Cheesy Tactics Definition and List

TS, is tired of all the MTW sucks cause I beat the game in 50/ turns; I'm the Greatest, The AI Sucks, and MTW is Easy threads. Most if not ALL of these players engage in Cheesy Tactics and then complain. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif

Soo, TS is looking for a little Help in filling out the list and definition. Please debate the definition and add to the list.

In the end, Admin/Mod, please add this thread to the TOC; then lets start on some serious Hardcore Rules (also to be added to the TOC).

Definition:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Chessy is any tactic which takes unfair advantage of the AI. Exploiting quirks in the code. Tactics that the AI cannot utilize and/or Tactics which the AI cannot equally (or near equally) take advantage of. If the AI cannot do it then, the human player is taking greater advantage of an already disadvantaged AI.

---

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/cool.gif

Play the game w/o Cheesy tactics, such as:

1) Raid, Destroy, Withdraw, Raid

(50 or 100 turn wins using this Tactic is CHEESY
ESPECIALLY on any Easy difficulty.)

2) Assinating, bad, Kings, Princes, and Generals

(I cannot comprehend the above. Are you looking for a challenge or are you seeking a Chemical Release? What's a greater accomplishment, winning with a 2 or 3 star "Great Runner" or with a 9 star "Fearless Leader"??

3) Building up your Genera's Stars/Valour, by repeatedly utilizing the "Raid" technique.

4) Engaging in Incestious Relationships with your King and/or Princes with your Princesses.

5) ???

5) building large trade routes

6) targeting the AI general

7) reloading the game if a battle or an event goes poorly

8) loading up enemy provs with mucho spies to cause a rebellion

Same here, I just don't get people who need to use cheat codes and other lame tactics (like the ones you mentioned) to win, especially in single player. But too each his own, whatever gets you off, just don't come here talking about it.

I always try and limit myself to keep it even with the AI, like others have said, building large trade routes from the baltic to the black sea and giving yourself 100k gold per turn. What's the point? May as well save yourself some time and just edit the game to start you with a billion gold.

Exile,

why is building up huge trade routes a cheesy tactic ? Usually, IME, if you take it too far up the Med, you will get into a fight with the Italians, Byzantines, Sicilians or whatever muslim nations are left...

I agree with the others though... I doubt though that there is anyone on this board who at least has not used one of the tactics mentioned...

The AI does not attempt to maintain large trade routes. Sure some AI factions will scatter some ships around the Med, or put many ships in one sea, but have you ever seen an AI faction put ships in each sea prov to maximize trade?

Building a huge trade route gives the player a lot of cash flow, more than any other method and certainly more than any AI faction will ever attain. Since the AI won't try to compete in that respect, it seems unbalanced to build a massive trade route.

I'm not saying dont have a fleet, but if you build a trade route across the entire map, realize that it's a bit 'cheesy' because the AI will not do it and the cash flow you generate will give you a huge advantage. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

I used to build massive trade routes until I grasped that the AI had no clue, now I strictly limit my trade routes. I only put ships where I need them to defend my provs from amphibious invasion, so any trade route is coincidental.

If you or the enemy has over one stack you must auto resolve. It's just no fair beating an army 3 times your size just because the AI can't field all of their army at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Exile @ Jan. 22 2003,10:45)]6) targeting the AI general

---

I would alter this to:

Targeting the AI General with seige weapons..

Shooting at the guys carrying the biggest flag with bowmen is fair enough... But the medieval period is a little early for artillery barrages..

While some of the above mentioned seem like good common sense in playing the game, I will repeat the ones that seem unsportsmanlike or cheesy to me:

1. reloading after a lost battle.
2. reloading after a failed assassination attempt. (people used to do this in STW all the time.)
3. reloading after your king dies or is killed to try and avoid it next time.
4. using many spies to start revolts from province to province (prepatch).
5. using codes.

of course, all these apply to regular players and not to people who just bought the game and are trying to learn it their first week.

I don't agree with, building trade routes being seen as a cheesy tactic. Without the income derived from trade, you just don't get enough income to: support a large army, mount large military campaigns.

One thing that could be added; IMHO, upping your assassin's rank with easier kills: spies, other assassins, emmissaries, priests, princessess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Without the income derived from trade, you just don't get enough income to: support a large army, mount large military campaigns.

---

You are right about this...and the fact thhat the AI doesn't do this is part of the reason they don't mount so many massive campaigns. So if the point is to come up with some hard core SP rules I think limiting trade income is reasonable. The whole idea is to create a realistic challenge. Trading over all of Europe was not done much during these times, and since the AI won't we shouldn't either.

I agree with all of the other posts about ways to make it challenging. Perhaps another would be to not kill or conquer the pope for catholic factions. The English were eventually excomunicated...They lived with it and did not go on a rampage to kill the pope. Also Kinda fake that your people would no longer be upset just because you have killed the pope.

Saving and reloading seems to be the biggest cheesy tactic in my opinion. If you know what moves the computer is going to make and just reload to counter it, I think the game loses a lot of its appeal. I know I am no expert at this game and definitely dont play it as much as I would like, but all these people that say its so easy, I keep wondering what the hell I am doing wrong, cause its not that easy for me, at least with some nationalities. True some are easier than others but from this forum it sounds like there are some people that its easy for them no matter who they play as.

Or maybe I just suck. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/dizzy.gif

I think the saving and reloading after a major event that put you at a disadvantage is a cheesy tactic, I mean why did we get this game for in the first place ? for me it was the tactical challenges if I wanted to cheat so everything went my way I do not think it would be very rewarding ,the game in itself is very diverse ,offers alot of challenge and variety .

Cheesy is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I really dislike "gaming the game", but don't agree with several of you (at least in degree.) Soly makes good points about reloads. I'll add a few others:

1. Autocalcing castle sieges (attacking). The autocalc does not properly account for the composition of the attacking army and the quality of the defensive fortification. Human gets' by with almost no casualties in situations that often would cut down a hundred or more.
2. Artificially boosting loyalty in a besieged province by "assaulting the castle", but choosing to abandon the attack when the battle comes up. The castle still falls in the same number of years...and you can prevent revolts with a smaller besieging force than you could if you didn't choose to attack the castle. Anyway, I recently figured out this was possible, and am resisting the urge to use it as a regular tactic. This loophole could be closed by having possibility of rebellion if you fail to carry out the attack (based on the original loyalty rating without an assault.)
3. Reloading a save to get a boost in loyalty from some low loyalty provinces. Not sure what the issue is here, I plan to check it out more carefully this weekend to pinpoint the bug.

I disagree with the autoresolve multiple stack bit. If the autoresolve battle is anything like the castle siege autoresolve then I doubt it will give a proper outcome. For example, my heavily armoured troops are at a serious disadvantage in the desert. I might win in autoresolve, but would probably lose against a light force much larger than my own. Besides, the AI often brings a stack of peasants or two along with their main force. In reality, if I rout the main body, those peasants would be meat anyway. I dislike the limitation on the number of units on the field, but the AI takes advantage of this as well by withdrawing useless units (and does not seem to suffer the fatigue penalties the human does in the process.)

I agree with most of the above, but I consider targeting the AI general with cannon, catapults, arrows, mud and/or insults to be fair game. If i've paid heaps of cash to get a decent piece of long range artillery on the battlefield to give me some kind of advantage then I am sure as hell going to use it and if the enemy AI happens to be dumb enough to stick his scruffy neck somehere on the trajectory of my ammo, well thats just bad luck for him

Ya I kinda agree with the Marcher Lord about the artillery issue... I mean, I don't think the chance cannonball landing on the opponent's general is even that big, well at least I've never managed to land the cannonball right on the enemy's general

And about the expanding your trade, I disagree to that. It really depends on how you like to play your game, since if I didn't expand my ships over most of the map to establish trade routes, I wouldn't know what I would do to support my army. And I wouldn't be able to conquer Europe if i couldn't support a sizable army, well at least in my case, for I'm not really that good at this game.

And well sorta off-topic, but I think CA should include an option to send tributes to other nations to improve on diplomatic relationships and also to help out your AI ally if he's in trouble, wouldn't that be neat?

I agree red harvest about auto resolve vs. big AI stacks. First off, I've noticed the AI does usually field it's best troops to start, so it's not like you get an easy rout starting off fresh vs. peasants. Also every time I've followed up on a rout by sending my whole army after them, I've payed for it dearly when their mass reinforcements meet my now disordered and tired troops (especially in the desert&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif. Much better to just send some light cavalry after them, and hold your position and wait for the 2nd wave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (The Marcher Lord @ Jan. 22 2003,14:10)]...If i've paid heaps of cash to get a decent piece of long range artillery on the battlefield to give me some kind of advantage then I am sure as hell going to use it and if the enemy AI happens to be dumb enough to stick his scruffy neck somehere on the trajectory of my ammo, well thats just bad luck for him

---

*hobbles up in a rusty, bloody set of plate armoer*

Methinks some of thee missed the sign on the door which says "Hardcore". If thou is looking for the pantywaist club, tis two doors down on the left. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif

The context in which I took this thread is things you should not be doing to get an advantage over the AI if you're going to post at the Org how EASY the SP game is. At some point, I have done most of the items listed, but I realize they gave me an advantages over the AI. Targeting the enemy general, in any fashion, is an advantage. Killing the general has a significant adverse effect on morale and valor if it was a high ranking general, why not just plan on easy setting? That big flag does not say "General here - direct all arrows this way please". If you chose to wipe out the enemy general - thats fine, but realise that the AI doesn't do it, and you are taking advantage of a mahine -- so dont come here bragging you're Napoleon incarnate. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/flirt.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]In the end, Admin/Mod, please add this thread to the TOC; then lets start on some serious Hardcore Rules (also to be added to the TOC).

---

When you say hardcore do you mean things that give the AI an advantage? Hardcore gaming sounds like fun, partic. as it would make a game thats going well more interesting.
Opposite of the sort of stuff you are moaning about.

Another one for your current list: sitting crusades/jihads in well guarded enemy territory - I've never done this but I assume a human player could, and when the AI uses it, it strips away all my troops away each turn (and if I pull them out I risk the province).

Trading is good though because only the Almos go for armies on a human scale.

What about the trick where you trap the Egyptian king while playing as the Turks in early? Does that count? It is, after all, only possible with one faction in one time period, unless there are other first turn king traps that I am unaware of.

And what about loyalist revolts? I find it a little, ah, revolting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif that an AI faction gets a whole stack of powerful advacned units when all they really have is spearmen and urban militia. I'm not one to whine, this just seems a leetle out of place.

Another cheesy tactic: when the player takes all the rebel provinces at the start of the game, eg. italy taking sweden, ireland, finland, etc... whether by bribery or invasion. The AI doesnt do this and its not realistic.

I think its cheesy when you use anything more than peseants.

Yeah, I'm not ready to agree that targeting the general's unit is cheesy. It *can* be cheesy if you build an army with the intent of knocking off the opposing general to win each battle. The AI likes to use the general's unit as a battering ram right through your center. If you don't beat the heck out of it with projectiles when it does this, then it sometimes succeeds in breaking the center or tears up some good units. Since I only play on expert (and the AI gets spotted +2 morale at that level), I don't feel I have the luxury of allowing the general's unit to operate freely. I am compelled to target it with a few missile and spear units just to keep it tied up since it is generally a very mobile cav/knight unit. On the other hand, I typically don't target the general's unit with heavy artillery at range. I do target the unit is positioned in such away that I'm more likely to score more total kills with collateral hits by firing at it (depends on topography and positions), or if it is the only unit in range of a gun (other units in defillade, etc.) While targeting the AI general as a matter of course is a bit cheesy, it is not without historical precedent. At times heavily outnumbered armies did successfully send elite units after the general. The AI will target my general if I put him in range...but I don't until I have dealt with the problem artillery.

Similarly, the trade issue is a bit questionable. Back in STW I refrained from port invasions because the AI never defended against it, and the AI launched very inept port invasions that never succeeded (like 120 Ashigaru with a low star general). In MTW, the AI does not employ it's ships in a strategic manner either for combat or trade. That is why the Italians always do so poorly in the game, they seem to run out of florins building ships and provoking wars with close neighbors. Instead, they should expand their trade and crush anyone that interferes. Despite stategic incompetence, the AI can cause all sorts of havoc with blockades by darting in and out with fast ships, but it only attacks when it has considerable superiority. It lumps ships in choke points and starts wars that are not in its best interest. As stated, to get big trade routes you must go to war with the AI factions either in Sicily or the Channel. The AI's incompetence in trade/ships is double edged. The AI fails to profit from trade, but will cause havoc that forces you to expand your shipping. The AI is already spotted some in combat at expert level.

In both the cases above, the AI tactics can force you to do some things strategically that border on the cheesy when taken to the extreme. If you get down to it, invading provinces after rebellions/civil wars could be listed as cheesy, because again you are exploiting the AI's inability to see ahead (think stategically.) The AI does not properly garrison rebellious provinces and fails to maintain loyalty by placing the king well/sending off into battle where territories are cut off, or by failing to remove remove/marry problematic generals/governors. The AI fails to bring enough troops to invasion to ensure loyalty during occupation. The Novogorod typically succumb to rebellions and the HRE often expands mightily until Civil War tears it apart.

On assasinating bad heirs, incest, etc. again it comes down to how you handle it. It does seem to be gaming the game if you use a lot of intrigue to get perfect heirs. There should be more negatives in the game for this like failed assasinations resulting in civil wars or sending a low quality prince off on suicide charge reducing morale throughout the realm (perhaps causing some spontaneous rebellions by nervous generals.) However, if you have a really high star king you get a bunch of "zero" star offspring with little hope of building them up even to 2 star (since it is tough to assemble no star armies to "follow" him in contrived "fixed" battles.) Also, you can have a deluge of unmarried heirs because the AI refuses to ally with you in anyway (happened to me as French.) For example, perhaps you see that in 20 years your youngest unmarried heir will ascend to the throne and at that time will be 60+ years old and still unwed. That is the single time I've used the "marry him to his sister" ploy and I was careful to keep him "hidden" afterward. I did spend years trying to marry folks off before I resorted to that, but when it became clear that my long line of brothers would produce no 2nd generation heirs I took action. Likewise, I don't feel bad about offing the 1 star "pervert" king that came in between (as other brothers became king and died of natural causes for several years straight--since they were all so old when the first king died in his mid 80's.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Foreign_Devil @ Jan. 22 2003,15:26)]What about the trick where you trap the Egyptian king while playing as the Turks in early?

---

Yeah, I had noticed that...

Agree about your other point about the huge 3 stack advanced unit containing rebellion armies too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (fodder @ Jan. 22 2003,15:29)]Another cheesy tactic: when the player takes all the rebel provinces at the start of the game, eg. italy taking sweden, ireland, finland, etc... whether by bribery or invasion. The AI doesnt do this and its not realistic.

---

Actually, the AI does do this and it is often a race to be the first to a province. As Byzantines in High period (expert) I took a gamble and invaded Constantinople as soon as I could manage. I found the Hungarians bribing their way toward me. The AI is particularly prone to bribing armies I've noticed. I rarely do so.

If at all possible an AI faction "ally" will "help" invade a rebel province and include just one or two units extra to make sure it is awarded the province afterward when the badly outnumbered AI rebels retreat (even if it leaves some things precariously defended in order to accomplish this.) You don't even get the option to mug your unhelpful ally when this happens. It's cheesy, but it's the AI that's cheesing...

As has been said, it's not truly hardcore unless you only use peasants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Red Harvest @ Jan. 22 2003,16:04)]As has been said, it's not truly hardcore unless you only use peasants.

---

Damn straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Red Harvest @ Jan. 22 2003,16:04)]Actually, the AI does do this and it is often a race to be the first to a province. As Byzantines in High period (expert) I took a gamble and invaded Constantinople as soon as I could manage. I found the Hungarians bribing their way toward me. The AI is particularly prone to bribing armies I've noticed. I rarely do so.

---

I'm not talking about going for provinces nearby or on your borders, but when you go way across the map to get a particular province.

On another note, no provoking rebellions in your own provinces, then bribing them to get troops you cant build normally.

Another semi-cheesy tactic. Dancing your armies around to avoid having everyone carried off in a crusade. I learned this from watching the AI. You learn to do something like this when you are the Poles and have 2-3 crusades in your territory at the same time for 5-10 years straight. All of your best generals and troops will disappear if you don't and you will spend the whole game making armies for others crusades. (Hint, troops moving in at the same time as the crusade from another province don't seem to get tapped, at least not most of the time.) Some of this is cheesy, but since the AI does not use the shortest route it is somewhat justifiable. The AI literally chases my largest armies sideways when I know it is not a legal route, but not rearward unless a new sea route makes the journey the same length or shorter.

If you want to get really hardcore, then I guess mercs are out?

*rusty, bloody old knight hobbles away grumbling about being ignored*

Cheesy can be interpreted in many ways, however the topic author was so kind as to give us the variant for this thread:

Chessy is any tactic which takes unfair advantage of the AI. Exploiting quirks in the code. Tactics that the AI cannot utilize and/or Tactics which the AI cannot equally (or near equally) take advantage of. If the AI cannot do it then, the human player is taking greater advantage of an already disadvantaged AI.


Targeting AI general
1) tactic the AI does not utilize
2) the player is taking advantage of the disadvantaged AI

The general's unit shouldn't be given any more priority as a target than another unit of the same type and threat. If the AI general's unit of Royal Knights marches up to your lines in the vangaurd, yes it deserves to be targeted. But the general often hangs back post-patch. The AI makes some attempt to protect it's general, but a determined player can knock out the AI general practically at will (unless he's one of those really tough ones)


Trade Routes
1) tactic the AI does not utilize
2) the player is taking advantage of the disadvantaged AI

The AI doesn't do it. The exmaples of the raging Italians in the Med has merit only in the circumstance where you are at war with them. By stacking ships and choosign your wars it's easy enough to keep your trade routes open. Fact is a wide trade route will pump more florins into your treasury than the AI factions could ever dream of. Sure there might be a few years where trade is interrupted and you only make 4000 florins ainstead of 12K, but c'mon, once you get a worldwide trade route, you may as well declare yourself the winner and start over..or as was suggested earlier, just use the cheat code and get right to it.


Again - I am not saying no one should do these things, but by not doing them you put yourself on a more level field with the AI. It all comes down what makes the game fun. We all know the AI is not a match for an experienced player - so if fun to you is seeing how many turns it takes you to beat the AI this time...well than have at it. I get bored the minute there is not a threat to my faction, so I enjoy tailoring the game to make it a challenge.

good post, Exile. I find one can often alleviate "playing the weaknesses of the game" simply by role-playing your faction (ie. if playing as the Byz, don't have ships all the way in the North Sea) and avoiding world conquest if playing a GA game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Jan. 22 2003,12:12)]While some of the above mentioned seem like good common sense in playing the game, I will repeat the ones that seem unsportsmanlike or cheesy to me:

1. reloading after a lost battle.
2. reloading after a failed assassination attempt. (people used to do this in STW all the time.)
3. reloading after your king dies or is killed to try and avoid it next time.
4. using many spies to start revolts from province to province (prepatch).
5. using codes.

of course, all these apply to regular players and not to people who just bought the game and are trying to learn it their first week.

---

Suddenly i feel cheesy becuase i frequently reload after a bad event/battle http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/wacko.gif ,ok i think my next game should be a fair one.