XL-TYB2.2 - Ireland My Sireland!

lol, yes, its from that relatively unknown part of his work, the one where it also says:
"save your game at the critical point and keep loading until you succeed" ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn

As Russia I was attacked by Sweden, Livonia, Khazar and Poland but only after discovering in a battle for Lithuania that the bread and butter of the Russian army, their 100 strong groups of medium cavalry, are useless in a fight and shoot pins instead of arrows. Also that Men-At-Arms, which Russia does not have, are invulnerable.

---

Ha, ha––yes, I would agree that things are pretty dire for the Russians in the earlier campaigns. Thing is, you can't wisely pursue an expansionist policy until you get the later (and much better) troops. Best to stay on the defensive: spam the hundred-man cavalry unit and rely on massive charges, while trying to keep them off the pikes. (I'll admit that I haven't followed this strategy to its utmost extent––so, for all I know, it might be hopeless.) Of course, this can make for a pretty dull campaign with increasingly monotonous battles (though never as monotonous as, say, those defensive battles you fought over and over in RTW that almost always ended as "heroic" victories. And yet, that is sort of what the early Russian campaign is like, but without the satisfying "heroic victory" message, and with your forces and finances depleting at an alarming rate.) No: I don't blame you for getting frustrated with that one!

Quote:

---

NTW is refreshing and sometimes there are wonderfully tense battles and diplomatic situations, but there isn't the diversity of the medieval and renaissance games.

---

Sadly, I have yet to get the hang of the shootout-style battles in NTW. Strangely, I have no problem with the equivalent battles in PMTW. Something about the timing…

Quote:

---

I was enjoying my Nasrid campaign, thinking I could make an AAR of it, until I lost the major battle against Castilla because I was feeling impatient with MTW by then and therefore not of sufficient mental stability to deal with 5 units of chivalric sergeants, 4 feudal and heaps of arbalesters using an army of nearly all light javelin cavalry... The AI won fairly...

---

Though it may be a hard pill to swallow, it's a worthy man who accepts defeat. Kudos for not "turning back the clock." I've surprised myself by recovering from absolutely shocking setbacks––and then paying them back with interest. This happened most recently in my campaign as the Swedes, which you may or may not hear about in an upcoming AAR… (First the novel, though, damn it!)

Quote:

---

So I am taking time now to ease my frustration with the whole mechanism and think what mod is best. Although I had completely ruled out PMTW, Cyprian you intrigue me with your story of success. Do you think then that most if not all factions in PMTW can be successful? Do you also however see the Ottomans, Russians and Spaniards simply carve up Europe, destroying all minor factions easily?

---

I can't help but think that our preference for certain mods over others and our opinions about what constitutes "good" balancing stem from a tendency to either expansionism or consolidation. Not to say that you can't use both approaches in a single campaign, but one usually outweighs the other––and often by necessity (i.e. if I sit there too long and let the larger factions "rampage" as they are wont to do, I'm going to get clobbered, so I better attack them before they attack me...). That's the underpinning anxiety of the game. Pike & Musket––and, one might venture to say, the game engine itself––presents us with a sweet paradox: that unless you are one of the dominant factions, you will need to quickly assert your control over as many territories as possible, but once you have done so, thereby becoming a dominant faction, you risk losing it all in a few turns to disastrously timed rebellions, etc.

As you learned with your Irish debacle, things break down rather quickly (and unceremoniously) once your empire gets too unwieldy. Civil war, mass revolts––these are the charming traps which the original designers have set for us, and when they are triggered, it's almost as if the very gods were punishing our hubris.

I stressed my enjoyment of the "underdog" campaign because it seems to demand a "slow and steady" mentality that matches my style of play these days. You're right to say that the larger factions in PMTW (as well as those in vanilla, and most mods) are steamrollers that destroy the smaller factions before the latter have had a chance to consolidate. Oftentimes, though, the most satisfying campaigns for me are those in which I manage to thrive both militarily and financially whilst resisting the urge to become one of the steamrollers myself. Not to say that I'm always successful: I've known myself to steamroll with the best of 'em.:laugh4:

Finally, Glenn, I look forward to reading about whatever faction you settle on––and whatever manner of campaign you choose to play. Take your time in finding just the right mod and faction; your AAR can only benefit from this certainty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

lol, yes, its from that relatively unknown part of his work, the one where it also says:
"save your game at the critical point and keep loading until you succeed" ;)

---

I seem to recall yet another tenet from that chapter... Something like: "It's never too early to cheat with money."

Yes... yes indeed... well, what do you know; it seems less obscure than people make it... ;)

I love MTW AARs

Good work Glenn

Quote:

---

nearly all light javelin cavalry

---

I've been there myself when Spain invaded me as Byzatium with an army consisting of 90% Jinettes,the most annoying unit in MTW to deal with in numbers,And after I repelled them my generals mass-revolted at the time the GH appeared,whch took some doing to deal with both of them at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oz_wwjd

I've been there myself when Spain invaded me as Byzatium with an army consisting of 90% Jinettes,the most annoying unit in MTW to deal with in numbers,And after I repelled them my generals mass-revolted at the time the GH appeared,whch took some doing to deal with both of them at once.

---

Yes, Jinettes are notoriously annoying to face in battle (which might give a hint as to their strengths when you are the one controlling them). I usually rely on horse archers (especially when playing as the Byzantines) to thin their ranks, then charge home with light-to-medium cavalry. This often does the trick. Still, those buggers can have you chasing them all around the battle map if you're not careful! Sorry to hear about your bad luck after the battle in question. The gods of MTW are somewhat demented, I'd say, and love to mete out punishment in unequal measure to our modest successes. Who wouldn't love such a game? Might I ask, was this in vanilla?

Wow Glenn, that got to have been a frustrating loss... And I have to tell you, I CAN TOTALLY RELATE!!! This game is completely crazy sometimes! I have been in MANY situations where I was simply PERFECTLY certain of a certain outcome, but the exact opposite happened without any possible explanation! I seriously think this game has bugs in the battle system which makes the battles go completely the wrong way! And this goes both ways, sometimes I lose battles that I should have won with absolute certainty, sometimes I win battles that I should have lost with absolute certainty.

Oh well. It's still a sweet game... I think you pretty much had it in the basket anyway, it's always the initial years that determine wether you win or lose, the rest is just simple labour. Just frustrating when you can't decide the point of exit on your own terms.