Printable View
1. on the battle map, camping on corners or end of map. even though the ai does this, a human player has such a advantage in creativity and its ability to learn that humans should not be using this tactic.
2. reloading , enough said.
3. playing on any difficulty level accept hard or expert, unless you are learning the game.
i find unlimited ammo feature very cheesy.imagine archers wearing bandanas(play MGS1 or 2 and you'll get what i mean)and consantly firing arrows,makes the enemy wonder from where do they get that extra ammo http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/wacko.gif
don't really agree with this. Just because it never happened in history doesn't mean it couldn't have happened if a ruler was smart enough. remember we are not playing out history as it happened but are trying to recreate our own history.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
For me a cheesy tactic is something the AI cannot do. I am sure with some programming it could be 'encouraged' to trade more or bribe more rebels, etc.
Reloading is definitely cheesy. Did it in my 1st campaign casue I didn't have a clue (never played STW). Don't do it anymore and enjoy my screw ups immensley.
Targeting the AI general - not sure as I don't really do it and (except for archers) never worked for me anyway although what else do you do if the generals unit comes right up to your line and justs sits there??? I generally just leave my missile on fire at will now as easier to manage army and I hated my missile units following a targeted uit as it withdrew from battle and alll of a sudden my archers were halfway across the map
Ya about the AI not capturing rebel provinces, they actually DO. I remember playing as the Turkish in Late Era, I wasn't managing well at the start and BOOM the Egyptians leapt from Tripoli to Nicaea I believe (2 provinces right of Constantinople) and ya if you don't call that AI taking advantage of rebel provinces, iunno what you call'em
* Any trade route you do create should be limited to one, and only one, of your factions weakest ships. No military ships for 'trade' duty. No stacking up 'trading' vessels to avoid being attacked.
* You may have one, and only one, military navy stack that consists of all other types of ships. The only time you can break this stack up is to create a specific 'invasion route' to launch a seabourne attack, and after the attack the fleet must be gathered into one single stack again. You may also break the stack up to launch attacks on multiple enemy vessels all in the same sea province in order to clear them away (this exception is granded as the AI rarely stacks its fleets). The navy must then reform.
This way, if your trade route becomes disrupted by the enemy, you must send you navy out to intercept them. This also gives the AI a chance of invading your lands by sea if your navy is too far away from home.
I agree with almost all the so called "chessy tactics" that have been posted here. However, there are some that, even though not totally disagree, I would take a different approach rather than ruling it out completely.
Things that I don't
- Raid.
- Eliminate bad King/heir/general by assasination or other means, except may be disbanding a bad general with an obsolete unit.
- Commit in marriage within the family line.
- Bribe (and this rule out the possibility of incite a revolt in own province to get different troop type).
- Use siege weapons for any thing other than siege.
- Assasinate other faction King, Heir, General and other agents.
- Incite revolt in other factions' provinces. This also mean that I don't use trategic agents offensively.
- Expand to quick and grab all advantageous provinces early.
- Work on Sunday http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
...
- (I may add some more that I can't remember now)
Things that I'm not doing any more:
- Defend edge or corner (especially with half of the army are missiles). Edit: well may be I'm still in the desert or in the case that my force is about 1/5 or less compare to the invader such as the case 2000 Byz vs 14000 Mongol http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/wacko.gif .
- Out number the AI.
- Heavy garrison to make crusades/Jihads die out.
...
Questionable:
- Autoresolve battles: I WILL NEVER AUTORESOLVE ANY BATTLE (well, may be sometimes like my 40 knights vs AI 10 peasants). I can't imagine why I should consider autoresolve any battle. For me, all the fun are in the battles. May be because I don't care much about the trategy part of MTW, but without battles, I might as well not playing the game at all. Just like in STW, all I've ever done in the strategy map (or strategy part of the game) is making sure that I can raise army and go to war.
Different Approach:
- Trade: even if I limited myself to smaller trade route with near by factions, I still have the advantage since AI DON'T trade. Because of that, I do something a little different (still checking the result). I mod the farmland upgrades from 40% to 80% to produce 5 times a much and double the out put of the 20% upgrade. Along with that, I limited myself to the 20% upgrade only (one of my governor get "Bad Steward" vice because he doesn't like to improve farmland). What I want is to make the AI rich so they can afford better troops.
- Recently, I am limiting myself to a smaller number of troops that I use for border garrison and/or invasion. If the AI has fairly quality troops in mass number (20 full units or more), I will limit myself to no more than 20 units (not including siege weapons because I don't use siege weapons for any thing other than siege). If the AI has little or poor quality troops, I use from 8 to 12 units or 2/3 of the AI force. I garrison all of my provinces (not frontline border) with 4 to 6 units. I also maintain some mobile garrison forces of 8 units max. Unlike before, these mobile forces can only help the neighbor provinces to put down a revolt. They can't move by sea to a distance province. The restriction makes the game a little more challenging. Also unlike before, the mobile garrison forces are the same forces that make up my main offensive power. When I want to invade a province, especially for amphibious invasion, I have to pull these forces together in one province then send them out in the next year. I only send them in from different provinces if the provinces share border. Generally, I use less much troops than before and make shorter distance and less amphibious invasion.
- Trategic agents: most of my trategic agents will never set foot outside of the border. Spy, Assasin and religious agents are for counter mission only. Instead of assasinate an enemy priest who is converting people in my province, I would consider send in an extra Bishop to counter the action and let see who can convert people faster http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif . Only Emissary and princess are used outside of the border.
Well, it took me nearly 2 hours http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif to write this post, so think I should stop here.
If I'm not mistaken, isn't the time period that M:TW runs approx. from 1087 - 1453.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
If you're suggesting that trade didn't take place across Europe during this time, then you're not correct.
Here are a few examples:
Genoa left the Mediterranean, traded with various ports along the Spanish coast. Also traded with Bruges (Flanders), and England.
It had outposts in the major Med. ports of the Maghreb(N. Africa). Also down the Atlantic coast as far south as Safi - modern day Morocco.
Pisa, and Venice also had a presence in Africa.
Venice traded: salt, and glass products.
Pisa traded: iron.
These were exchanged for: African cotton, linen, spices, and gold.
Genoa, and Florence even minted coins from gold obtained in the Upper Niger River.
Catalonia (Aragon) also had settlements in the port cities of the Maghreb.
Mallorca also traded in the Atlantic region.
European caravans, and ships also visited the Mongol world. They brought: silk, spices, ceramics, and copper from China. They exported: slaves, furs, and other commodities.
Cities in N. Europe (Hanseatic League), created their own marketplace in the Baltic Sea region.
I agree with you when you say the AI doesn't fully exploit trade routes, so maybe we shouldn't either. It's debatable, to characterize setting up trade routes as "cheesy".
Although, I can't accept your reasoning that trade didn't happen across Europe at this time, that just isn't so.
Well I would agree with some of these suggestions - especially reloading and cheat codes, tutt tutt.
But in my current campaign the Ai has some considerable trade networks that mirror some of my own. France, Spain and Egypt are all trading in the Med and up as far as the north sea. Sicilly was doing quite well too until i sank their fleets and blockaded them.
I'm playing Early, Normal as the Danes although it has now progressed to the Late era and I've lost my longships. My Trade network is bigger I admit - I have worked hard to build it up and i have had to fight VERY hard to keep it in the Med - hence my treatment of Sicilly. Perhaps it just takes the AI longer to bother building ships?
Anyway, I cannot crusade and the French keep robbing half my army when they march through so i guess that makes things a bit more fair.
Um, I never thought about foregoing my all encompassing trade route, even though I play a pacific GA game and don't like lots of battles. I don't actually find the game that easy (as I avoid aggression and rushes) but do tend to lose interest after a 100 years or so when I am very clearly ahead of the pack. It would make the game much tougher, and realistic in terms of restraining your factions relative power. Building up the trade route does seem the way to guarantee your security and allow you to pull off things like crusades.
Anyone got any more suggestions how to operationalise restraints on trade? Surely not zero trade routes?
Exile - I wasn't bragging as that isn't my style - just stating a fact. The whole idea of battle is to gain an advantage over your enemy, otherwise you lose. As it happens i've only killed an AI general with artillery once and that was purely by accident when playing kyodai's battle of flodden mod (which has tons of artillery)
No question that reloading and cheat code are cheezy.
On another level, raiding is kind of cheezy also... But looks who is talking, I am the first one to indulge into the 'friendly raid cheezy tactic'... Not been evoked as a cheezy tactic so far, but basically it is.
You have an ally. Spy rush a neighbouring province of your ally. Province get rebellious. Ally is fleeing (hopes it is in castle).
Next year; you rush to save him (after creating the problem in the first place... Machiavellian...), and you end up with; 1/ a nice battle with 3 armies to boost your valor, 2/ improved spies 3/ a loyal ally who send his gratitude which I think is improving your king influence.
Compared to pure raiding; you don't end up with money. Maybe you got something from the rebel, but not sure...
Trading, IMO is not cheezy, but bribing in non neighbouring province is.
Louis,
It looks like this post might be losing steam http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif , but I thought it would be a good idea for ToranagaSama to post what they feel should be included in the list of hardocre rules to play by.
At least if you want to get the full challenge the game could offer.
I would put together what I think the final list should be in my mind, but I will defer to ToranagaSama as they originated the post and have probably played the game more then I.
Also I don't mean to stop more posts....keep coming up with more hard core rules. I have always liked to play Games without looking for the way to "cheat" the simple minded AI.
So ToranagaSama come on and reply to your post... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
I don't know about you guys but I always feel a little dirty when I'm forced to use mercenaries. I know that there are many instances of their existence throughout history, but I still feel like strategically I sh*t the bed when I'm forced to use them.
P.S have not used them in my last 3 campgains, its sort of a self imposed rule.
Marcher Lord - I know you weren't bragging, my post about those who post the 'game is so easy' threads was not directed at you. I intended to show the context I think ToranagaSama was shooting for with this thread. The reason I quoted your post was because of the word 'advantage' and 'heaps of cash' - two of the principles which the hardcore rules should do away with IMO. Sorry for not being more clear - 'tis a weakness of mine http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
Where is ToranagaSama anyway?
Anyway, here's some hardcore rules for an extra challenge:
Field Marshal - let the AI control your production of agents, taxes, units, everything Your job is to fight the battles. The premise is that the AI is your king and you are his field marshal.
Butcher - kill all the rebels and prisoners, have no alliances, attack neighbors at whim, focus on army development and neglect other areas - like farms, trade, agents etc. Alternatively, the Kings can be a relgious fanantic and also over-develop that area (agents, buildings) too. I'm trying this now with Novgorod, it's interesting...
Super Christian - as a Christian faction, do exactly as the Pope wishes, no invading Christian neighbors, crusade when he asks, etc. (no sneaky stuff either) Primary develoment is to build religious buildings and agents, an important measure of success is the Piety of your King and commanders - issue titles based on piety primarily, another important goal is to raise zeal and converts - even nuetral provs.
Bold King - your Kings are very warlike with an old fashioned notion of honour. All Kings literally lead their force into battle, they are the first to boldly charge the enemy lines (right in the center of course) and do not like 'dishonorable' tactics like cutting down routing enemies. Prov development is warlike of course, with all other buildings being secondary to armories and troop producing bldgs. Some additional twists can be: Such Kings do not use spies/assassins or others will never be the first to break an alliance.
Barren Lands - when you take over a prov., you can keep what's there only and build say...only keeps and watch towers. For a tougher twist, you even destroy whats there at the takeover. In your original provs you can build whatever you like...or..stick to what is there in the beginning only. The premise is that your faction is a conqueror, but doesn't have much technology of it's own, or care for it.
That's all for now.
Me, I have never used the mentioned tactics.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
I learned how to play from the AI (which is why im too scared to play online, lol )
I did what they did...
I never fill the sea with traders, i don't use any dodgy tactic, i play it fair against the AI, and on some occasions i have got my ass kicked by the AI on Medium
The game is only easy when you make it that way
If I understand correctly the reasonning of some people, everything we do that the AI can't is cheesy, even if it's perfectly logical (like targeting the obviously leading unit or expanding our trade routes).
Ok, following this, here are the cheesy things that should be banned, as AI can't do them :
- Calculating if you have any chance to win a war when you start it.
- Not attacking a weakly defended province, even if there is 5000 CMAA on the very next one.
- Not sending the general unit in the first wave, right against a wall of pikes while being under heavy fire of pavoise arbalesters.
- Thinking strategically on the long term.
- Thinking tactically the whole battle.
- Thinking at all.
- Roleplaying.
- Having fun.
Gaius Julius...
Just saw your response....I meant trade routes across all of Europe. I must not have made it clear in my note..
I have no problem with the idea of regional trade routes and the like as you mention....Just thinking its a bit too much when the a trade route stretches from the baltic to eastern Med. from a historical standpoint.
Also, if we want to play "hard Core" then getting 10,000 in florins from trade is a bit too large of an advantage against the AI.
I think for the Hard Core rules trading is acceptable when done in a conservative fashion, but not when trade is the key startegy used for success.
Hope this is a bit clearer
I don't think chevauchee tactics(raid, withdraw, and raid) are cheap, or targeting the enemy general. Since we all know that it is all vs you in the late game, and that they move after you, you have to have some advantages against them too. Trading I admit is cheap, and reloading of course.
I understand what your talking about with the 'if the AI doesnt do it the player shouldnt either'. But after reading most of this thread, it came across as another I cant beat this game better than you because I.. Dont target AI general or build the biggest trade fleet or tie a rubber band around my left testicle before each fight. Why did the thread go so south, some of these I agree are cheesy some not. I play the way I get enjoyment out of it and dont need to come here to show how badass I am. If the game is too easy for you, maybe you should step back, get some fresh air, find out what the other sex is up to, and fly a kite. This is supposed to be an info board mainly, if someone asks me how to nuke the enemy general, I'd tell em if I knew. Peace guys, sorry to rant some.
Naagi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif
Soly's points are well taken, I think.
BTW: There is one cheesy tactic that CA caught on to and eliminated for MTW: the "soaking off" strategy, where you invade 2 provinces, but only carry out the attack in 1, thus forcing the AI to divide it's forces and ensuring a victory. If you do this, your general now gets the "vacillator" vice, -6 morale (I think it's -6, could be -8) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif I noticed this recently, when an AI crusade against me got stuck in a loop and kept invading my province and then chickening out before the fight. Their general got this vice. Might as well take that general out and shoot him, 'cause he's now worthless on the battlefield
As far as the issue of AI trade you should see the related thread in the Dungeon about creating a limited trade mod: http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=4439
IMO trade is not a "cheesy" tactic, since it was intended by CA that the player develop trade networks They programmed it in. It's in the instructions. The player isn't taking advantage of some unintended/accidental feature to "break" the code (like the seabourne invasions of Shogun that the AI didn't defend against). CA just forgot/neglected to make the AI maintain a chain of ships, so the AI doesn't trade effectively. It does trade some, especially if you boost the AI build preferences for ships as Kraellin has done with his mod, but still it's not that effective.
Basically, there are two possible responses: 1. Restrict yourself from trading. Frankly, I don't know how others manage this, since that is how I am able to pay for my armies and what I enjoy most about the game.
2. What I am going to do next: mod the game to start the AI factions out with 250,000 florins, just to see what they do with it. Hopefully, this will be enough of an advantage for the AI that I can build my trade empire without gaining too much advantage. AKKA has a valid point: it's not much fun limiting yourself and where do you stop? It's not like reloading when you lost a battle or your king dies, since that's just cheating (the AI can't back-up and call a "do-over" if it loses) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
What one wants is to mod the game to increase AI play wherever possible not to limit our own and I still believe after much thought and endless discussions with other modders, that it is possible to improve the AI performance to get around this problem.
Alternatively to giving the AI more florins, increase the (farm)income from each province by a factor of 10 and eliminate the merchant (no trade). The problem with this latter, is that it makes life difficult/impossible for the Italians and Sicilians, since they depend on trade. I've suggested dividing them up and reducing them to minor factions (as Paladin has done with his citystates mod) and increasing the rebellion factor to 4 for their provinces so they will be difficult to hold on to. Italy was divided up into competing city-states during this period anyway (there was no "Italian" nation from the 5th to the 19th centuries.
Forcing myself NOT to dominate trade is why I said the SP model is quite broken. It is their selling point, isn't it? If the computer doesn't play well in that regard, then how low must we stoop down? I already stop attacking with numerically superior forces. I don't take out the Papacy anymore, just play along as a good catholic.
Anyways, my current house rule is:
no trade route that is more than 2 sea spaces (restricted local trade only), except: (1) when invade islands (2) when want to rescue crusade units that already reached objective, but want to bring them home because they are having low loyalty for being too far from home.
I have to watch carefully my expenses now. Sigh...
Annie
Dr. Who
Respect your opinion regarding trade routes, but I just don't share it.
I'm still unclear about your reference to "regional" trade routes, and that historically trade didn't happen across Europe.
I thought, that the examples I gave you were pretty straight forward.
Considering the time period, I don't see how you can characterize sailing a ship from; say Genoa, up to England , or Flanders as "regional".
Also, trading from Europe; to say China, as "regional".
Historically, this did occur.
Now, I will agree with you that in the interest of gameplay; maybe the developers, did take a few liberties.
As far as the amount of florins obtained from trade, that fluctuates.
It's not always 10,000 florins.
Usually, when you start getting too rich, the AI starts a war, and your income is whittled down substantially.
You also state,"that trading is acceptable when done in a conservative manner, but not when trade is the key strategy used for success".
Please explain your definition of "conservative" as regards to trade.
Finally, I don't think that trade is the key strategy for success.
It's a means to an end; you still have to use military strength, to ultimately be victorius.
It's a combination of both, you can't have one without the other.
Naagi
Sorry, you feel this thread is going "south"; I don't agree.
All I see are people who are exchanging their point of view, in a civilized, adult manner.
Ex., Dr. Who, and myself- no ranting/name-calling etc.
Of coarse you should play the game, the way which is enjoyable to you.
No one here is saying otherwise.
You're right when you say that this is an info. board; and that's what we're doing exchanging info. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
In my current game I have been playing with very limited trade and fleets. Without limitations on my trade I can simply swamp the AI with units at will. With full trade and the knowledge of how to use it...after the first 3 ships are at sea the game is over, Player wins.
Gaius Julius
My point about trade being the strategy for succes is shown through Tyrac's post. Tyrac feels, as do I, that once you start getting large amounts of trade income the chance that you can then make so many units you overwhelm the AI factions is pretty high.
As for the historical aspect you are probably right about trading with other nations. As you also say I think CA has given too great a reward for all of the trading you can do. Maybe they should have capped the max amount you can earn for each type of trading to maybe 5 foreign ports. I think during the time period countries did not use trade to rule all of Europe. It did play an important role in affairs, but not a dominant one.
I guess trading to make a lot of money to win is not something I enjoy so I no longer do this after seeing that through trading as the Italians I could have the greatest income even though I still only owned Northern Italy.
I also agree that there are many good things being said on this thread. For people looking for a greater challenge they may realize that something they are doing is perhaps giving them an unfair advantage. This is not to say that I am some amazing player at the game because I am not. I just enjoy being challenged by the game. Just my personal style. I get more enjoyment out of the computer defeating me in a hard fought game then I do from defeating them, unless of course it is a very challenging and hard fought victory.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
In fact, I've noticed in my last campaign(Poland; high) that you had more problems when you became powerful. I'll play my next GA game(as the danes) while focusing on my "legitimate field of play" : the baltic sea, maybe the north sea. It means at least 1/2 of the ports there should remains allied or neutral. Should be a challenge; doable as the danes are quiet alone in the North, but no danish volonies in N-Africa or in Khazaar
Maybe my ships will go up to Costa Verde, but I'll avoid Gibraltar at all costs. Too much wars begin if you have ships in the med.
I like Lady Ann's rule of local trade routes (2 sea zones wide) and agree that without something like that the single player game is broken.
One issue: it will make crusading much harder, as I do it all by sea right now. Anyone know if the English crusaders went by sea or by land? I can't see being able to pull off any English crusades within the early period, as required by GA, without a big trade network to fund and transport the troops. Even exploiting trade to the max, it is still touch and go to get those 4 crusading provinces before 1205.
Both, I think. I'm sure at least one of the later crusades travelled mostly by sea, and of course there was the crusade that did most of its fighting against the Byzantines en route to Outremer. I also tend to use sea routes for crusading, although I'm not sure how amphibious assaults in plate mail would go ..Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
I think a lot of these cats are not playing on the hardest difficulty and, if they are, they're probably using the Byzantines or the Spanish (with whom it's conceivable to amass huge amounts of wealth without trade provided you simply stay away from Portugal), or the English.
Try dominating in 50 turns with the Polish on the hardest difficulty, without reloading AT ALL, and tell me how easy the game is.
That said, there's 2 things that could rectify this situation:
1. Have rebel factions more powerful, and much more aggressive at the start of the game (as well as throughout). Also, make them not as easy to bribe and have them build aggressively and amass troops.
2. Alow some of the lesser factions to be playable, e.g. Aragonese, Sicilians, etc.. It seems as though they're doing this for the expansion, but i submit that there should at least be a couple more smaller playables.
Hmm, I do not agree with building up the trade routes as being a cheesy tactic... And, if we want historic reference, it was done: for example, the vikings used to trade with most of Europe including the Meditarranean and the Black Sea. What should be done though -- is tweaking the AI to build trade routes as well. Maybe tweaking it to be more aggressive attacking your fleets would help too (this could work to the AI disadvantage though: once it attacks my trade route, his own trade is blocked until all my ships are eliminated; or a truce is sealed; and those fleets in far seas are a financial burden unless they are producing income).
I saw a post here that suggested giving the AI 250,000 florins to start. Just wondered how this can be done? I'm interested to try.
Kristaps you cant modify the ai's starting cash only the players, Kraellin has had some luck modding the ai's behaviour in regards to trade and naval capability, Check out his posts in the barracks.