Printable View
I wanted to know what is the playing style of most EB players here., do you guys micro the game.. always do all you'r battle in the campaign map and so on. I wanted to know how others enjoy the game.
As for me i usually do almost all my battles in battle map mode but if the battle is too small i usually autoresolve it.
Cheers!
I always fight battles on the battlemap, unless:
- I've already fought the battle once and CTD'd afterwards, in which case I'll autowin (I end up losing more, which is annoying). If I lost the battle first time round, I'll autowin for the enemy (autolose, so to speak)
- Its a battle with my full stack vs a skirmisher, where I'll again autowin
I'd like to be able to autoresolve more, but the losses I take compared to the equivalent battle fought on the battlemap stop me from doing so. Turns end up taking a long time as the game progresses.
I fight it on the battlemap if its one of my generals only. Otherwise, I auto-resolve. Agree with the too-many casualties thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_
Never really though of that for some reason. I'll probably do that next campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cbvani
autoresolve is good when I am not afraid of loosing very little more casualities, and when they have no general, and your general is very good in command
I tend to autocalc really minor, unimportant "guarantee-win" battles in later game where there are just soooo many battles every turn. I usually have only few "campaign armies" and they always are led by generals/FM, and there I also only play the big or interesting battles. Battles offering a chance to lose, I always play them 100% surely, those are the most exciting one.
If I autocalc a sure-win battle against an army where I know I would get abnormal high autocalc losses though I win, I use "auto_win attacker/defender" before. This way I of course still win, but with far more realistic casualties, way closer to the losses I'd take if I played the battle myself.
On the other hand I always try to help out the AI if they once again are struck by incurable dumbness (so almost always...).
I move their armies closer together if they start to spread hundreds of 2-3 unit armies all over the place and attack my full stack with those pitiful ones. Of course the armies are still not merged for guaranteed, but combined with using Alex.exe where the enemy manages to merges reinforcements into his main army during the battle itself unlike RTW.exe or RTW-BI.exe it offers more thrilling and harder battles.
Force Diplomacy is only very rarely used by me, only if I really have to prevent some major AI dumbness concerning me (like, a 2 provinces nation kept in alliance by me with about 2 stacks attacking me when I'm so incredibly obvious superior). Elsewise I prefer letting alternative history taking its on way...
Overwhelmingly with the battlemap-even the smallest battles.
Its why I rarely finish a game:shame:
i like to roleplay everything and fight almost every battle, except for the ones like just 10 minutes ago, where i captured a city with 2700 (in my roleplay 27'000) men, and they had a garrison of naught but 135 light spearmen... battles like that i autocalc. If i loose a battle its badluck, i don't reload games except after CTDs and of course starting it the next day again ^^ time-consuming but well... so be it
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissBarbar
what do you mean by roleplaying?
he basically makes stories about his characters, like an AAR. Sometimes starts a civil war. Does things according to their traits. ect.
Does anyone else roleplay using only the undiluted male line from the faction leader? I always do that in my Epirote, Aedui, Carthaginian and Macedonian games. It's cooler when your characters only have one name or are the direct descendants of Antigonos and Pyrrhos. I'll let the in-laws and their descendants manage cities, but never fight in the field.
As the romani i roleplay all my FM, and i think i'l never accept any adoption candidates. seing the patriach of the family has 4 women children and no direct male bloodline i considered the Cornelius line and Aurelius lines children as direct decendants and if possible i'm hoping that a Curii will propose to one of the girls of the Aurelius so that i'l have a decendant of the patriarch to continue the name. I seperate the two lines by having most of the cornelius as generals and the aurelius as governors of Roma and Capua.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ludwag
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk
yes, exactly, except for a civil war, i don't know how to do that... how do you start civil wars?
there was a thread on this... lemme find it ill go edit it in this post
EDIT: well i was unsuccessful in my half-assed search. anyway ill just retype what i said
Basically you decide what the sides will be, make the armies ect. and everytime an enemy army crosses an adjacent tile of another army you have a battle. You can do this by going into the MP EB shortcut and using the same units you have a battle. or you could get someone to play as one side and you as the other. which ever units rout or suffer extreme casualties you disband. if a general is killed you off him on the campaign map. or role-play his capture and exile.
I like to micromanage just about everything in my game. This includes fighting all battles, except those which I first get a CTD or if I'm extremely bored. I also like to RP things, like political and military reforms, as well as civil wars.
Maion
The only part i hate about the game is when a family member of mine gets bombarded by negative traits O.o
thats wt death ships are for...
ah ok, that's an idea. i thougt there was a possibility to make half of your empire "revolt" like the ones in BI , that would be niceQuote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk