses of mine and the enemies troops, I will try to counter with the rock/scisors/paper idea but I won't look at it and go 'That unit of 60 men can kill 128 men in 4 minutes during this battle', I'll go 'those swoprdsmen would probably do well against thier spearmne, CHARGE'

[Jeff]

I try and use common sense. I'm not the blitzkrieg type of attacker, I'm more of a go with the flow and do what is needed type of player. I don't know all the stats and I'm not really going to take the time to try so I'll just go with instinct and common sense. Some stuff is obvious, like not sending a Cav unit head on into a spear unit and such, but aside from that I don't analyze I just play.

[Macedon]

I usually play calmly and watch my step, but sometimes get really angered http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif on my successful enemy and I just throw everything I have on him and I end up with totally ruined economy, remains of armies scattered in chaos and a whole mess of new teritories with really low level of loyality to govern http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif (And about half the princes missing) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif But I feel good... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[The_Emperor]

I do have an understanding of the stats, I know what the morale penalties mean in most situations...

But inividual stats don't enter into my mind when a battle is raging around me, I fight with my own judgement and my head is not full of statistics when I do it.

So I am somewhere in between because I do have a grasp of game stats, but I do also fight with my heart. I am sure both come into play sometime

[Aelwyn]

Quote[/b] (ichi @ Feb. 14 2004,02:52)]I play with my liver

I process as much of the info as I can, filter out the necessary bits, then bleed all over the place.
lol ichi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Seriously though, the stats aren't too hard to get a hang of. You don't have to know all the stats right off the top of your head. But I know for example if I'm facing a v3 unit of CMAA they've probably got 7 attack, 7 defense, 5 armour, and 10 morale, or a v4 unit of FMAA has 7 attack, 8 defense, 5 armour, and 10 morale. That is off the top of my head, and its not altogether too hard. You can tell what valour a unit has simply by looking at it. Just look at the little flags the unit has, not counting the large unit flag. It doesn't work if say, theres 6 men remaining in a unit, and they have valour 9. But for a full unit of 60 men at valour 4, they should have 4 small flags. You don't have to be constantly thinking numbers throughout the whole battle. But, it is helpful to look at units, know their stats on a basic level, then arrange your army in a way that will maximize their efficiency, or at least have a plan for when the melee starts. That way, you will know if your right flank won't hold forever, and if you have a good chance of overloading the left....so once you do you must quickly double the right. Stuff like that. I don't think it detracts from the game too much, and actually is smart to do in SP because it saves you lives, which in turn saves you money, and might turn a stranded army from one that can last 2 battles, to one that can hold out those extra 3 years until you can send them help.

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

[Knight Keimo]

What is really playing with stats? In battle I normally think about morale penalties, no other staff. Instead, I´m more concerned weaknesses of different unit types, but no, I´ve never studied those charge, attack etc things.
I trust my brutal instincts in battle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Aelwyn]

I understand most people don't want to deal with specific stats, as I have been very annoyed at how the stats aren't the same in SP as they are in MP. So my point of view is mainly MP. In SP, do know general basics of stats though, it will help at least a bit. In MP, it will help much much more though.

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Aelwyn @ Feb. 17 2004,04:53)]You can tell what valour a unit has simply by looking at it. Just look at the little flags the unit has, not counting the large unit flag. It doesn't work if say, theres 6 men remaining in a unit, and they have valour 9. But for a full unit of 60 men at valour 4, they should have 4 small flags.
Now that is useful information. I always thought the number of banners represented the chaos in the unit formation (disorganized units seemed to have more banners in STW). So if you are right this is actually because the unit valour had increased (all the low valour men had died).
I think I will start counting banners in my next battle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .

[Aelwyn]

Try it with your own units, and you will know its true. But if a unit is -1 valour, or zero, you won't see anything http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Lacker]

The game's more fun if you think of it as real as possible. I try to ignore numbers like stats etc and just base it off the type of unit and what I know about them from the past. I do the same with other units I fight. i don't like that you can just click on an enemy unit you've never seen before and know lots about them. It's more fun to force yourself to watch them in their other campaigns and try to learn up on them. Makes it more realistic for me, if not more costly on the battlefield.

A

[Ludens]

Quote[/b] (Aelwyn @ Feb. 17 2004,04:53)]You can tell what valour a unit has simply by looking at it. Just look at the little flags the unit has, not counting the large unit flag.
Justed checked it in VI and it was correct. The number of flags on my units corresponded to their valour. Thank you Aelwyn.

[biguth dickuth]

i combine both. it's not that difficult really. i read the information provided for every unit and know what it is best used for. i'm helped by the fact that i have read most of the units' stats when i was modding the game and adding some new units.

so i know that spears/pikes defend against cavalry, heavy cavalry is best used to attack archers or sword-infantry, sword-infantry is best used to attack spear-infantry e.t.c.
it's the rock-scissor-paper kind of game, as others have mentioned.

in battle, i do use common sense, but my common sense is helped in guiding me to the right decisions by the knowledge of what the advantages and disadvantages of each unit are. i just set up my army in the way that seems best.
i don'tcalculate wind velocity of course that would be like http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif

[Aelwyn]

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Feb. 17 2004,15:10)]
Quote[/b] (Aelwyn @ Feb. 17 2004,04:53)]You can tell what valour a unit has simply by looking at it. Just look at the little flags the unit has, not counting the large unit flag.
Justed checked it in VI and it was correct. The number of flags on my units corresponded to their valour. Thank you Aelwyn.
No problem. Its a useful piece of info to have http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Now you can prob see how theres just some basic stats that you might want to figure out, and you've got that much better chance of maximizing the effectiveness of your army. Sure its fun to play just by feeling, but a lot of times that will get you into situations where you think doing something should have worked, and you end up frustrating yourself.

[Seven.the.Hun]

hmm, heart or stats...well, both, or neither,
whatever the method, its only wise to fight when you will win, and fight when your opponent exposes his weakness...
much like that serpent riddle, where if the head is attacked, counter with tail, if tail is attacked, counter with head, if the middle is attacked, counter with both...
...
i think it went, if opponent is superior, evade him, if angered, irritate him, if an equality exists, you can opt to fight, if without the option of victory...retreat, reevaluate...
...always found the arts full of effective, simple logic stuff...

...of course there is a difference in knowing how to stitch your own wounds, and actually stitching them, tis not nearly as pleasant as picking flowers or engaging in lewd acts...oh wow, some things indeed can include the distraction of their own objective...

now would this be irony??? or versatility???
hmm, my brain confused itself, must be both???

[Knight Keimo]

Quote[/b] (Aelwyn @ Feb. 18 2004,10:46)]
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Feb. 17 2004,15:10)]
Quote[/b] (Aelwyn @ Feb. 17 2004,04:53)]You can tell what valour a unit has simply by looking at it. Just look at the little flags the unit has, not counting the large unit flag.
Justed checked it in VI and it was correct. The number of flags on my units corresponded to their valour. Thank you Aelwyn.
No problem. Its a useful piece of info to have http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Now you can prob see how theres just some basic stats that you might want to figure out, and you've got that much better chance of maximizing the effectiveness of your army. Sure its fun to play just by feeling, but a lot of times that will get you into situations where you think doing something should have worked, and you end up frustrating yourself.
And for my opinion, it is absolutely something what shouldn´t be there http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif Just for realistics you know...

[nightcrawlerblue]

I don't fight with either. I just take all my men and charge them at the enemy. I then cross my fingers, pray, take out my 4-leaf clover and rabbit's foot, and perform several indian luck rituals. For some stupid reason I lose a lot... Oooooooooh... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[katank]

I like to fight with my heart since I gotta believe and often can win despite the odds.

however, having the stats in mind certainly do help to to make the victories possible.

[Nowake]

I fight with common sense. This means I always fight, because I can't lose. If I'd retreat, I'd fight with my heart, this means I'd have mercy.

[JAG]

I use both, best of both worlds really.

[VividYoshee]

I play with my heart based on what I think the general would do. If I have a super madman general who likes to eat puppies I have him leading a brute army in the very gut of the enemy line, toughest guy wins. If he is a somewhat smarter brute he'll actually watch his flank while doing it... :)

I've done things I know technically aren't the most efficient, as I generally don't care about doing my best to exploit the AI but the fun of the battle. I like to win with low losses, but if I do so by some cheap hit and run forever with horse archers tactic I don't really care for it. Battles with personalities to them are always the funnest, even when I end up losing.

Wacky things I tend to do:

As the army gets fatigued I start telling some units that have been royally screwed over by the general to run away (even if it hurts my position). Simulating the "Bleep this, I'm outta here" phenomenon I'd expect of any spearman told to rush headlong into an army full of swordsmen (for the fifth time in a row :) ).

I make use of ambushes, advance positions, scouts, even where they are not really efficient to do so. The battlefields are actually a little too small for some of this, also ambushes always seem to get detected before I can completely spring them. I like to have battles where I say to the troops: "Hold that hill at all costs, or we are.. DOOMED (doomed... DOOMED)", even though I know there is a perfectly good border of the map high slope that would be impossible for them to attack. I also like to split my armies, maybe have skirmishing groups out to harass the front, another group that is trying to perform an end round, and another that is established in the traditional main line. The problem with the AI is it seems to keep its force in bulk, which while okay for a video game my creativity wants a full battlefield slug fest with elaborate pincer moves and so on.

Can you get the same pincer by waiting till they attack and then moving your calvary from the side of the line, a few bits to the side, and then back in, yes... but it seems much more strategic when your pincer had to go through a forest, around a hill, and charging in right in the nick of time to save the embattled main lines (of course I send out the pincer movement long before the main line was actually attacked).

MTW does have too small of a field sometimes, as well as unit numbers, to do this, but its still pretty fun. Some of the things would make for good screenshots (like my hilltop catapult city flinging rocks out as it was encircled by enemy infantry/cavalry, that was hilarious, but those crewers held out suprisingly long).

[Axeknight]

Common sense and the 'numbers and times' war. I tend to skirmish. When attacking a hilltop, I flank and lure with cav, the enemy (hopefully) takes spearmen from the line to deal with the threatened flank. then I charge my swordsmen who I have on the flanks of my line. Then I charge my cavs back into the enemy's back, catching them just as they rout. Coupled with Trebizond archers skirmishing from behind a line of spear, I can kill many enemy spearmen and line-troops without losing too many men. I leave a full attack till late, when my archers are out of ammo, and the enemy is starting to feel comfortable on his hill (I stop my cav lures at least 3 mins before an attack). With the enemy's line of spear weakened by skirmish, and their flanks weakened, they're an easy target, even though they have the hill.

So mainly common sense, but I stick to a routine (until there's a new, shinier, cleverer tactic or the enemy can skirmish better than me). The numbers come into play when I'm estimating when to withdraw cav archers etc to prevent them getting stomped (the AI isn't that good at it - doesn't think about the time it takes to turn around). But these are just estimates.

I'm, a 'I see peasants - charge knights Or shoot em full of arrows them charge knights' person.

[katank]

this is all good but some counter intuitive things work well too.

I wouldn't call rushing archers with peasants intuitive as the archers have better melee but the peasant are actually very fast and will throw enemy archers into skirmish to render them next to useless at time and is cheap and expendable.

I say common sense is great but use your knowledge of the game too

[VikingHorde]

I say mostly common sense, but the stats are usefull info.

[bighairyman]

Quote[/b] (VikingHorde @ Mar. 25 2004,05:54)]I say mostly common sense, but the stats are usefull info.

Quote[/b] ]I'm, a 'I see peasants - charge knights Or shoot em full of arrows them charge knights' person.


that seems like me I'm also a charge person. with knights flanking, it usually works. When things get tough, then i start using my brains http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif

[Lord Godfrey]

I generally use just common sense (i.e., spear unit attack cavalry) but I have recently begun looking at the valor stats on the pre-battle screen to determine what units to focus my strongest forces on during the battle.

[AgentBif]

Quote[/b] (scudknight @ Feb. 14 2004,09:41)]"I see peasants - charge knights" not "I see peasants - check wind velociy, rouse left knight flank close, pull crossbowmen forward, bring back archers on the hil, set to aim, calculate number of probable deaths on first charge, possibility of immediate rout."
The term "common sense" refers to an understanding of how the universe works based on our everyday experiences with it. But the Total War universe often works very differently from reality and when it does, common sense intuition can fail to yield effective tactical planning.

Indulging in common sense is surrendering to blind trust in the fidelity of the models that the programmers have constructed. But I have found that game programmers rarely warrant such trust as their models often break radically from reality.

Common sense says that a 2000 pound warhorse rushing toward your wall of peasants at 15mph would crash all the way through the formation, flopping the poor lads aside like ragdolls.

Common sense says that a single rowboat fielded by a feeble, dying faction couldn't blockade even a large mud puddle, much less your entire fleet of cogs and carracks.

Common sense says that 100 guys with spears could swarm a 50 year old enemy general, drag him from his horse, tar and feather him and insult the dignity of his manhood all at the same time.

Games are constructed by people who often cant afford to model reality with much fidelity, perhaps have a limited understanding of how the universe actually works, and sometimes even have an erroneous notion that fun and realism are incompatible.

If you are truly concerned with excelling in a game, trusting in common sense to make performance judgements can be a bad way to go. You really need to understand the data and code to be at the top of your game. If you don't take the time to understand such details, you can end up wasting countless hours employing tactics that work in reality but which the developer never bothered to model or suffering from inexplicable artificial rules and constructs which have little correspondence with real life.

[PseRamesses]

I adopt to the situation at hand depending on the compostion of my army, the opposing army, terrain and weather.
General rules though: I always go for higher ground with archers and spears and when I can´t, which is rare, I try to draw unit by unit of the enemy force onto lower ground.
When defending I almost never attack. Always with an aboundant number of archers/ artillery and foot on hold pos and formation orders.

[Togakure]

I use both. This is TOTAL war. When off the field I study the nuances of every unit type, for every patch version, and mull over their strengths and weaknesses in consideration of any condition they might encounter. I study maps, develop strategy and visualize tactics for 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3 games on them. I test units against each other in custom battles, under a wide variety of conditions. I use a custom-made spreadsheet to analyze unit cost in relation to CV (Combat Value), to make sure I'm getting a good bang-for-my-koku when it comes to army design. Etc., Etc. ...

On the field, I pay attention to what worked and what didn't, and most especially, to what my allies and enemies do--particularly if they are good players. I apply pressure with my ranged units while harrassing flanks. I use my formation and position on the field as a weapon, and as a shield. I bait enemy cav. I target the enemy Gen. I pull enemy ranged units towards me by retreating their target unit--into the range of my cav. I charge attritioned enemy ranged units on flank with my cav--often routing them--and triggering their cav to intercept. I then pull my cav back at just the right moment, while the enemy cav impale themselves on my spear units they didn't see, advancing rapidly behind my cav. Etc., Etc. ...

To neglect either head or heart, particularly on a personal whim or aversion, is folly for a serious gaming general. If this game is just a form of mental masturbation then yes, by all means, have fun--and die. I don't just play for fun; I play to learn, to practice and to improve in the development of effective strategy and the execution of efficient tactics. That's what makes the game fun for me. If you are my enemy, I will use anything and everything at my disposal to put your head on a spike. It will keep the flies busy while I eat your best food, drink your best drink, and headbang to the sound of your wailing women. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-yes.gif