View Full Version : Different tactics for the English
gaijinalways
06-23-2006, 04:10
I'm currently playing an English GA campaign as a refresher course after a layoff from MTW for over a year and a half. I usually find the Welsh difficult to bribe, so I ended up overrunning Wales instead. I also took Flanders and Champagne, and Isle d'France (?).
Now the how is the interesting part. I have used mercenary troops while slowly putting out some troops of my own as well as capturing some buildings (such as a crossbow production site in Burgandy which the Germans happily gave me:laugh4: ). I started off attacking the French, until the pope warned me off, than switched to bothering the Germans. I considered also attacking the Italians, but held off, not wishing to create too many enemies at once.
My question is, how far should I take my combination of slash and burn and the occasional capture of a province? I currently have the above provinces as well as the starting areas except Anjou and another that I 'sacrifised' to take over Isle d'France and Champagne. I just took Switzerland recently and am debating whether to take it's neighboring province as well for the pikemen bonus (I think it's Trivolia, maybe?). I realize that the pikemen will not be useful until later, but in a GA campaign that is okay. I have yet to do a crusade, but it is only year 1114 I think, and I am slowly building up Wales and some of the more productive farming areas.
I have to also consider dropping some of my mercs, though their upkeep keeps dropping as they are lost to attrition:2thumbsup: , so they are serving their purpose.
King Kurt
06-23-2006, 10:59
How is your trade? I would build a fleet/trade network if you do not have one. This enables expansion into Scandanavia and the Iberian Penisula. Are you playing MTW or VI? If VI then no longbows/ bills until 1205, so in GA mode build your trade and expand slowly for a bill and bow blitzkreig come 1205. With a strong navy, Crusading becomes easier as otherwise you have to plod across Europe - good fun for stripping troops out of the other faction's armies, but somebody always ends up fighting you and it can be difficult to get to the Holy Land.
So broadly I would suggest some building with a few diversions before you come into your own in the 1200's.:2thumbsup:
I agree with King Kurt, if you plan on doing the Crusade goals, it´s important you get your navy set up. Your crusades stand a way better chance of being sucessful if they go by sea instead of land.
Having Switzerland is a great advantage, as from 1205 you´ll be able to recruit Swiss Halberdiers there, and they´re on par with the English Billmen (and since you´re playing the English, you´ve got the monopoly on good polearm units). Pikemen don´t come around until the start of the Late era in 1321, and they need too much of a buildup to be truly used in a regular way, so taking Tyrolia isn´t worth the trouble, in my opinion. Anyways, once they do come around, you can get Swiss Pikes and Swiss Armoured Pikes, and (I think) those are better than even the +1 valor pikemen you can get in Tyrolia.
Sensei Warrior
06-23-2006, 22:33
A fav strategy of mine is to take Toulouse (I think its Toulouse, its the Provence just above Aragon), which is a port Provence in the Med, and make it into a ship building city, along with a Chapter House. Start producing your ships in the interior of the Med to the Provences you plan on Crusading to. Once that is done, stage and launch Crusades from Toulouse straight to the Holy Lands.
You can get to the first provence with 7 ships. Once you can build ships and Crusades it will take 25 years for Toulouse to make the connection to Crusade objectives all by itself (21 years to build the ships + 4 years to build the Crusade). The rest of your provences can use that time to build up their infrastructure and the Crusading armies.
This is standard but don't forget to make nice efficient borders so you can use less men to protect them. I find the Friesland, Lorraine, Burgandy, Toulouse line very nice, but you have already pushed into Switz. Remember Navarre has Iron (I think) and Aragon can be annoying with all their Royal Knights.
Good Luck!
ajaxfetish
06-23-2006, 23:00
Another bonus to holding Toulouse would be that as soon as the High era rolls around, you get a nice valor bonus for your Chivalric knights there. Also, all the northern Spanish provinces have iron (Castile, Leon, Navarre, and Aragon), which can be very helpful, and you can build jinettes, which are nice for crusades in most if not all Iberian provinces).
Ajax
if you plan on doing the Crusade goals, it's important you get your navy set up. Your crusades stand a way better chance of being sucessful if they go by sea instead of land.
I will second that (or am I the third now?). In order to succeed, you're gonna have to quickly take and retain command of the seas. Not only will this help your crusading, but it will also help you establish trade routes, thereby bringing in tons of cash to feed your efforts. I usually try and keep about 3 to 4 coastal provinces churning out ships throughout most of the game. And don’t make the mistake I made once - when it appeared I had established decent shipping lanes, I stopped cranking out the ships. No sooner did I do that when the Byz fleets came along and started blasting away everything I had. Just keep building them, and upgrade whenever new technology comes along.
Another thing I've noticed while playing the English - no matter what you do, you will never be friends with the French, HRE, or Spanish. So I try to eliminate the French as quickly as possible (thereby providing me with additional coastal provinces in which to build ships), then go after the HRE. After I've eliminated those two, I usually find that the AI will allow me to peacefully co-exist with the Italians, Sicilians, Poles, and the Papacy, as long as I don’t do anything to p--- off of the Pope, that is.
But the Spanish are a different bunch. As the English, I find them to be a constant pain in the rear-end. They will never leave you alone. They will constantly poke away at you. And I have found it difficult to eliminate them due to their formidable armies and the fact that the Pope will whine and complain anytime you take some action against them. So I try to build up strong fortifications as quickly as possible in Aquitaine and Tolouse, and maintain fairly sizeable defensive armies in those 2 provinces.
Yes, Navarra is a crucial province in the English campaign, it´s the only one with iron the English have quick access to and it´s rebel-controlled in the beginning. Tolouse is also good to capture once you´re at war with the French, both for the bonus on Chivalric Knights (if you´re in early try to build up Tolouse so you can get Chivalric Knights there as soon as High era starts) and for access to the Mediterrean. Aragon is a good province to capture as well, if need be, it gives you iron and rids you quickly of a rival faction which otherwise can be irritating you with raids.
gaijinalways
06-26-2006, 10:34
The trade aspect can be important, though surprisingly I have won campaigns on expert where I didn't really build up trade at all. The building up the navies for the crusades (and trade as an incidental for cash) is a good idea. Often crusades stall, so if I wish to get more points, it's a good point to bear in mind.
As to getting better provinces for resources, I am on my way. I am considering wiping the French out soon to get Anjou and Aquitaine (two of the provinces the English start with), but I may have to wait. I was considering wiping them out right away and taking on the pope, but I think I may change my strategy and take some rebel lands that appeared in Toulose and a neighboring province after I pushed the HRE around (who I am at peace with now) and finish sacking the Italians (poor Venice is still burning).
Thanx for the advice guys.
When dealing with the French it's important to remember that, Toulouse and Brittany are cut off so if you tackle these first the French will have difficulty in reinforcing them. I tend to start pushing out fyrdmen (VI only), hobilars and archers early on and concentrate mainly on economy. Once I'm strong enough I go for Toulouse followed by Brittany, then on to the rest of the french provinces. A common mistake is that some people go for Flanders inititially. The French can repeatedly launch recapture missions from Ille de France into Flanders then back door you from Brittany into Normandy, Anjou or Aquitaine, stretching your forces. The ideal first target for the French of course would be Anjou, cutting the English territory in half and uniting all of the French territory in one stroke. This is why you can't let this happen.
Navarre can be bribed and if you can also defeat Aragon in 1 sitting, you've got a very good southern border (the spanish will attempt to stab you in the back at some point).
gaijinalways
06-26-2006, 14:14
I took Flanders early, but it is the Germans who seem intent on taking Flanders. The French are pretty weak, now just in Britany and Anjou. I wanted to finish the French off, but the Pope warned me off, and I'm waiting for the warning time to finish. I am starting to build up, and possibly plan to disband my mercs after I finish ravaging Venice, unless the Italians beg to be punished some more:2thumbsup: . Switzerland is coming along and providing me good soldiers, and the xbowmen and royal knights are coming out of Burgandy and Tolouse. So, I'll keep building up reinforcements and soldiers, and ready for the crusades!
gaijinalways
06-28-2006, 02:56
Ah, have progressed further and angered the Polish and the Hungarians with some raiding, before returning my general to Venice which I decided to keep. I will need Trivola or Provance eventually to unite my territories, though my cash is after paying the 'leaving bonus' to my mercs!
I was considering wiping them out right away and taking on the pope, but I think I may change my strategy and take some rebel lands that appeared in Toulose and a neighboring province after I pushed the HRE around (who I am at peace with now) and finish sacking the Italians (poor Venice is still burning).
Somebody can perhaps correct me here if I'm wrong, but there are occasions when you can get ex-commed for attacking a rebel province that was once controlled by a Catholic faction. In my last campaign, I could have sworn I got ex-commed once after attacking two rebel-held provinces, but I don't recall taking a hit to my loyalty or trade.
The way it happened was like this: I waited for the right moment for the Papacy to change hands. When it did, I launched a 4-province "blitzkrieg" against the Spaniards with 4 armies I had been assembling in Wessex. I won only 2 out of the 4 provinces; however, the other two went into rebellion. The Pope popped up and gave me the usual warning about "withdrawing your troops" and bla, bla, bla. A few years later, I attacked the remaining 2, at which point the Pope promptly popped up again and said I had been ex-commed for "waging war with my Catholic brethren," or something along those lines.
Anyway, I never thought you could get ex-commed for attacking a rebel province before (or did I just fall asleep late at night while playing and imagined it all in a dream??? :dizzy2:... quite possible).
Alexios, in situations like yours, the Pope still views those provinces as being owned by the Spanish, even though they're now "rebel". It's maybe just a bug, but I've had this happen to me once or twice as well (although it was a while ago).
Wow, I never knew that could happen :dizzy2:
gaijinalways
06-30-2006, 04:17
I'll have to watch that too as I plan to retake some rebel lands to reconnect my empire to Venice (either Milan or Provance), so it will be interesting to see if that might happen.
Incidentally, I revised my campaign and instead went and stopped a crusade trying to enter Toulose, and then attacked the Spanish and the Argonese and am swinging a second mercernary group from Venice into Rome with it now sieging the Papal States. Since I am excommed at the moment, I should probably retake one of the above rebel held provinces during the Pope's waning days:laugh4: !
Since I am excommed at the moment, I should probably retake one of the above rebel held provinces during the Pope's waning days:laugh4: !
If your excommed you might as well take over as many of the surrounding catholic provences. But don't overextend your armies.
and don't kill anybody that would be bad.
Somebody can perhaps correct me here if I'm wrong, but there are occasions when you can get ex-commed for attacking a rebel province that was once controlled by a Catholic faction. In my last campaign, I could have sworn I got ex-commed once after attacking two rebel-held provinces, but I don't recall taking a hit to my loyalty or trade.
The way it happened was like this: I waited for the right moment for the Papacy to change hands. When it did, I launched a 4-province "blitzkrieg" against the Spaniards with 4 armies I had been assembling in Wessex. I won only 2 out of the 4 provinces; however, the other two went into rebellion. The Pope popped up and gave me the usual warning about "withdrawing your troops" and bla, bla, bla. A few years later, I attacked the remaining 2, at which point the Pope promptly popped up again and said I had been ex-commed for "waging war with my Catholic brethren," or something along those lines.
Anyway, I never thought you could get ex-commed for attacking a rebel province before (or did I just fall asleep late at night while playing and imagined it all in a dream??? :dizzy2:... quite possible).
Did you bother to check what kind of rebels they were? Maybe, if they were those in a civil war, they´d still count as Spanish.
Biggus Diccus
06-30-2006, 15:51
BTW: Has anyone used Kerns with success in their English campaigns? I have tried to have them throw their spears in the rear of pinned french nobles, but I find it difficult to employ them properly.
macsen rufus
06-30-2006, 17:10
Kerns take some micromanagement - it's often necessary to take them off skirmish as they retreat quicker than they throw. Also for armoured targets bonnachts are better (but do you get them in MTW campaign or just VI? Can't honestly remember, sorry...)
Wow, I never knew that could happen :dizzy2:
Neither did I at the time.... ~:rolleyes:
I'll have to watch that too as I plan to retake some rebel lands to reconnect my empire to Venice (either Milan or Provance), so it will be interesting to see if that might happen.
Fortunately, the phenomenon does seem to be pretty rare. Like I said, it only happened to me once or twice. I haven't seen it occur since I got Viking Invasion.
Speaking of which, what version of the game do you have, Rythmic?
Speaking of which, what version of the game do you have, Rythmic?
VI 2.1, XL mod
VI 2.1, Super mod
VI 2.1, Hellenic mod
VI 2.1, Napoleonic mod
I'm yet to try PM:TW
Why do you ask?
gaijinalways
07-01-2006, 05:37
Ah, ran into trouble. Primarily, getting excommed of course drops the loyalty, enough that toward the end I lost Wales (autocalced the battle, wanted to see the world cup!), so I will have to replay from an earlier save. Also, what little trade I had was being lost coupled with 3 merc armies running wild killed my budget (hey, you guys are supposed to ravage and plunder my treasury!:furious3: ).
So, instead, I plan to
1) Not allow the crusade into Tolouse, just use regular troops (no new mercs) and perhaps *attack the Aragonese as well, but see if I have enough troops to hold my border in Toulose.
2) Finish taking Venice to keep it and may still raid the neighboring Hungarian and Polish provinces until the Pope warns me off (one province each), but also disband the depleted merc units earlier as both the each of the neighboring provinces is weak and I don't need replacement units to defeat either of them.
3) Take Milan from the rebels (to connect Venice to my empire) , but using only my troops rather than mercs as the upkeep was too high (originally for taking Milan and assisting my 8 star general in Pope smashing).
4) Plan to attack the French later in Anjou and Aquitaine when the 10 years have expired (might be soon, maybe 2 years) to take back my original territories.
Building is ongoing and I may have to consider attacking the Germans at some point if I can organize a attack that doesn't leave me open to counterattacks.
5) Plan to start building shipyards and pump out ships for trade and crusades (will start on construction in the coming turn with plans 1#, 2#, and 3#).
VI 2.1, XL mod
VI 2.1, Super mod
VI 2.1, Hellenic mod
VI 2.1, Napoleonic mod
I'm yet to try PM:TW
Why do you ask?
I was suddenly curious as to whether the phenomenon was specific to the original game (sans VI), given that it never happened to me after I picked up the expansion pack. Apparently not, though! :inquisitive:
1) Not allow the crusade into Tolouse, just use regular troops (no new mercs) and perhaps *attack the Aragonese as well, but see if I have enough troops to hold my border in Toulose.
You do realize not allowing the Crusade through will get you ex-commed as well, right? (I just ask since it sounded like you wanted to avoid that fate if possible.)
2) Finish taking Venice to keep it and may still raid the neighboring Hungarian and Polish provinces until the Pope warns me off (one province each), but also disband the depleted merc units earlier as both the each of the neighboring provinces is weak and I don't need replacement units to defeat either of them.
3) Take Milan from the rebels (to connect Venice to my empire) , but using only my troops rather than mercs as the upkeep was too high (originally for taking Milan and assisting my 8 star general in Pope smashing).
I would probably go with one or both of those strategies for now, and then see where you're at once you've got northern Italy settled down. Milan is a decent province, and if by taking it you can connect Venice to the rest of your kingdom *without* having to go to war with anyone else, you should definitely do it! :2thumbsup:
gaijinalways
07-04-2006, 03:44
Have changed direction and decided to replay with avoiding attacking a crusade or the Pope. The Spanish sent a crusade out by ship (thus avoiding my provinces), and I have taken Milan. I have also reattacked the French in Anjou and Britany (will see if I can get a king:idea2: ) and am cruising through Eastern Europe with the Hungarians and Italians giving away a province each (similar to before, no mercs this time:2thumbsup: ) and now am attacking the Polish and am considering attacking the HRE, who I am currently allied with:laugh4: (so much for friends)!
So, I am building up enemies very quickly, though I am also building ships for future trade and crusades (as recommended by some earlier posts). One odd thing, when I attacked the Argonese, suddenly the Spanish didn't like me anymore. Anyone know why, maybe allied, (though it seemed like they were eyeing their property as well)?
I have a decent amount amount of cash, and am adding extra troops slowly as well as building up my farming in Flanders and Isle d'France, so should see positive cash changes later. Will probably build up Wales and Switzerland further (Switzerland is further along right now and closer to the current action). I'll give you an update later
Sensei Warrior
07-08-2006, 05:08
So, I am building up enemies very quickly, though I am also building ships for future trade and crusades (as recommended by some earlier posts). One odd thing, when I attacked the Argonese, suddenly the Spanish didn't like me anymore. Anyone know why, maybe allied, (though it seemed like they were eyeing their property as well)?
It seems that way in most of my games. If I attack the Argonese or even if they attack me, the Spanish start getting downright mean, especially if they have given the Almos the boot back to Morocco(sp?). Of course it also seems that if Spain has given the Almos the boot, they decide the next smartest move is to push into Europe :dizzy2: . Now why the heck would they want to do that?
gaijinalways
07-09-2006, 07:00
Well the Spanish are at least neutral now (I have no allies:sweatdrop: ), but I am slowing building up my farming and navy (except for one ship sunk by the Italians). This was used as a pretext by the Germans to stop being allies (even though the Italians had refused several ceasefire treaties over some 15 odd years), and they preceded to attack me in Venice (routed them) and Milan (another rout, read about it in the suicide and bait thread). I am also purging the Germans mostly with my own troops (added only 3 merc units, 2 cavs and a foot soldier) to raze German provinces as a payback, but it is helping with two matters, weakening the German production facilities (I don't always wait to seige the fort, sometimes many buidings are destroyed already) and fattening my kitty without any battles. Just raze, move, intimidate, and move again. They probably will battle me soon again as I approach their larger provinces, but the Germans have a lot of lower tech units (in Venice they invaded with 1700 plus men, but I don't know how many were peasants, though they had a fair amount of archers and spearmen), and their chances of getting higher tech troops are slowly being destroyed as well as any cash producing elements they had.
Basically I haven't added many provinces, though am considering taking some German weakened provinces later and Aquitaine (still held by the Argonese, who also refuse my regularly refuse my cease fire offers). Of course, the Argonese are a nice buffer zone to the Spanish at the moment.
It seems that way in most of my games. If I attack the Argonese or even if they attack me, the Spanish start getting downright mean, especially if they have given the Almos the boot back to Morocco(sp?). Of course it also seems that if Spain has given the Almos the boot, they decide the next smartest move is to push into Europe :dizzy2: . Now why the heck would they want to do that?
The Spanish have a tendancy to backdoor you when you're at war with another faction. Such is the AI... :juggle2:
gaijinalways
07-10-2006, 12:56
Decided to drop the Argonese, who are at death's door now as we speak. The Byz, who I had no contact beyond where they roared into Croatia, suddenly attacked my ships. So I entered Greece (vis Crotia) and it took a while to crush it, those Kats and Byz soldiers are tough (luckily only saw 8 varagian guards). Loyalists keep sprouting up too! So now I am wondering if I need to send some troops to rescue them, which may be difficult at the moment as they are on their way out via Bulgaria (no chance for Constanople, a real pity). Have to consider it after the Argonese are snuffed:2thumbsup: , getting some more mercs is costly, but the HRE peasants keep trying to come into 'my house':wall: .
gaijinalways
07-14-2006, 04:26
Took the Aragonese territories and now trying to stregthen my borders. The Spanish turned down my overtures to be allies, but at the moment they seem to be recovering from the last Aloamond reemergence. I have joined my merc troops with my uber general (8 star) and plan to invade going back to Constinanople. Earlier I was near there, but I want to crush it after fighting to standoffs in Bulgaria and Croatia (and semi-razing Greece). Have longbow- men coming as well as arbalasters in Wales:2thumbsup: . Billmen are the next project, with pikemen aways off yet.
Sensei Warrior
07-14-2006, 05:15
The Spanish have a tendancy to backdoor you when you're at war with another faction. Such is the AI... :juggle2:
Too true, although with my last campaign with the English they tried it while I was fighting off HRE. Little did they know I had a very effective army stationed in Anjou to trip them up. It was an attacking army to boot, which had a fair amount of Cav to mop up routers.
The general of that army made sure to send a message to the Spanish by not ransoming any of them back. It broke the Spanish. The Almos saved me the trouble of risking Excomm by picking up the pieces themselves.
Once I settled up with the HRE, I crusaded my way to Egypt with a Horde of Clansmen, Gallowglasses, and Hobbies. Although in the Almos defence it was a little tough getting to Morocco. I've never seen the Almos tech up so fast.
The general of that army made sure to send a message to the Spanish by not ransoming any of them back. It broke the Spanish. The Almos saved me the trouble of risking Excomm by picking up the pieces themselves.
I never execute prisoners on the field. The only thing you can gain from this is dread, and I never see my generals needing or lacking, this attribute. Dread is of no use on the battlefield it affects provincial loyalty and only applies to the faction leader and governors. The most important things to consider are that if you capture, e.g, 1000 men there are 2 possible scenarios:
1) The AI accepts the ransome and pays, this means:
a) You get paid, alot if nobiles or royalty are among those ransomed, you deprive him of funds.
b) He gets alot of battered demoralised troops to support and use again, with lower loyalty. He may have difficulty training new troops as he's just paid a big ransom and has to support this demoralised rabble and their general.
c) He gets back the, possibly, "good runner", and diminished loyalty general. As it used to say in Shogun "let this continue".
d) The rest of his forces aren't going to be happy with the defeat, add the low loyalty ransomed back force to this and you could have the recipe for a good old guerra civil.
2) If the The AI refuses to pay, he loses those men who may well not have gained any vices, and whose loyalty may not have been hit too badly, and it affects loyalty among his generals and could trigger a civil war.
If you had executed on the field the general would gain one of the "butcher" type vices ("scant mercy" etc) which are not all good as some of them affect morale.
gaijinalways
07-14-2006, 14:19
The AI has been refusing most of the ransoms this game, so I have executed a lot of the prisoners so I don't have to fight them again. It is true that their morale is generally reduced, though with a new general they may not be such soldiers. As to getting the butcher status, doesn't that also raise opposing armies' dread (with them more likely to flee before fighting)?
Geezer57
07-14-2006, 17:37
As to getting the butcher status, doesn't that also raise opposing armies' dread (with them more likely to flee before fighting)?
No, the increased dread has no effect on the battlefield - it only potentially has effects on the strategic map. The "Butcher" line of vices, as you keep repeatedly killing prisoners on the battlefield, culminates in a vice (can't recall the exact name at the moment) that causes your own men's morale to drop when led by that General.
c) He gets back the, possibly, "good runner", and diminished loyalty general. As it used to say in Shogun "let this continue".
True, but he also gets a "captured"-vice which lowers command but increases morale, especially at higher levels.
Sensei Warrior
07-14-2006, 23:59
Wow, I must have really churned up the thread. I will explain the no prisoner idea as there was a method to my madness, which wasn't actually conveyed in the post.
After I finished off the French, I was rebuilding my armies when HRE (who was Excommed by the way) decided they wanted my very lucrative, formerly French provences. Well, I was not in good shape unit-wise when the Spanish backdoor-ed me. The large standing army in Anjou was keeping an equally large HRE army on their side of the border. I was going to use this army to eventually take Burgundy, which is why it was an attacking army. I simply didn't have the men to fight a 2 front war, but I couldn't afford to lose Aquitaine as it was a unit producing provence.
I could also see the Spanish holdings. The Spanish were at war with the Almos, had Leon, Castile, Navarre, and Aragon. Short of some garrisons, the majority of their forces were deployed to attack in Aquitaine. The Almos I could see, seemed to have appreciative numbers.
So I moved the army guarding Anjou to Aquitaine to repel the Spanish, but this army by no means could afford to stay there for long. The troops I had sitting in Aquitaine bordering my allies was small, and most likely couldn't repel a force like that for long. I was in a pinch, and needed to take decisive action.
During the battle, I managed to rout the army early. This did not help. It is not a good idea to rout an army in a war of attrition. My Cav. Heavy army managed to catch a large amount of prisioners, large meaning more than half of the Spanish army.
Here is the idea I was going with. The majority of the Spanish forces were commited to an attack on me, and I am now holding more than half of them hostage. If I ransom them then they will go back to Spain, most likely to attack me again. The next time they attack, I won't have my large army there because it is going to have to go back to Anjou. My commander does not have any of the butcher traits yet.
Here is how the butcher traits work. Each time one of your armies kills prisioners on the field of battle the general of the army gets a butcher trait. This is not to be confused with executing rebels, which is the rough justice traits which are given to your king. The first one is 'Scant Mercy'. It gives +1 Dread, with no ill side effects. The second one is called 'Butcher' which gives another plus to dread, but also starts giving ill effects. I believe it drops the morale of the troops the general commands. I don't know the ones after that, but they are really bad. In my mind that means every general has 1 free pass at killing prisioners, but only one. OK back to the story.
I decide to kill the prisioners. My general gets Scant Mercy, and his dread goes up by 1. The next turn, I move my army back up to Anjou as HRE is moving their army into Anjou. I win that battle. The turn after that, the Almos attack the Spanish in Castile. In the subsequent turns the Almos and the Spanish war with the Almos being victorious.
You are right, I could have ransomed back the Spanish prisioners and gave them a general with the Good Runner vice, and probably a number of their generals would have gotten the Captured vice, which Ludens pointed out is not always a good idea. In turn, I might have been dragged into a long battle of attrition with either Spain (not likely), or with HRE because of having to devote extra men to a devensive war with Spain.
In another campaign, I fought a war of attrition. I won every battle (but the last one) and had tons of cash from ransoming back every single prisioner. The other faction was heaped upon with runner vices. Good Runner, Cowardly etc. In the end I lost the Campaign. Why? Because the other guy could outproduce me in replacing his losses, eventually he shipped in a large army that I couldn't hold back, and after that battle, I was never able to dig myself out of it.
Instead, for one very minor vice, I precipitated a war that resulted in the death of one faction, and the disabling of another (Almos). I did this all without losing a man, agent, or florin. Some would say that maybe the Almos would have attacked anyways, and maybe they would have, but I think I encouraged them to do so.
In another post not to long ago I saw someone post that tactics were the things you use to win battles, stategies are what you use to win the game. I would also add that tactics and stategies can be one in the same. This tactic, to kill the prisoners on the field, was part of an overall stategy to seriously undermine my foe at little cost to me.
gaijinalways
07-15-2006, 11:26
I'll have to check as my general is a 8 star and the men under him are very loyal (of course, that pointy sword he has helps too), so up to now, I have no complaints (from the dead prisoners either, as dead men don't tell tales, except to CSI:laugh4: ).
gaijinalways
07-15-2006, 11:27
Also too, even captured and ransomed troops will have more fighting experience than absolute newbie replacements, who are still studying how to kill:book: .
gaijinalways
07-15-2006, 18:14
Ah, I am a blood lover, oh well (my 8 star general that is, he is also a skillful attacker, defender too). I have progressed further, kind of funny GA Game. I took Constanople, and because the BYZ in previous battles when sons were captured never paid, the BYZ suddenly went rebel:2thumbsup: ! I have only one problem now, I wanted to link with Constinople (already took Nivea and Treibizoid, but I couldn't get into Serbia before the Italians took it back (rebeled probably, but I do have Croatia). As they have the only other decent navy, at the moment I'll hold off attacking them. But otherwise, quite good, my navy is expanding (I'm building 2 more shipyards) longbowmen are being pumped out as well as alabasters, billmen, and jinettes. I am cranking up farming everywhere, and plan to go for a crusade soon as well (soon as I build the necessary building in Constanople, did make a mistake:oops: , should have built that first and the merchant buildings, but I originally was thinking of defense, and then the Byz fell the next turn). I am considering taking Greece at some point, then I would have the Italians on either side.
And suddenly everybody wants to be my friend, I disbanded my mercs. Had one strange battle in Antaloia, it rebelled, beat down the rebellion, it rebelled again with more troops, so I just gave it up (of course I razed it first), let the Egyptians deal with it.
I was surprised the way things have worked out, I am sittting pretty now with a pretty big empire. Must concentrate on getting those crusades going, though the Egyptians are currently my friends:laugh4: !
True, but he also gets a "captured"-vice which lowers command but increases morale, especially at higher levels.
Forgot about the captured vice, though this is not a rule. I've had armies generals ransomed back in the past and only one or two units got the vice, and not always the general. There is also the tortured vice which seems to be much less common.
Forgot about the captured vice, though this is not a rule. I've had armies generals ransomed back in the past and only one or two units got the vice, and not always the general. There is also the tortured vice which seems to be much less common.
Interesting. I recall that my generals always get this vice when I ransom them back. Perhaps I should have a better look. BTW, Captured and tortured are part of the same line of vices. It starts with captured (IIRC -1C +3 morale), goes on to tortured (-2C +6 morale) and ends with traumatized (-3C +9 morale). Someone once told that he tried to get all his top-enerals traumatized. With +9 morale their armies becomes virtually unroutable, making up for the loss in command.
Deus ret.
07-16-2006, 14:52
Interesting. I recall that my generals always get this vice when I ransom them back.
I made the same observation, it's a 100% chance in each of my games. But only the captured general gets it; none of his surviving captains do. Also I'm not too sure about the drop in loyalty allegedly caused by being captured, at least I've never seen it and if it occurs it's rather due to the loss of territory (and the subsequent drop in the king's influence).
I think slaughtering captured prisoners, while being completely ahistorical, is really worth a go, at least once (e.g. with very high numbers of prisoners). +1 dread tends to be useful most of the times since my generals are also my governors more often than not. And as has already been mentioned, one more dead man is usually one man less to fight in the next battle. It would be a different issue if the captured units would receive a penalty when fighting against the faction which inflicted this traumatical loss and subsequent captivity on them; but this is not the case, so there's no real reason other than urgent lack of funds to keep experienced soldiers for ransom.
edit: AFAIK the 'good runner' trait can only be obtained when actually running off the field, i.e. leaving the battlefield in full flight - this usually doesn't result in being captured unless the army was trapped.
gaijinalways
07-16-2006, 16:38
Hmm interesting, where getting your general captured could be beneficial.
Speaking of 'training' your generals, do you guys also raise up rebels to fight and have your assasins work on? I haven't used the rebels so much for that purpose, but as stated in another thread I use them as buffer zones sometimes, as I find rebels don't usually attack (thus requiring less border holding troops).
My campaign is still ongoing, I now bribed Greece as well, so only the Italians in Serbia are between my Venice and my line of coast to Constanople and beyond. Ah, one bad thing, the BYZ are back:dizzy2: , though of course weaker than before, but they have taken over 8-9 provinces already!
edit: AFAIK the 'good runner' trait can only be obtained when actually running off the field, i.e. leaving the battlefield in full flight - this usually doesn't result in being captured unless the army was trapped.
I think routing for a certain amount of time (30 seconds? 2 minutes?) also gives this vice, even if the general rallied afterwards.
Interesting. I recall that my generals always get this vice when I ransom them back. Perhaps I should have a better look. BTW, Captured and tortured are part of the same line of vices. It starts with captured (IIRC -1C +3 morale), goes on to tortured (-2C +6 morale) and ends with traumatized (-3C +9 morale). Someone once told that he tried to get all his top-enerals traumatized. With +9 morale their armies becomes virtually unroutable, making up for the loss in command.
I definitely don't see it every time. An example in my last campaign as the Almohads. I sent a 3 star general and a small force to invade Provence. Due to major blunder on my part they got a severe beating and the that generla was captured. He didn't get the captured vice as a result, just good runner. Another 2 star general in the same force did get the captured vice. I don't find this vice to be a rule as such, but there is a god chance your general will get it. I tend to see it 90% of the time in such cases anyway.
Also I'm not too sure about the drop in loyalty allegedly caused by being captured, at least I've never seen it and if it occurs it's rather due to the loss of territory (and the subsequent drop in the king's influence).
Well, I've had men ransomed back at 1 loyalty whom of which before had about 5 or 6. The defeat and loss of the province affects the loyalty of your generals, but for those ransomed back I've always noticed the effect to be much worse? It may not be the actual capture and ransoming, only the being part of the defeated army that causes this.
I think slaughtering captured prisoners, while being completely ahistorical, is really worth a go, at least once (e.g. with very high numbers of prisoners). +1 dread tends to be useful most of the times since my generals are also my governors more often than not. And as has already been mentioned, one more dead man is usually one man less to fight in the next battle. It would be a different issue if the captured units would receive a penalty when fighting against the faction which inflicted this traumatical loss and subsequent captivity on them; but this is not the case, so there's no real reason other than urgent lack of funds to keep experienced soldiers for ransom.
Routers are not likely to be experienced soldiers. As I had explained before, ransoming back routers has many benefits. The beaten low morale force will be back in the control of the enemy, they will be restricted from training new troops because they have to support these men. Yes their loyalty is affected, and after a few more repetitions of this they'll have a civil war on their hands.
edit: AFAIK the 'good runner' trait can only be obtained when actually running off the field, i.e. leaving the battlefield in full flight - this usually doesn't result in being captured unless the army was trapped.
It occurs if your general routs for a certain period of time. There is a similar "eager to withraw" vice if your general withraws. This doen't always occur but it's a very real possibility.
Sensei Warrior
07-16-2006, 23:42
Lots of stuff to comment on.
The entire Captured vice line pulled from the file, and slightly edited to remove the extraneous stuff:
Captured
He did not enjoy the process of being captured and ransomed, and instills a fear of being captured in all his men. This makes them less likely to rout, but makes them harder to command. +3 morale, -1 command.
Tortured
Having been captured and tortured, he is obsessed with avoiding capture. This makes his army harder to break, but seriously affects his judgement on the battlefield. +6 morale, -2 command.
Traumatised
His experiences as a prisoner have left this man traumatised. He will kill anyone who even considers surrender, and he avoids danger in battle. Paradoxically this makes his capture more likely. +9 morale, -3 command.
Regarding the Captured vice. I have had captured prisioners get this random amounts of times. Sometimes only 1 will recieve the vice sometimes all of them.
About the Good Runner vice. I have gotten this vice for my generals running, but not fleeing the field. He routed, but I was later able to rally him. This is got to be the most annoying aspect of this vice. I had a battle once where I won it in a landslide, but well I wasn't paying attention my general was surrounded. He routed and later his troops helped out and I was able to rally him. He got Skilled Attacker and Good Runner from that one battle. Weird. All the times these generals did rout wasn't for that long either, it would seem to me the time is closer to 30secs than 2mins.
gaijinalways: I don't groom rebellions to train generals. I will create a couple of units of Peasants to do the same thing. To me the Peasants seem easier than inciting rebellions. It sounds like your campaign is doing well.
About the whole killing captured prisioners, thing. I certainly don't do it as often as Luden's friend, but I won't hesitate to do it when it works in my favor. Caravel notes a number of good reasons not to do it. The Good Runner Vice, ransoms and loss of loyalty being the main reasons. Ludens and I have noted a number of reasons to do it, like Captured vice, Wars of attrition, and in the rare case of breaking the defensive capabilities of small countries.
I treat killing prisioners or not as a consideration of what I think will be the most beneficial. To seed a General or 2 with the Good Runner vice might serve me best then that's what I will do. If killing those prisioners will garner me the most, break the opponents defenses or the such then thats what I'll do. I would definately encourage every player to consider it on a case by case basis.
Phew, and it tie it all back in. In the Early parts of a English campaign I have the tendancy to kill Prisioners all the time to reduce the amount of men an opponent can field the next time. I start to slow this down when I have a handle on my army sizes, unit producing provences, and typically because by this point the majority of my generals have the Scant Mercy vice.
On the other side with the Byz, Egypts, or the Spanish I tend to ransom lots of prisioners because I'm not in the same tenuous situation.
gaijinalways
07-17-2006, 04:56
Yes, killing prisoners is a decision, sometimes taken too lightly on my part (I like the sound of the prisoners being beheaded:2thumbsup: ). It's true the morale of defeated prisoners is something to think about, but also the type. Unforunately in vanila MTW, there is no way to know what kind of prisoners you have captured, thus determining their value to the enemy:coffeenews: (and you).
Yes sensei, my campaign is going fine and I am slowly armoring and teching up my troops, even lowly spearmen. I will have to wait and see if mecrs can be helpful again. Making decent change as well as fielding a good sized army. Waiting for the crusade period to come (I may be in 1189) in 1195 to 1205. Since my marker will start in Constanople, it won't have far to go. I may build another one farther away as well for when the HRE or the Hungarians get excommed again :knight: (the last excom didn't last so long). That will give me a chance to help my new ally the Pope.
Sensei Warrior
07-17-2006, 05:48
I am confused, what year is it gaijinalways? Most GA games I've played the Crusading Period starts early and ends in 1205 or so. In the past while playing the English as soon as I had the ability to Crusade and a line of ships to Outremer I was already well in the Crusading Period.
If you wait to 1195 to start it will only give you 10 years to achieve the 4 Crusading Objectives. You can only send 1 Crusade at a time, which only gives you 2 years to start the crusade, get to the provence, attack it, seige it, and conquer it.
That's not going to be enough time is it?
gaijinalways
07-17-2006, 08:18
Oh well, I might not be able to do all 4, but that's the goal periods they have listed in my current campaign. Of course, I can start building that first crusade earlier. I will try to build a second chapter house as well to help out with that matter:knight: .
Currently I lead in GA points, so I'm not too worried about the crusade points portion. I can always expand a little more~;p !
Deus ret.
07-17-2006, 18:32
gaijinalways, you know that crusades are either fuelled or destroyed by the zeal of the provinces they're passing through, do you? under 50% is generally a bad thing for a crusade, and since Constantinople as well as all provinces on the way to the holy land sport low zeal rates at best it might be a good idea to stuff your crusade with regular troops you assembled in Constantinople for exactly this purpose and to immediately send it by sea for a quick strike. of course the Eggy's navy needs to be down by then.
once you start a crusade it's quite important to bring it to a successful end because a failure will result in a considerable loss of influence on your king's part. You likely won't have to worry if your king has 9 or so influence, but take my bad example as a warning: I once had a promising English campaign utterly ruined because of one failed crusade which triggered a chain of civil wars.
Sensei Warrior
07-17-2006, 19:07
I agree with deus ret. I firmly believe in the quick strike theroy. Less of a chance of something going wrong. I had the same experience playing I believe HRE and a failed Crusade. A series of civil wars utterly ruined that Campaign for me.
Although you did say you were in Constantinople? If that's the case it would take 2-3 years to get to the first objective. If you pack the Crusade chock full of troops and walk it there I think the losses would be minimal. Remember a Crusade can have 3 stacks of troops. That would be 48 units, and I would use every single slot for the first.
Once the first achieves its goal, you can use the extra units to suppliment following Crusades. You don't even have to put them in the Crusade, just move the troops you want to help out into the Provence the year the Crusade arrives there.
This is a standard strategy for me. Considering I almost solely use Naval Crusades I pack the first Provence I take with troops, and then other Crusades just have the Crusade generated units, and I will move my own troops in as the Crusade arrives.
gaijinalways
07-18-2006, 03:10
Yes, I saw this mentioned in an earlier thread related to crusades concerning;
1) increasing the success by ensuring the arrival, usually by naval means
2) seeding it with better troops of your own
3) repercussions on one's empire when the crusade fails (either loses in the destination province or dies enroute).
I may have some difficulties then for this next period as Constanople is not so built up and with the BYZ back in town, I can't afford to keep it too weak (I don't know if they remember that I am the guy who put them into oblivion for a while, they're neutral to me at the moment). In addition, I have partial control of the seas into the straits there near Constanople but not near the other side of the crusading areas (Tripoli, Edessa, and another province whose name escapes me, but it is in the same neighborhood as the other two). Let's wait and see what happens.
I can try to bring some in by water later, but of course if the harbor gets destroyed in a place I take in an earlier crusade or if I am blockaded:wall: , it might be difficult.
As to my king's influence, no, it is low, so I might have to 'keep an ear out' for my shifty generals:listen:
Of course, should be fun to rip out some BYZ troops on my way to the promised eggy land!
On the rare occasions when I play as a catholic faction, usually the Spanish, I tend to start a crusade, add a readily trained army to that crusade, usually including the heir to the throne (if there are a few spares), and send it directly to it's target by sea. I never let it walk it's way over land, because it will lose alot of it's best troops en route and pick up alot of UM's, peasants and slav warriors...
gaijinalways
07-18-2006, 12:34
Why do your crusades lose some of the better troops? How long are they taking to reach the destination?
Why do your crusades lose some of the better troops? How long are they taking to reach the destination?
A crusade will lose some of it's original troops as it goes along, particularly if it's taking a long rout. These are "deserters". The crusade will pick up new troops in mainly christian provinces. But those initial troops will keep sapping away. This is why I drop my crusades directly in by sea.
The 3 main reasons I build a crusade:
1) To raise my faction leader's influnence
2) To take a province and increase my kings piety
3) To increase my faction leader's piety
4) To gain some of the unique units that the crusade provides, intact
None of these aims can be easily achieved by walking a battered rag tag of a force through eastern europe and asia to a remote province. Unless you can send relief forces into the target province, it will eventually be overwhelmed.
gaijinalways
07-18-2006, 18:40
Well, I had the good and the bad. Successfully already created 4 markers, with one crusade going on with plety of merc guys coming. Taking the Byz down again too, they were still annoyed with me, long memory of their last crushing defeat.
But, ugh, twice the battle crashed near the end. I took out some files, but for some reason it is always a crusader file (templar knights) that fails. Well, maybe have to wait until I come back from vacation.
Both times a fairly good crush, with the first being the best as I had a nice high hill and none of my missile types took any damage, they just got tired as hell. The second time my guys were too spread out and I lost many of my abs when the cav kept rushing me, yet I still slaughtered a lot of their troops cavs and foot soldiers.
The crusdaes are not taking long to get there, just from Constanople or Trebizoid, which is not far from Tripoli, Edessa, Palestine, and Anitoch (the first I decided to hit). I hope I can launch all 3 others, though I forgot you can only do one crusade at a time (:wall: ), but that's the breaks. Yeah, I maybe waited too long, as the period was 1095 to 1205 for the GA points, but I should be able to get 2 to 3 crusades in if eggy will colapse in , as well as taking some other Byz provinces along the way to my destination~:thumb: .
Well, I had the good and the bad. Successfully already created 4 markers, with one crusade going on with plety of merc guys coming.
I'd advise against stocking up on markers, if you lose that province you'll have a civil war on your hands.
Do that then demolish the chapter house. this is one of the best ways for starting a civil war if required.
Sensei Warrior
07-18-2006, 22:21
I won't say I told you so but *cough post 48 cough*
The Crash thing is a killer too.
Well you said you were ahead in GA points so as long as you can follow through on winning the Crusades you send out you'll do all right.
Edit: I forgot. I hope you have fun on your vacation.
gaijinalways
07-19-2006, 11:46
Thanks, I can even catch up on some medieval history if I want in France, England, Scotland, and Italy. Now if I can only lt my wife to give me some more time while she packs....~:idea: of course, medieval research!
I think that file was corrupted, but I am going back to the earliest save I have after the Byz disappeared. Start building my chapter houses earlier and hit the eggys early. Tried this afternoon with a combo of regular troops and mercs (noncrusade opening the path) and I took a loss as my general got his ass spanked. I was outnumbered but was hoping that because eggy had quite a few peasants beefing up his troop numbers, it would be okay, but those:furious3: peasants tied up enough of my people to save the day for him.
Time for a ~:thumb: reload! But seems like it should be okay, just depends on what number of troops the Byz bring when they respawn.
Sensei Warrior
07-19-2006, 22:15
Ahh yes the dreaded Egyptian tactic of Spamming Peasants and Camels. I always just love to lose against a bunch of Peasants and Mounted Peasants (they're the Camels).
gaijinalways
07-21-2006, 12:24
Crusade success, Anitoch is mine. Now have another crusade coming to Tripoli, and maybe one last one for Palestine or Edessa depending on the amount of time left beofre 1205. Funny, Palestine left my radar screen (no longer appears in Red or as a crusadable province), maybe another faction beat me to it.
I reloaded to start building my chapter houses in Normandy and Trebizoid earlier, and of course the Byz came back (currently neutral, looking for their head with my emissary in Khazar right now).
One new (or old problem) the Italians are looking to break our alliance. One time they captured Milan and Greece, I reloaded and shifted some troops around (the merc rush and troops moving toward Anitoch thoinned me out a little, plus bracing for the BYz) and took a couple of autocalc battles, but will replay those when I get back from doing my 'Medieval history' travel lesson (the casualties were even, though the Italians do have some tough knights in Croatia and some footsoldiers in Tuscany).
Ahh yes the dreaded Egyptian tactic of Spamming Peasants and Camels. I always just love to lose against a bunch of Peasants and Mounted Peasants (they're the Camels).
The camels are pretty decent cav for the cost, and have the "causes fear to horses" effect. Turn out a few thousand of those and stick them under that good starting general in arabia's command with a backup force of nubian spears and desert archers and you have a surprisingly potent force. Their morale is pretty hopeless though, so if the general decides to go make a "tactical withdrawal" they will probably follow suit. At 0 valour they are absolutely hopeless.
Sensei Warrior
07-21-2006, 23:56
*looks around for Mithrandir* I will never argue the value of a bad Peasant on a good Camel. When I play the Egypts I spam Camels just as bad as the Comp, but when I'm playing any other Faction I despise fighting the Egypts with their ravaging Hordes of Peasants and Camels.
Typically when I move to attack Egypt I change my whole army composition. I'll adjust it to a General, 2 LtCav (to mop up routers or maybe none at all), 3-5 Spears (typically Fyrdmen), at least 6 Archers, and some Clansmen and Gallowglasses (if I got them) or MS. My first grouping is 3 archers and 3 Spears archers up front Spears on hold. The second grouping is archers, melee units, and cav (if present). If other spears are present I put them on the wings near a melee unit.
I move the whole pack together and shower the Egypt with arrows. I won't make a move to engage units at all until every last arrow is gone. You can't ransom back a peasant or a camel that's been turned into a pincushion, and I don't want to fight them again. If the Egypts move to engage the archers I switch the grouping to be Melee first. Flanking Camels that get too close get the Spear or charging MS. Once the missiles are gone I withdraw all the archers or maybe just 3 depending on how many bad guys are left. Then the Spears, and Melees go to work. By the end, I typically have very little prisioners (yea!) and a whole lot of kills. Since my archer units stay almost completely intact, by the end of the Egyptian Wars they tend to be very high valored.
Once out of Camel danger I'll switch back to using a more standard army. I switch my army config solely to kill camels, thus the small to no presence of Cavalry. That is exactly how much I respect a Camel unit especially if led by a high * General (who also typically is a Camel unit).
Empirate
07-26-2006, 16:44
In my experience, the Egyptians are more likely to spam Nubian Spearmen. I just hate to fight these whenever I play the Turks: Your basic Horse Archer attrition-and-disruption game doesn't work too well with them: shield, large numbers, not easily tired, disciplined. If I play a Catholic faction, on the other hand, Nubian Spearmen are fair game for all kinds of sword-wielding infantry...
The Archers-in-masses approach sits well with me against Bedouins. I always try to bring significant numbers of archers when I'm up against light cavalry of any type, as these are simply devastated by arrows. Still, against camels, this seems to work even better: They're slower, so less arrows fall far or short of them.
A problem I seem to be having with camels is simply their size: The unit takes up a lot of space, increasing their face, and that makes it easy for you to be flanked by them. But it also works to the Egyptians disadvantage, as they can't use tight formations this way, making them more vulnerable to massed point attacks in some cases.
Sensei Warrior
07-27-2006, 05:54
In my experience, the Egyptians are more likely to spam Nubian Spearmen.
In all fairness I have noted this if I attack the Egypts later, which rarely happens, or if I am playing one of the Mods like XL or MedMod.
If that's the case, my army's general composition in the above post works well for them, as well ~;) .
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.