If all the factions were played by human... [Archive]

RollingWave

07-13-2004, 05:41

Ahhh i forgot... era is early, and players should be roughly equaled highly skilled players.

My own analysis is that who ever wins the almo/spanish war or the byz/turk/eggie free for all will probably win as long as they don't take too long. due to the great positions/wealth these places have and that in early these factions have HUGE advantage (espically the muslim and byz)

On the almo/spanish... i think it could go either way but favors almos more in early due to richer province and higher production potential (and the fact that the argonese is more likely to backstabb spain than almos) French/English would obviously be too preoccupied with each other to truely hold much threat against the iberian for a while....

On the 3 way middle east free for all (since it'll take a while for the hungarian to really pose a threat to byz borders while the it is rahter unpractical for the almos to fight on the east front until they get some sea rout) I think if merc abuse is involved byz probably have the best chance to win.. if not it's a toss up between byz and turks .......... eggy would obviously try to rush syria in the first couple of turns but the turks will move most of their troops into syria in turn 1 too... in which case the eggies will probably lose as they are hitting with either 1 or no archers ... a couple of camels and spears/peasent against a army of camel/horse cav/spears/um ... after they lose they can't stop the blitz and will probably go outta busniess in a couple of years.

Meanwhile the byz will obviously backstabb the turks and try to boot them out of rum and probably even armenia/edessa too... but if you don't use mercs byz will have a hard time building up enough troops for a while (as they have no really low req spamable/useful troops like camals and DA .... and once the fight goes into the desert they are at a severe disadvantage.....

After it becomes a turk vs byz war turk probably still have better chances as they have less borders to defend and will quickly acess v1 turcoman horse (and probably v2 pretty soon) in tripoli which will be a nightmare for the BI/kats ..... as long as the turks can get back into armenia and/or rum the byz are in huge trouble now as teh cheap massable (and incrediablly poweful if it's from armenia) AHC will steam roll over the spear lacking byz.... but if byz abuse merc they could have a better chance of winning... (becauset they start out with a tavern while it also makes it harder for the turks to sack egypt)

As for the europe mess.... i think if all sides were played by good players it will be rather hard for anyone to really dominate any time soon.... the danes might be able to secure a nice little empire relatively easily but they lack enough good generals to go farther (not to meantion enough money until they get some trade going) the HRE is almost unplayable if all ur oppenet is competent human as u'll be stabbed from every side... (and even if ur not.. u need to raise huge troops to maintain ur border let alone attack) if French/English war ends quick (unlikely) to either way (england is slightly more favorable imho if they give up all their french province and rush flanders) the italians are interesting but it would also be hard for them to secure a good enough position ......... Sicilians are secure enough and may pose a good chance if they use ships wisely (like say... steaing some north africa province fast while the almos and eggy/turks are still fighting hard)

Overall.. if no merc abuse... i would vote Turks... their overall troop make up is just too good (strongest in early... and one of the strongest in high....) and while securing the const/georgia/egypt triangle makes for a incrediablly secure border for such a ridiculasly wealthy and vast kingodm that can produce so many good troops..... almos may be good but after early they will start hurting if anyone in europe manage to stay alive in one piece....

The_Emperor

07-13-2004, 10:34

Byz would certainly win in the eary period.

The only thing that could possibly defeat them is if the Huns & Turks make war on two fronts.

Leodegar

07-13-2004, 11:08

very interesting question. i'd love it, if it was possible...

i think it is really depending on the players and on the style of overall game. if there are shifting alliances to deny the emerging of a superpower, by always attacking a strong expansionist faction from all directions it might prevent any faction from actually winning.
on the other hand, if 3 or more strong factions keep a lasting alliance, they could manage to part the world between them. perhaps byzyntines, italians, HRE, first crushing hungary and poland together and afterwards expanding in different directions.
or perhaps the three western factions: spain, france, england.
or a muslim alliance. or, or, or...

as a single faction i'd vote for england, or almos in early, as their almohad urban militia is very strong the first few decades.

katank

07-13-2004, 14:57

good lord, if there are human players, there actually might be a sensible alliance system. reminds me of diplomacy.

I don't agree as to Byz winning.

they start with a nice big sploch of land and have early leader syndrome (namely look so big that everyone wants to kill you).

if against competent players, my blitz techniques are almost out of question due to not being able to void a border to push another.

then, they take a good 20 years to build up a sizeable horse but the Turks will have v2 AHC soon after and likely v2 turcomans as well as szeks pouring down your throat.

hmm, hell horsies from both sides don't sound fun.

RollingWave

07-13-2004, 15:15

But Katank... if the Byz abuse the mercs and use the force (jedis :P) they probably could beat the turks outta rum/armenia fast since they start with a tavern... while it will take a while before the hungarian even reach ur border and by then you probably could get the v1 treb archers.

If you can't use mercs though I agree byz isn't exactly that hot... though i think blitzing eggy is still quiet possible but will take longer and harder..... (at least it's hard for them to avoid the first capture of their sultan... and then after that even if they do sack syria they're broke and can't sustain the fight. espically vs the mass ha hell of the turks with few to no archers/light cav.

What's ur view on the Iberian slugfest though if all sides were played by human

katank

07-13-2004, 15:48

Almos would win.

the thing is that the Spanish cannot reliably rush either the Almos or the Aragonese without exposing themselves to the other.

the Aragonese and Spanish are too small to resist the Almo horde who don't have to worry about Eggy who'll be busy enough in the Golden Triangle.

the shiftng alliances coudl maintain the balance of power though as would the early Spanish crusades and if Aragonese decided to head north into Toulouse and help the English out or just stab the French.

Daveybaby

07-13-2004, 15:49

I notice that this is rapidly devolving into lots of smaller discussions about 1v1 battles, which is nice but unfortunately taking 2 factions in isolation and deciding who would win is kinda meaningless. Everything changes if, say, almos and egypt form an alliance - they dont have to watch their backs anymore, while spain & turkey might have to fight a war on 2 fronts vs england/france/arag & byz (heh, 4 fronts for the spanish, which kinda does put them at a disadvantage). Or of course it could all be completely the other way around, with Byz and Turkey forming an alliance. *Or* Egypt and Turkey could form an alliance etc etc etc.

So I think its next to impossible to decide who would win if *all* players were played by human, because so much would depend on alliances & diplomacy. Probably a different faction would win every time (although after a few games once it becomes obvious which factions start with a natural advantage - those factions would probably be quickly ganged up upon and stomped). Spain and HRE are probably screwed regardless, though.

It would certainly make for an interesting game. Its almost as if its some kind of really, really stupid and awful omission on the part of CA that they didnt include it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

RollingWave

07-13-2004, 15:59

Quote[/b] ]I notice that this is rapidly devolving into a lot of 1v1 battles - which is nice but unfortunately taking 2 factions in isolation and deciding who would win is kinda meaningless - everything changes if, say, almos and egypt form an alliance, they dont have to watch their backs anymore while spain & turkey might have to fight a war on 2 fronts vs england/france & byz. Or of course it could all be completely the other way around.

So I think its next to impossible to decide who would win if *all* players were played by human, because so much would depend on alliances & diplomacy. Probably a different faction would win every time (although after a few games once it becomes obvious which factions start with a natural advantage - those factions would probably be quickly ganged up upon and stomped).

Well yes there are a lot of possible variable (espically... civil wars) but at least you can point out who is more likely to win.

As for developing into 1v1 battles... i'm looking from a very practical point of view... in the case of eggy and almos... the almos don't have much if any realistic troop production capability on the east front espically since you would want to tech up algria/tunisia for money/ships early on... so they have little to no realistic capability to carry a war into egypt until they can reinforce by sea or until they can build cyricia into a big unit producing province..... while the eggie's start with only 1 troop producing province and vast borders and would be suicidal to not try to take syria asap....

So that leaves the almos basically on 1 front... while the spain could be back stabbed by the aragonese and later on french/english.... obviously if they hold out long enough for a crusade they have a chance but if not almo's vast wealth and unit producing capability will probably overwhelm them. while it would take a while for the things in the east to settle and even then carrying long battles across north africa is not often the best option.

I think it would be more fair to set the rules as no mercs though... as that has a ton of luck involved to what you get and favors a few factions (namely... byz) greatly.

I think sicilian would be interesting tough... they are probably the most secured catholic factions aside from the danes but they also have early and easy access to just about everywhere in the meds.... if they could use their early ship advantage well enough that could seriously change a few things (like... stealing constaninople early on... or north africa) espically if real human players are involved and they get a good secert deal with the italians...

Kristaps

07-13-2004, 16:19

Quote[/b] (Daveybaby @ July 13 2004,09:49)]It would certainly make for an interesting game. Its almost as if its some kind of really, really stupid and awful omission on the part of CA that they didnt include it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Well, it's not really a stupid omission but rather a practical consideration not to introduce several human played factions on the strategic map. Think about the implications of such a solution: how long would it take for a game turn to complete with all sides deciding on their moves and then agreeing on times to play out the tactical battles? :) How long would it take for everyone to drop out just due to anxiety of waiting for all opponents' decisions.

I am pondering if a potential solution is a server based strategic game in which humans can join in and take over reigns of available factions from the AI. Once a human feels that his real life obligations become a pressing priority, the AI could take over the faction until the "next available human". :)

I feel that a time limit on deciding ones moves should be imposed: either press "next year" or the AI will do it for you... The same should apply to the tactical games: either you lead your troops into the battle NOW or the AI will play it out for you. Still, I see major delays with players, who do not have any battles in a particular turn, having to wait for hours until other opponents battle it out... :(

It seems, the reality would be such that most people would play the human player strategic game only for one or two turns, dropping out as soon as the 'waiting' kicks in. Another alternative would be to enforce autoresolve for all tactical battles but that would take away 90% of the fun from the game... Alas, human played strategic game will remain a utopic dream... :(

katank

07-13-2004, 16:34

ever played the board game of Diplomacy?

it's going to be like that, except crazier as you don't have block armies but actual units etc.

the treaties are going to be amazingly elaborate.

move your huscarle with w1a2v2 from province A to province B or it constitutes a threat to my territorial security, blah, blah.

I think that still, MTW lends itself to natural alliances wuch as Almos and Eggy, at least for the first 20 or so turns.

meanwhile, cuthroat is like English and French in which peace cannot exist.

the diplo concept of fear factor can also be introduced in which homelands shared or homelands adjacent to each other would contribute to it and you can rapidly find that factions like English and French as well as Turks and Byz or Turks and Eggy are all inherently incompatible.

Ironside

07-13-2004, 17:23

No mercs and no previous alliances that can mess it up.

The Almos

I would try to secure the eastern border and would most likely get it. Focusing on the Spain I would probably outproduce them after some years and can probably secure most of Spain. A problem later in the game is that my troops gets "weaker" so I have probably to fight several wars quite fast.

Early chances: Very Good

The Aragonese

This guy has an interesting start. I would take Toulouse on turn one and try to bribe Navarre. I don't think Spain would like to open themself up for an early attack from the Almos so this border is secured. Then I would try to get an alliance with the French to attack the English and share the mainland provinces. The French would probably aim for taking out the English afterwards (the English seems to lose after this when the comps plays) so we both have a secure border so a war with the Spain or Almos is next. DON'T ally with the Almos to kill the Spanish before you can challenge the Almos.

Early chances: Quite Good

The Byz

Get an alliance with the Poles or other potential threats to the Hungarians to keep them is check. Get an alliance with the Egyptians (easy) and focus on the Turks that are in two front war, get Rum and possibly some more provinces. Advance north and secure some borders or attack the Hungarians, avoid getting to big, to fast or you will get gangbanged. Losing Bulgaria and Greece temporarly is acceptable.

Early chances: Exellent

The Danes

I would attack Sweden on turn 1, then withdraw back to Denmark and then bribe the rebels in Norway and use then as a garnision in Sweden. Try to attack the Germans at a good opportunity, and try to trade.

The Egyptians

Accept the Byz alliance a crush the Turks asap. Start trading or get an alliance to attack the Almos or Byz.

Early chances: Good

The English

Get Flanders Try to get an alliance with the HRE against France, bevare of the Aragonese.

Early chances: Quite Bad (based on the Aragonese scenario, one of the most likely scenarios here

The French

Defend Flanders at all costs try to grab Englands mainland provinces and if the Aragonese wants to ally, do it even if they took Toulouse. Try to get HRE occupied. Try to take England after that, it's a strong, secure position. The Aragonese probbly need to take attension to his Spanish border to avoid getting overrun by the Almos.

Early chances: Good

The Germans

A hard position. Try securing borders and if a lucreative war appears join them, but try to get as few borders to protect. Try to take out the Danes if you can and NEVER leave that border weak. Have exellent diplomatic skills.

Early chances: Bad

The Hungerians

Try to snatch any province in a allied war, or if no opportunity shows, advance into the rebel territory. Snatch Poland if you can.

Early chances: I'm not sure but they always seem to do well, so I guess it's Good.

The Italians

Try to take out the Sicilians and get the biggest fleet, guard your border to the HRE and try get some provinces from him if you can. Guard Venice from the Hungarians.

Early chances: If you win the war against Sicily, Very Good.

The Novogrods

EXPAND asap. Try to take as much as possible of the rebel provinces.

Early chances: Quite good

The Polish

If you can take out Hungary, do so, else expand into the rebels.

Early chances: Quite good

The Sicilians

Try to take out the Italians and get the strongest navy. Your navy is really the key here.

Early chances: If you can take out the Italians, Exellent.

The Spanish

Get Cordoba and if the Almos repel that, hope for crusades to stop the evil Aloms.

Early chances: Bad

The Turks

You will most likely get a two front war, the Egyptians is stupid is they don't attack you and the Byz don't want you to win that war. Try getting a alliance with the Hungerians to reduce the preassure from the Byz. Try to kill the Egyptians first and then the Byz. If you succed then you have exellent chances afterwards.

Early chances: Bad

Did I miss anyone?

Early chances= your chances to get a decent empire in the beginning, after that, it's impossible to tell.

So conclution, the Byz

Drake

07-14-2004, 14:30

I'd hav eto go with England here because their home starting position is extremely god as a defensive position. If a player could deploy a significant naval power and then work outwards, knocking out each rival in turn, then they would be much better suited to wining then someone like Byz or Almohads who have enemies on multiple fronts. An English player could pick and choose who to fight with and use a proper alliance system which a game would offer to their own advantage.

Of course, it all depends on the players.

afrit

07-14-2004, 14:58

@katank

I think you're right. It becomes like Diplomacy and
almost anyone can win. I think factions with best
high/late era units are at an advantage because by
then the board would be simplified to 3-4 nations and
they can potentially dominate thanks to their better
troops.

@kristaps

True multiplayer is utopia, I agree. But I think with
play by mail you can simulate *some* competition
between two humans. I have started a thread on that in
the PBM subgroup, but not generated much interest
there yet. I thought this is a good place to repeat
it.

We can design a 2 player "competitive" PBM as follows.

Game is started on Expert/Early/VI 2.01/ GA

Objective is to have one of your factions with the
most points at the end of the game.

The first player picks a faction and plays it
until the first GA score points are counted (1110
iirc)or for set number of years, say 20.

First player uploads savegame. Second player looks at
savegame and, using -ian mode, switches to a faction
of his choosing and plays it until next GA points are
collected. (actual play is done under normal mode, without
-ian cheat).

Then first player goes again. He can either play his
original faction or pick a new one (i.e one not played
by player 2) . Then it is player 2's turn. He picks
either his old faction (if player 1 did not destroy it
already) or a new one not previously played by his
opponent. And so on..

At the end of the game, the player who "owns" the
faction with most points wins.

The strategy in the game is to pick the right faction
and what to do with it. Do you pick a faction close to
your opponent's last one to destroy it? but that
potentially leaves another faction somewhere else on
the map pretty strong that he can pick at the next
turn. So you should try to keep all the factions weak, which is hard on expert which is the point You
also need to make sure the factions you have played so
far do not end up fighting each other.. Plenty of
second guessing to keep the game interesting in the
later stages and avoid "inevitable win syndrome".

Obviously, this kind of game gives a big advantage to
the first player, so I say that player 1 must chose a
faction with "Hard" rating as the the one to start
with (otherwise, with the Byz, someone like katank can
have half the map by next player's turn).

What do you guys and gals think? Which faction would
end up winning in such a system? Anyone wants to play?

I am definitely willing to try this with a human
"opponent" at some point in the future, when I have
more free time.

afrit

PS: if this has been done before and found to be a
lousy idea, then my deepest noob apologies are in
order. But I am really think it would work.

katank

07-14-2004, 15:48

afrit, sounds interesting.

would like to give it a go.

so you total the points of all the factions played by a person at the end?

cool.

Daveybaby

07-14-2004, 16:00

Quote[/b] (Kristaps @ July 13 2004,10:19)]Well, it's not really a stupid omission but rather a practical consideration not to introduce several human played factions on the strategic map. Think about the implications of such a solution: how long would it take for a game turn to complete with all sides deciding on their moves and then agreeing on times to play out the tactical battles? https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif How long would it take for everyone to drop out just due to anxiety of waiting for all opponents' decisions.
Actually, IIRC, CA themselves have stated that the reason there isnt an MP campaign is because most of the code is reused from shoggy, and its such a spaghetti mess that it was next to impossible to implement the changes necessary for MP - it wouldve been easier to rewrite from scratch.

Hopefully Rome will feature MP campaigns (havent been following closesly though - knowing my luck theyve just stated that it wont). https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

RollingWave

07-14-2004, 16:08

I guess so.... if real diplomacy gets involved than what would probably happen is for the first 50 yaers or so there is a lot of fighting and a few faction will be wiped out.... after that you probably end up with a couple of really big empire and then quiet a few smaller onces... then everyone will become quiet hesitent to make moves because they'll get gang banged too much..... and thus we probably end up with no winner by 1453 while around half of the factions may survive.....

One of the more key factor here though is sea rout and trade.... as long as you can't dominate the sea (which will be VERY hard when all sides are played by human and they make real deals about sea routs) there is no realistic way you can overcome everyone else by pure force... even if say you end up with 3 kingdom u have 50-60% of the map while they split the rest.... since they'll trade with each other they'll end up with more money and more thus more ships... once they get control o the sea ur screwed ........

I think Turks definately have the best overall chance though.... early on they could make deal with the almos to sneak egypt while the eggies would surely try to take syria... without egypt the egyptian don't stand a chance against the mass horsearcher of the turks.... they'll probably lose some province to the byzantian in the back but as long as they can secure the middle east i think eventurally the byzantian is more likely to lose espically when the hugarian creep up to their borders.....

if you can secure the mid east and constantinople you will definately be one of the main super powers....

Other likely superpowers is probably the almos .... the english/sicilian/danes would probably easily secure a relatively safe empire and survive for a long while... while the rest would need some really smart diplomacy to stay alive.

Don Corleone

07-14-2004, 17:56

I think people forget about the whole concept of shifting alliances. No human player is going to play to come in 2nd, so all 12 players will repeatedly change alliances so that none of their 'allies' is getting a better deal in the world then they are. I see a world with 12 factions played by humans as devolving into much what medieval Europe was like: constant warfare, no ability to evolve buildings, treason, civil wars, murder between siblings, you name it. If anything, I think it would worse than real life, because in history, the muslim factions didn't attack each other, but an Elmo faction would have to at least raid the Eggy's to keep them from getting too big a head start and the Turks would have to try to kill whomever. There's no guarantee the Byzantine emperor will move to wipe the Turks out, that's just conventional wisdom on the board. They could just as easily agree to make Rum their boundary: Turks going south and Byznatines going north and west.

In the midst of all of this chaos, I see two factions becoming strong: the English and the Danes. Why? Only because they have provinces which are very difficult to raid. I'm not saying they'd win, but I'd have to say all things being equal, the human factor (unpredicability) means security and isolation are important factors to success.

By the way, they weren't an option, but my money would be on the 13th faction, the only faction that DID win in real life, the papacy. By claiming to be 'beyond' the political world of men, they worked behind the scenes to move the pieces around the chessboard and get rich in the process. Sound a little cynical? Well, Richlieu was not the first cardinal appointed by the pope specificially to control a monarchy, trust me.

Cebei

07-14-2004, 18:03

This is probably the best question and topic regarding MTW.. My vote is Byzantines.. Katas=Tanks Their only drawback is that they dont have a diehard spear-class infantry. But who cares he he

RollingWave

07-14-2004, 19:29

IMHO kats are only scary when they are jedis (high star hier/kings) when they die and rout like what their stats are suppose to do they aren't too tough... they don't really slug it out that much better than other cavs while they have a much harder time flanking (or avoid flanking) ... of course... jedis that can go down to 1 unit after a few second of fighting then go on to kill/rout 2 full packs of spear and 2 full pack of AHC is rigged beyond normal comprehension XD

Alliance will shift but in general some alliance (particularly those invovling sea rout trades etc... ) are usually too benificial to give up... and can prove too powerful for another nation to overcome without it...... (2 smaller kingdom trading with each other >>>>>> 1 very big kingdom usually)

Just as an example if the Dane and English decide to make a deal on no attackign each other's ship and free trading ... it would usually make them filthy rich... in fact... so rich that back stabbing each other's land even when they succeeed would end up losing more income.... so they probably will stick to that deal for a looong time until there are few other competitiors

I think in the early byz/turk/eggy war though... turk's chances are much better than most people think... they start with the best army (mass ha while eggy have 1 horse archer and 1 cav... byz hve like 2 archer and 1 fast cav etc...) and they can start pumping really good troops (turcoman/ahc) really fast... while they also have much better spam troops (low req effective troops like camals and DAs.... espically teh combo of AHC/turcoman is VERY difficult to deal with for the spear lacking byz... while eggy's early position/production capability makes them extremely vunerable and even after that they can't really make a effective offense troops against the turcs until high....

katank

07-14-2004, 20:24

yep. shifting alliances would mean a very interesting game.

no gurantees are there but central factions like HRE, much like Austrians in diplo, if they survive beyond the early years, they can actually be fairly strong and have a decent shot. Byz reminds me of Russia in looking really big at first.

hmm, I also think that multiway power balances are the key and often coalitions might form to hold the leader from obtaining 60% and clear stalemate lines can result.

unlike diplo, the stalemates can actually be broken by good tactics in battle against the odds.

afrit

07-14-2004, 23:37

Quote[/b] (katank @ July 14 2004,09:48)] afrit, sounds interesting.

would like to give it a go.

so you total the points of all the factions played by a person at the end?

cool.
katank,
you can either total all the factions, or count only the faction with highest score. I don't know which would make for a better game. I think counting only the highest score faction may be more interesting, because one strategy you can use is play a faction to "help" your other faction that you really want to win. Also, it would make it more attractive to return to your old faction. We'll have to try to find out.

I think the second player should get to play the last period to even out the advantage of the first player. I also think GH should be off limits as a faction until late era.

I am willing to give it a try, although I am not very experienced with the game (played only 5-6 campaigns with 4-5 factions so far, only once on expert). So *you* really want a better opponent. Also, I will be busy this weekend, so can't play seriously till the weekend after (I work 70-80 hours a week :-( )

I am more than happy though to facilitate one between any two players (we can have it on the PBM subgroup). I'd love to see katank and The_Emperor duke it out ;-).

afrit

katank

07-15-2004, 03:49

darn it. I thought my save game problem got fixed but apparently it wouldn't work again.

people can't seem to open my savegames.

Blodrast

07-16-2004, 23:24

why the heck does everyone put so much money on the Byz ?
What makes them so special ?
It certainly isn't their position; early on, they are far too stretched, and they will likely lose a lot of their holdings; later on, they begin pretty weak (1, 2 provinces in late ?).
Their units ? What's so special about them too ? All factions or most of them have their own special units...Sure, Kats are available in Early, but _everybody_ knows about using HA's against them and all that stuff. And their jedi's are hard to kill in melee, sure, but who says you'll engage melee ? An arrow doesn't really care about your stars...And isn't really that the way to kill _any_ half-decent general ?

Rich provinces ? Antioch and Tripoli are probably the richest area in the game, and they don't belong to the Byz. Sure, Constantinople is rich, but then again so is Egypt, Flanders, Venice, Cordoba, Castile, ...

katank

07-17-2004, 00:09

I didn't put that much money on the Byz. they take 20 turns to become viable militarily.

their production is too centralized.

if you take and hold Const., they are pretty much dead.

also ELS (early leader syndrome) might result in getting double teamed immediately.

Armchair Athlete

07-17-2004, 03:37

In early, definately byzantines.
In high, hmm slightly more difficult, but i would say English maybe?
In Late, Turkish or Spanish. (if they live long wnough to get Lancers/JHI

Magraev

07-17-2004, 09:05

I voted for the byz.

They have the economic potential to dominate (as long as the game doesn't last too long). They can afford to "wait and see" in the battle for the middle east. Every turn at status quo favors the byz since they have the best economy from the start. The turks on the other hand have to attack or lose. Eggys can afford (and need) a bit of time too to build better troops.

Ironside

07-17-2004, 09:25

The point with the Byzantines is the fact that the Egyptians are stupid if they don't team up with the Byz, Syria and strong Turks is too much.

So the turks would at turn 2 be attacked by a 5-star kata with 1 nafta, 2 spearmen, 1 treb, 1 alan, 1 byz inf and most likely (unless the Hung:s attacked Bulgeria on turn 1) 1 treb, 1 varangian, 2 byz inf in Rum.
And one 1 treb and 1 byz inf in Armenia.

And in Syria they would be attacked by 6-star general that is a Fine leader (4+ in morale) leading a force of 180 num spear, 300 peasants (that will actually fight thanks to the general), 120 camels, 60 d arch.
And Edessa is attacked by one BG unit.

Against that, the Turks got one 3-star BG, one 4-star camel+ one camel, 7 ha (two produced in Rum, notice they got -2 or 0 morale), 2 peas, 2 spear, 2 d arch.

You have to be a tactical genius to keep all provinces safe, and if you lose 2 of them (the best scenario, Edessa and Armenia), your troop production has been slowed down two turns in these provinces wich means death in this two front war. Losing three of them= Double attack on the last province. And you don't have the men to push and siege their main troop production center and keep the other one from overruning you.

The Hungerians need to attack Bulgeria in turn 2 (turn 1 gives the Turks some support but reduces your chances) and will then fight 2 byz inf and 3 trebs in Constantinople. They need to send such a large army to get the manpower to siege without rebellions for several turns and is then underdefended in Hungary and open for attack. And they need to withstand and attack from the returning Byz.
Thier hope is that the Turks either survived or that Egyptians is joining then on killing the Byz and that no attack on Hungary comes. That's unsafe and therefor unlikely.

RollingWave

07-17-2004, 12:22

But the turks could make a deal with the almos and move most of their troops to syria in turn one... they could leave oen group to hide in the fort and force the byz to stay in rum for a while... while they can blitz into the middle east and have the almos sneak attack egypt... losing egypt within 4 turns for the egypt is instant game over as they have only production there ....

And if all sides were human (thus no special bonuses u get when u play hard/insane comps etc...) a lot of HA is very hard for the byz to beat early with only 1 treb and 1 alan

I think if the turks forfet rum/armenia/edessa for the entire middle east up to sinia or egypt it still bolds well for them in the long run as imho stalling time is acturally more benificial for them once they get turcoman horse and bediouns/saracens going with da byz will take a lot longer to seriously produce byz cav PA and varaians from anywhere but const.. (and in fact it'll take them over 8 turns to start pumping trebs elsewhere too anyway)

As long as the turks can retake armenia the byz are screwed........ and surely more people are willing (and able) to get a piece of the byzantians than the turks earlier on

Ar7

07-17-2004, 13:54

The argument can continue forever, because of the human factor, each times players decide differently.

From what i see everybody can blitz it's neighbor and thus can be back stabbed himself. Or he can seize any hostilities and wait and see or forge an alliance and stab his ally...or or https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-dizzy2.gif https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-stunned.gif

My point with this story was that predicting anything is near impossible.

But let me take this discussion somewhere else. Would you really like to play a game that starts like that "blitz blitz and blitz again" This would make every faction weak, even if it won the war. Where is the fun here, no historical "feel" to it.

Let's make a couple of more rules and see what happens ( eeesh it's like we can play it https://forums.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif )

- Peace for the first 20 years, we all hate rushing don't we?
- No mercs
- No attacks to make a quick "land grab" every war has to have an excuse. Would make it more fun. Like the Spanish attack Almos only to unite Spain not crusade through Africa. Or say if your prince is married with another faction's princess you could use it as an excuse to attack them and claim the throne after the king dies etc.
- And if the Pope would be human played then crusades could only be launched after his allowance.

Ironside

07-17-2004, 14:14

Citera[/b] ]But the turks could make a deal with the almos and move most of their troops to syria in turn one... they could leave oen group to hide in the fort and force the byz to stay in rum for a while... while they can blitz into the middle east and have the almos sneak attack egypt... losing egypt within 4 turns for the egypt is instant game over as they have only production there ....

Yes but the Almos is probably more willing to try to conquer Spain, considering that they also got the early attack syndrome and they are very open for an attack into northen Africa then.
And I wouldn't stay in Rum if I can destroy the Turkish army in Syria.

Citera[/b] ]And if all sides were human (thus no special bonuses u get when u play hard/insane comps etc...) a lot of HA is very hard for the byz to beat early with only 1 treb and 1 alan

The problem with the HA is their morale, beat the rest of the army and see the HA quickly rout. In that case their only use are some arrow fire and flanking.

Citera[/b] ] I think if the turks forfet rum/armenia/edessa for the entire middle east up to sinia or egypt it still bolds well for them in the long run as imho stalling time is acturally more benificial for them once they get turcoman horse and bediouns/saracens going with da byz will take a lot longer to seriously produce byz cav PA and varaians from anywhere but const.. (and in fact it'll take them over 8 turns to start pumping trebs elsewhere too anyway)
As long as the turks can retake armenia the byz are screwed........ and surely more people are willing (and able) to get a piece of the byzantians than the turks earlier on

The Byz get Trebs at the same time the Turks gets HA and byz inf at the same time as saracen inf. And the Hungerian border gets cowered by Constantinople early on.
Taking the Egyptians land in the beginning can be effective, but the Byz will have better economy, better generals and the same level of troop production.

When I think about it, this game would consist of alot of raids, because as long as your main army isn't beaten you're in the game and it takes a while to get a second main army.

Sociopsychoactive

07-17-2004, 16:37

Actually, I disagree completely. No-one would win at all.

With skilled human players the wars that typically spawn superpowers (english/french, spanish/almohads, byantine/turks) would drag out for at least 50, more like 100+ years before there was any clear winner. If the players used proper diplomacy (which is very likely) then you would get some ganging up, but the moment someone got a visable lead on all the others they would get attacked by loads of others.

Yeah, some factipons would get wiped out, some would get bigger and some would dominate certain area's, but the game would last well into late and end up without a clear winner at the end of the game, in the 14'th century. Maybe someone would get to the 60% mark, but even then they probably wouldn't take it as it would be great fun, and they would want to try and conquer the world by then, only to get stomped by almost everyone else.

There wouldn;t be a clear winner, and while some fights might be over before the end of early, you wouldn't see the superpowers you always get in SP, at least not untill far far later, by which time you don;t have enough years left to conquer the whole map.