My first go with the Turks

Quick update and advice needed.

I pushed the Egyptians back to Egypt and am sitting in Sinai, they sued for peace and I accepted. My initial intent was to take Egypt, I still might but in all the fun some of thier provinces rebelled, and the net result is there is an 8 star rebel general sitting on one of the islands surrounded by my fleet (the island name escapes me, its the one closest to the middle east).

So my sultan died, a new one comes in and has half the influence of the old one, i have 2 4+ star generals and one 3 star with a skilled attacker trait. This 8 star rebel general would be a great addition to my invasion of the Byz empire.

So my question: He currently comes with a 20k+ florin price tag, do i sacrafice some troops and whittle down his stack to lower his price? Do i pay this money (I have it, barely...) or do I have to take him out and be done with it?

Any opinions would be great !

Thanks,

Odin

Unfortunately (or fortunately), the AI's arbalesters are rarely a huge problem. They can outshoot your futtuwas and ottoman infantry, but when the AI attacks, it will charge its spears and melee infantry, together with its knights (mostly royal) at your line, while leaving its missile units exposed to any flanking cavalry. The Armenians can deal with arbalesters, even pavise ones, easily. The AI has the nasty habit of not making its pavise arbalesters holding position, which emans that every time they are approached by something, such as a cavalry unit, they will try to move, so instead of their strong shield side, you can catch them at their exposed backs.
Since you are playing the XL mod, I believe you can compensate to a degree by recruiting Welsh Bowmen available to all factions after 1320. I know I have been able to recruit them with the Volga Bulgars at least.
As for the general in Cyprus, I would try to get him, but I think it might be a lot cheaper to killf off some of his troops first. In this process however, you need to make sure that you do not kill him, and that you lose the battle (you do not want him getting any vices such as weak defender, good runner, etc.). Autocalculating will most probably work best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

This 8 star rebel general would be a great addition to my invasion of the Byz empire.

So my question: He currently comes with a 20k+ florin price tag, do i sacrafice some troops and whittle down his stack to lower his price? Do i pay this money (I have it, barely...) or do I have to take him out and be done with it?

---

Check out his V&Vs. If there's none of the coward line of vices there (eager to retreat, doubtful courage, good runner) then I would go for the bribe if your economy can stand it, and if the unit type is worth having (Urban Militia or Spearmen are probably not worth it, though it depends on your situation). If the bribe fails he may get one of the loyalty virtues making him more expensive. If you get a reassessment of the armies worth when the emissary gets there, I wouldn't continue with your initial offering because he'll probably reject it and then pick up one of the loyalty virtues. Raise the offer if necessary.

Also as regards arbalests and pavise units not being available for the Turks, this is a bit of game balancing as far as I can see and has no bearing on historical availability of such weapons. I'm pretty sure that muslim and many eastern armies wouldn't have used them at all.

Well, are a few contemporary images of mameluks with crossbows, which may have led the game developpers into beliving that they were wide spread, when indeed they were not and their use was limited to ship crews and hunting, as the Mameluks preferred the composite bow in battle due to its faster shooting rate. The crossbow was known in the East (after all this is where it came from), but the composite bow remained the preferred weapon even a few centuries after the invention of gun powder. So while the crossbow may have become popular in the Muslim West, in North Africa and Iberia, a crossbow heavy Ayybid/Mameluk or Seljuk/Ottoman Army is indeed ahistorical. The latter is fortunately impossible, but the former happens quite often in the game, putting the Turks at a disadvantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kavhan Isbul

Well, are a few contemporary images of mameluks with crossbows, which may have led the game developpers into beliving that they were wide spread, when indeed they were not and their use was limited to ship crews and hunting, as the Mameluks preferred the composite bow in battle due to its faster shooting rate. The crossbow was known in the East (after all this is where it came from), but the composite bow remained the preferred weapon even a few centuries after the invention of gun powder. So while the crossbow may have become popular in the Muslim West, in North Africa and Iberia, a crossbow heavy Ayybid/Mameluk or Seljuk/Ottoman Army is indeed ahistorical. The latter is fortunately impossible, but the former happens quite often in the game, putting the Turks at a disadvantage.

---

Sorry, I was running late there. I was still at work and rushing to finish up before going home. I was referring to pavises specifically and not crossbows as a whole. My thoughts are that the Turks being restricted to crossbows only is porbably more accurate for all muslim factions. A simple bit of modding can fix that.

What are your thoughts on mounted crossbows? I have always wondered why they are available earlier than unmounted ones. It doesn't seem to make much sense.

In the Second Lateran council, Pope Innocent II outlawed crossbows and arbalests in warfare between Christians (Catholics), so this is evidence that they were in widespread use at that time. Pavises appear to date from the 14th century, placing them in the MTW late period. In view of this I would structure as follows:

Crossbows:
All Periods
All Factions

Arbalests:
All Periods
Catholic and Orthodox


Pavise Crossbows:
Late Era
Catholic and Orthodox

Pavise Arbalests:
Late Era
Catholic and Orthodox

caravel, i can only help with factions on the Balkans. I will need to do some reading on Russia and the Middle East before I can say anything about the use of crossbows there with confidence. In the Balkans, there are bolts found, but few, especially in the Eastern Balkans, and they may actually date back to the 15th century, when Polish and Hungarian Crusaders fought against the Ottomans. The Hungarians are known to have used crossbows with success against the Mongols at Mohi (although they ended up losing the battle). As for the Byzantines, they used all sorts of Western and Eastern mercenaries. In terms of modding the game, I think that the Byzantines should have to pay double the training and upkeep costs of crosbowmen and arbalesters to reflect their heavy dependence on mercenaries. Crossbowmen and arbalesters have a cheap upkeep anyway, at 22 I believe, so doubling this would still make it less than a florint per man for a unit of 60.
I completely agree with you that it makes no sense at all to have mounted crossbowmen before infantry ones. My understanding of mounted crossbowmen was that they were a sort of mounted infantry, and used horses only to move around, but dismounted before firing. of course, this cannot be implemented in MTW, and I might be wrong about this. Also, I do not think mounted crossbowmen were the Western answer to Eastern HAs. Hence the Turcopoles.
I do not think that pavises were ever used out of Western Europe. I will check, but I feel quite confident that they were not used in Russia (unless perhaps along the Baltic), and the Middle East.

If I might add, I think that Arbalesters don't fit in any era before the Late Era. Yes, crossbows with the actual bows made of steel existed well in the 13th century, but those early arbalests had a nasty habit of snapping, crushing the operators head. Also, crossbows started to get out of "fashion" by the late 14th century (at least in western Europe), thanks to the obivous downsides they had against longbows. "Crossbows" were not extensively used again until safe arbalests became common in the late 14th/early 15th century.
Also, I think that the Scandinavian factions really shouldn't have arbalests at all, as it was pretty much military backwater up here (in Sweden, the crossbow didn't start to replace the bow untill the mid 13th century).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Personally i think its an exploit on a poor choice of AI positioning. Effective yes, but the game needs players integrity (not suggesting you dont have it mate) to make the game a full challenge.

---

~:eek: Yes a bit of a cheat, but if one were to not to exploit the AI at all the game might get dull. For example,

From Kavhan Isbul: The AI has the nasty habit of not making its pavise arbalesters holding position, which emans that every time they are approached by something, such as a cavalry unit, they will try to move, so instead of their strong shield side, you can catch them at their exposed backs.

So make sure you don't take advantage of that. The AI has problems with shipping and trade, so make sure you don't do that either. I'm pretty sure you'll agree there are tons more. I personally believe that if a player didn't exploit at least some of these faults then the player couldn't win. I will however admit that the Egypt Sultan thing is pretty cheesy, but in my defense I never ransom him back. He always gets the axe, as a sign to the Egyptian empire of what happens to those who defy the Turks.

With that said, I am a great fan of 8* Generals and will not hesitate to empty the Royal Treasury to employ (bribe) one. There is an interview process. He needs to be a unit I can train. Unlike Caravel, I am not picky about what his unit is I will pick up an 8* Peasant, Urban Militia, or Spearmen just as quickly as a Jannisary Hvy Inf or whatnot. My generals have the habit of watching more battles than fighting, but thats personal perference. After a quick background check of his V&Vs (all the ones that Caravel listed).

Of course bribing him has a drawback. For me every general I have bribed as gotten Weak Principals. Its no big deal if handled carefully, but it is annoying when the AI (and I have been on the recieving end of this) bribes a whole stack of your troops for less than Blue Book.

If the price tag is too much to bear, and it might be since your just starting out, follow through on your idea to whittle some of his forces down. Send a small force and sell their poor digitized lives as dearly as possible. Make sure you kill of as much of his force as you possibly can before your inevitable defeat. That should lower the asking price dramatically. In the end, I am not sure if this will work since he's an 8* general, but if he's the General of typical Egyptian Peasant rabble then it might not be too bad.

As I've been blathering on I just thought of something. IIRC, most of the good Egyptian generals were Camels, yes? Well, good luck and let us know what happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kavhan Isbul

caravel, i can only help with factions on the Balkans. I will need to do some reading on Russia and the Middle East before I can say anything about the use of crossbows there with confidence. In the Balkans, there are bolts found, but few, especially in the Eastern Balkans, and they may actually date back to the 15th century, when Polish and Hungarian Crusaders fought against the Ottomans. The Hungarians are known to have used crossbows with success against the Mongols at Mohi (although they ended up losing the battle). As for the Byzantines, they used all sorts of Western and Eastern mercenaries. In terms of modding the game, I think that the Byzantines should have to pay double the training and upkeep costs of crosbowmen and arbalesters to reflect their heavy dependence on mercenaries. Crossbowmen and arbalesters have a cheap upkeep anyway, at 22 I believe, so doubling this would still make it less than a florint per man for a unit of 60.
I completely agree with you that it makes no sense at all to have mounted crossbowmen before infantry ones. My understanding of mounted crossbowmen was that they were a sort of mounted infantry, and used horses only to move around, but dismounted before firing. of course, this cannot be implemented in MTW, and I might be wrong about this. Also, I do not think mounted crossbowmen were the Western answer to Eastern HAs. Hence the Turcopoles.
I do not think that pavises were ever used out of Western Europe. I will check, but I feel quite confident that they were not used in Russia (unless perhaps along the Baltic), and the Middle East.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Innocentius

If I might add, I think that Arbalesters don't fit in any era before the Late Era. Yes, crossbows with the actual bows made of steel existed well in the 13th century, but those early arbalests had a nasty habit of snapping, crushing the operators head. Also, crossbows started to get out of "fashion" by the late 14th century (at least in western Europe), thanks to the obivous downsides they had against longbows. "Crossbows" were not extensively used again until safe arbalests became common in the late 14th/early 15th century.
Also, I think that the Scandinavian factions really shouldn't have arbalests at all, as it was pretty much military backwater up here (in Sweden, the crossbow didn't start to replace the bow untill the mid 13th century).

---

Well I suppose the same goes for Gunpowder. Many of the early handguns were insanely dangerous and inaccurate, yet they do appear in the late era. Maybe arbalests should be available from the high era and only to Catholics and Orthodox? This could partially account for the period or unreliability? Overall this scheme would distribute these weapons across the eras, instead of them all arriving together in the high period. Pavises should probably be Catholic only, and some of the eastern and northern factions such as the Hungarians, Poles and Danes probably shouldn't get them either. The mounted crossbows could then be left as they are. From what I know of the mounted crossbows, they were usually dismounted first, though they could fire from their horses, but not on the move (not that that's a problem for MTW as sadly even horse archers don't fire on the move anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

~:eek: Yes a bit of a cheat, but if one were to not to exploit the AI at all the game might get dull.

---

Yes and your example is a fine one. I normally exploit the AI when it comes to the mongols to be honest, knowing they are coming and creating choke points full of spear type units makes me guilty of it.

That said, this particuar egyptian exploit not only nets you an easy two province gain (assuming you win both battles) but you also can kill the sultan, of if you auto calc you can ransom and make a large sum of money. IMHO thats a big exploit.

Quote:

---

As I've been blathering on I just thought of something. IIRC, most of the good Egyptian generals were Camels, yes? Well, good luck and let us know what happens

---

Yes he is a camel unit, I normally keep commanders far away from the action anyway unless its mop up, desperation, or a clear opportunity for a flank.

double post

Thank you all for the input and discussion i do appreciate it as it makes campaigns much more enjoyable when you can chat about it outside that actual game play.

During the week I get maybe 30-60 minutes a night to play games, so progress has been slow. Weekends are different and a serious gaming session is planned.

Ran into a snag though last night, my game CTD, it happens from time to time not the end of the world by any means. So i started the auto save game and bribed that general, then the egyptians attacked me. Much to my shame I been preparing my armies to assult the Balkans and they were all armored up.... So i had some serious losses in the desert, still I ended up removing the egyptians as a faction.

During this time i had a few auto saves happen, i finished my game play for the night and escaped out to save, CTD. Boot up the game select the last auto save to see where I was, reconcilled that, escaped to save, CTD. I played a few more turns to the next auto save, then escaped again, CTD, rinse repeat.

So the long and short of it is i have the old save game which I will have to boot up and start with, which means my gains against the egyptians and getting this general are gone, not the end of the world by any means but it killed about 20 turns worth of action.

Ouch. 20 turns of action sometimes means the better part of a fortnight in play. I've noticed with my system, repeated CTDs from a specific save are because of the file I am using. If I use another save point is no big deal. It's tedious but I have gotten in the habit of saving at the end of every year. That way if I have to back up its not all that far.

It will not save this game, but in the future ...

I hate to have to replay the same years over again, so the corrupted save-game factor has resulted in me quick-saving (CTRL-S) before hitting ESC for a regular save every year end. There was an old thread years ago that indicated having the Auto-Save feature turned on increased the risk of a corrupted save-game file, so I keep that always turned off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

Ouch. 20 turns of action sometimes means the better part of a fortnight in play. I've noticed with my system, repeated CTDs from a specific save are because of the file I am using. If I use another save point is no big deal. It's tedious but I have gotten in the habit of saving at the end of every year. That way if I have to back up its not all that far.

It will not save this game, but in the future ...

---

You know it happens so infrequently that I dont really pay much attention, however this time it hurt because a lot transpired. I wont bail on the campaign but dependant on where my other save is saved from I might start over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezer57

I hate to have to replay the same years over again, so the corrupted save-game factor has resulted in me quick-saving (CTRL-S) before hitting ESC for a regular save every year end. There was an old thread years ago that indicated having the Auto-Save feature turned on increased the risk of a corrupted save-game file, so I keep that always turned off.

---

I remember a dicussion about the auto save. I rarely have CTD (XL is a wonderful mod, very stable). however I do keep the autosave feature just in case and havent had many issues with it. Yes this has happened to me before but i've rebooted off an autosave in the past and been able to resave no problem.

Doing a quick ctrl - s seems a reasonable way around the issue.

You can have the autosave on, but if you load it, it may be corrupted, in which case it's no good to you. Quicksave, both CTRL+S and the quicksave option that appears on the prebattle window, is prone to corrupted savegames. You can avoid this by not using the prebattle save at all, and by only quicksaving immediately after you hit end turn and dismiss all info parchments. Don't send agents on missions or move anything, save immediately, with CTRL+S. You can then hit escape and save from the main menu if necessary. Hitting esc can sometimes crash the game. I'm convinced that this is either XP/2K or video card related. When you hit escape there is a sound effect that plays and an animation when the map zooms in and the menu overlay fades in. I believe it may be this that causes it on occasions. I have tested this under Win9x and it never occurs and have tried an old 3dfx graphics card under XP and it doesn't occur with that either, because the animation doesn't play at all, the screen goes momentarily black and the menu appears instantly (the card obviously doesn't support the "effect").

All info I never knew before. It happens to me rarely, and I save so much, so I rarely have to back up more than a year or 2. I didn't realize that the game had a problem with the auto-save feature. I noticed my rig has on rare occassion scragged a pre-battle save, but that is also very rare.

I play MTW on a machine with integrated graphics, and I've had the occasional CTD when I hit ESC, so it can't be due to high-end graphics. On the other hand, it works 99% of the time, so my integrated graphics must support it. I've also had issues using the ESC button to cancel a facing movement while I'm holding ALT + RC. Sometimes it crashes, and sometimes it asks me if I really want to surrender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sensei Warrior

All info I never knew before. It happens to me rarely, and I save so much, so I rarely have to back up more than a year or 2. I didn't realize that the game had a problem with the auto-save feature. I noticed my rig has on rare occassion scragged a pre-battle save, but that is also very rare.

---

My most common corrupted save game file comes from the pre-battle quicksave introduced with VI. I've just about completely given up on it, which is a shame (as it's really convenient when there are multiple battles per turn). My current machine is much more stable than some of its predecessors, but will occasionally act up if it's been left on for a week or so. So if I'm playing a campaign, and approach the end of a year with the expectation for multiple battles, I'll perform a regular save followed by a reboot to freshen things up. I'm less likely to experience a CTD in the middle of a series of battles, which has cost me hours of play in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezer57

My most common corrupted save game file comes from the pre-battle quicksave introduced with VI. I've just about completely given up on it, which is a shame (as it's really convenient when there are multiple battles per turn).

---

Same here. I now avoid it completely.

@gunslinger: It may not be a question of "high end graphics" but moreso, newer drivers, later directx compliancy and newer cards combined with the XP/2k platform which MTW/STW weren't really designed to run on. Your onboard graphics likely to be much more up to date, as far as Driver and DirectX compliancy is concerned, than an early Radeon (7000 - 9700), Geforce2/3/4 or Voodoo4/5, which were about the norm around the time when STW and MTW were released.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezer57

My most common corrupted save game file comes from the pre-battle quicksave introduced with VI. I've just about completely given up on it, which is a shame (as it's really convenient when there are multiple battles per turn).

---

I still use the pre-battle quicksave when I'm in the middle of a series of battles and don't have time to play them all through in one sitting but after I hit the save button I autocalc the rest of the battles and make a 'proper' save before quiting.

If the quicksave is corrupt then I still have a save with some of the battles autocalc'd rather than having to fight the ones I'd already done again.

So I resloved my savegame issue and have gotten back to where I was, bribed the 8 star general and demolished the egyptians. Now I have a few more heirs floating around with some decent command stats and I am preparing to invade the balkans.

My issue is in my haste I have built armored troops, 4 armies each comprised of : 4 Sacren infantry, 4 THA's, 4AHC, 2 seige weapons and 1 command unit. All of which were intended as invasion forces for the Balkans, the defenisve units i have left in my provinces are the typical low level horse archer/urban malitia.

so my issue is I built armorers in most of my provinces to prepare for the Byzantines, forgetting prudence and forgetting that at some point i will have to fight in the desert again. The egyptian escapade exposed my weakness with the armor as my troops won, but I took unnecessary losses due to armor exhaustion.

At some point someone will crusade against me, thus far one has not happened (its on or around 1150). Should I destroy some of my armorers to relieve this burden in the desert? My thinking is that in the valor bonus regions that bonus compensates for the lack of armor, even in the better conditions.

So its really a question of balance, i am assuming my fight with the Byz isnt going to be a cake walk, hes got plenty of tanks and jedi running around, yet I need a solid army or two for crusade defense without armor.

Personally I usually have a province with a grand mosque for producing the best high morale Saracens. You may want to use Bulgaria for this purpose due to the +1 valour bonus for JHI. In this province I upgrade the armourer to the maximum possible, and upgrade to the master spearmaker to get the valour bonus for the Saracens. For the desert Saracens I usually have a few provinces able to turn those out in the holy land and Egypt. Their armour is usually not upgraded at all, but their morale and valour is as high as I can get it (Master Spearmaker, Ribat). Eventually once you've secured all of the desert provinces, you may want to start upgrading the armourers in other provinces to make units that are fit for european action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Personally I usually have a province with a grand mosque for producing the best high morale Saracens. You may want to use Bulgaria for this purpose due to the +1 valour bonus for JHI. In this province I upgrade the armourer to the maximum possible, and upgrade to the master spearmaker to get the valour bonus for the Saracens. For the desert Saracens I usually have a few provinces able to turn those out in the holy land and Egypt. Their armour is usually not upgraded at all, but their morale and valour is as high as I can get it (Master Spearmaker, Ribat). Eventually once you've secured all of the desert provinces, you may want to start upgrading the armourers in other provinces to make units that are fit for european action.

---

I think we share the same way of thinking, my intent is to take Bulgaria and make that where I build the military academy and the janissaries, and sure once I take the Balkans I will probably make it the hub for european armies.

Sadly my situation now is (by my own hand) that my desert provinces now have armorers. Built to deal with the byz, neglecting the defense needs for future crusades, and thus my cunundrum, I very well cant defend in the desert with armor its just a handicap i cant afford with the cavalry I employ.

So I am thinking i need to demolish some armorer's now, or i gamble and hope my navy can hold off a crusade until I get the balkans up and running (which by the way isnt a slam dunk).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

I think we share the same way of thinking, my intent is to take Bulgaria and make that where I build the military academy and the janissaries, and sure once I take the Balkans I will probably make it the hub for european armies.

---

Once the Military Academy has gone up, the units produced in the province will be disciplined. Disciplined Saracens can be useful for the Turks, as they won't rout when the lesser (non elite or non disciplined) units are routing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

So I am thinking i need to demolish some armorer's now, or i gamble and hope my navy can hold off a crusade until I get the balkans up and running (which by the way isnt a slam dunk).

---

Which provinces do you have armourers, and what main troop types are you producing there?

Hmm. Well, I suppose you could bulldoze a couple of armories to relieve some production pressure, but I really dislike wasting build time.

I think I would use the newly conquered provences that you are going to acquire through your expansion into the Byz's territory to build armorless troops. In the inbetween time you could use mercs when you have to, to round out your border garrisons in case of emminent attack. Once you push to Constantinople and Georgia you'll have choke points and probably a little time to organize your production regions better.

There is a certain amount of risk with this idea, but like I said I really dislike wasting building build time and in essence that is what you'll be doing if you destroy the armories you just spent 4 years or more building.

>>>>>@gunslinger: It may not be a question of "high end graphics" but moreso, newer drivers, later directx compliancy and newer cards combined with the XP/2k platform which MTW/STW weren't really designed to run on. Your onboard graphics likely to be much more up to date, as far as Driver and DirectX compliancy is concerned, than an early Radeon (7000 - 9700), Geforce2/3/4 or Voodoo4/5, which were about the norm around the time when STW and MTW were released.>>>>


"Good to hear" that I´m not the only one whose game crashes while ESC´ing to safe. I have Win98SE still btw :) So no 2000 or XP problem. I use ATI8500 + Intel Mainboard with the latest Direct-X and the last Ati Driver for Win98/ME..... I remember from playing and HOI there was a simmilar problem, a search for the error was not succesful since it was not possible to identify the "culprit"........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpha666

"Good to hear" that I´m not the only one whose game crashes while ESC´ing to safe. I have Win98SE still btw :) So no 2000 or XP problem. I use ATI8500 + Intel Mainboard with the latest Direct-X and the last Ati Driver for Win98/ME..... I remember from playing and HOI there was a simmilar problem, a search for the error was not succesful since it was not possible to identify the "culprit"........

---

You're running on a Radeon 8500 though which is similar to the 9000 I was using. I wonder if it's an ATI driver problem, as I've never had this particular problem using other brands, though maybe others have? :dizzy2:

You're running on a Radeon 8500 though which is similar to the 9000 I was using. I wonder if it's an ATI driver problem, as I've never had this particular problem using other brands, though maybe others have? :dizzy2:


Mh, maybe so please all users post your videocard (sorry for OT)

Well i played today for some hours (this game is too addictive, some work wasn´t done because of that - this is one of the games which players needs much self-descipline to quit the game and do something more important ) and no error this time. I also disabled the autosave like suggested above.