Printable View
Agreed, a different game entirely might be a challenge. However, I've not played it, so I can't answer that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
For now, I am referring only to games such as Vanilla M2TW, Lands to Conquer, The Long Road, RTW, RTR.
Hi everybody,
I fell humbled around such knowledgeable players and experienced posters, but after reading this thread I had to add my piece.
One on one, large map, plenty of rebel/faction lands: turtle is dead.
One on one, small map, no rebel settlements: in comes down to player capability.
Real human multiplayer: both turtle and blitzer are dead, and the day will go to the moderate expansionists.
Regarding discussions here I will address the most enthusiastic followers of each technique.
askthepizzaguy: imo you have too much confidence in your siege technique. I do not doubt it does work against AI, but I am sure an experienced player will not sally trough a single gate, nor would he/she move his/her whole army simultaneously (I do not and hell knows I am not a deep strategist). As for waiting for the city/castle to fall, well, human player would send aid in a much more intelligent way that the AI. And again, I do not think facing a human player surrounding my army would be as easy as with the AI. Also, the troops will be well balanced, and the general will not charge your 10000 peasant to die in vain and leave the whole army shaken.
Privateerkev: you are relying on your settlements to be more advanced and produce more cash. We here know that the worst thing about being at war with many AI factions is sieges. But not because AI would take your cities, but because a surrounded city/blockaded port does not generate income. As a blitzer, I do not need to take your city, just blockade and strangle your economy. You sally, well I retreat to lay siege next turn. In the mean time, I have negated you your income. Maybe my cities are not well develop, but at least they are generating some cash which I can convert into fresh troops.
All and all, I think that a much more cautions expansion is needed if human players were to control every faction and just but a few rebel settlements were present.
Personally, I'd rather play the turtlish approach because imo very early blitzing cripples the AI and therefore prevents any challenge in the game (=ruins the fun). Of course, if your challenge is to conquer as many provinces as possible in 125 turns, then turtling is out of the question.
By the way askthepizzagy, how do you fare playing the turks? I am having problems with them because they will not attack my stack/half stack on a river crossing, but move all their army (5 or so stacks) deep into my territory to my largest cities (even though they are well defended). How may provinces do you actually manage to hold after the mongol invasion?
Sorry for the long one, I write few, but rather long :oops:
askthepizzaguy, you playing the latest version of LTC?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Greetings, Joh.
As for my seige technique:
If the enemy does not have a full stack garrison, I can pretty much blitz rush the center square by making a feint to the walls, smashing the gate, and abandoning the ladders and seige equipment and rushing straight through the gate with my crusader mounts. (Good, cheap, mid-level knights from my insane crusades).
If the enemy foolishly guards the center, then I can easily take the walls and rain arrows of death upon him. Granted, if he's prepared, that means I will be taking arrow casualties as well.
Assuming he's got the dismounted knights or better, I will not be able to take the center simply by clubbing my way there. Then it comes down to waiting out the seige or surround/pound on the sally or seige relief.
If he's backed into the castle, I can afford to wait him out. I prefer seige relief battles because then it's an even ground numbers game. Simply surround with your cheapo crusader seargents, merc spears, crusader knights, militia spears, and general units (of which I have plenty).
There are decent troops you can get without any effort at all.
Once I'm out on the campaign map, and he must relieve the seige, I can play defender with my myriad stacks of troops. I can defend my general until my relief forces arrive, and by then even the best troops are tired and depleted from all the killing. Bye bye main defender stack.
I can wait them out, Blitz the center, take the walls, or win seige relief battles easily. What can they do?
They can sally... always a bad move. I brought far too many troops to defeat easily with a sally, not to mention my relief stack. They can cover the center while I take the walls. They can cover the walls while I take the center. They can do both and starve to death. They can relieve seiges and lose by numbers.
Defenders have poor options. True, a frontal assault against DFK's inside a citadel is a silly move. But then, if I did that all the time, I wouldn't be the pizzaguy, Blitz dude extraordinaire.
As the Turks, I tend to overwhelm the Egyptians first while allying with the Byzantines. Then, I call a jihad against any catholic faction or the Russians. If I get crusaded against, assassins or navies will sink thier mission.
Once I have the entire Arab caliphate under my control, I wipe the Byzantines off the map (Need a reason? How about insulting Islam. The Emperor named his teddy bear Mohammed. Therefore, according to the Holy Text, he must be executed!)
I send imams to convert and my jihadis to exterminate and pillage all settlements in my wake. Then I build up my castles and prepare for the Mongoloids.
A few well placed stacks near bridges near castles will trip them up. Night fighter works well. A good mix of heavy/missile cavalry and spearpoints will do wonders against the Mongrel scum.
Holding provinces is not a priority, my friend.
What happens when the Mongols take a province? Don't they let a stack sit inside of it?
Now what happens when you take a couple of generals with night fighter and catapults and re-take the settlement? It's called the Venus Fly Trap.
Come little mongrels... take my undefended castle... and then DIE!!!
catapults and archers rain death upon them... they sally into my spearpoints and slowly bleed to death... no reinforcements in sight. Mounted units suck inside of castles. Even stampy the elephant is a poor castle defender. I just aim fire at Stampy so that Stampy stamps his friends instead of me.
Alternatively, you could let the Mongols come... just prepare massive armies first and deploy them somewhere hidden to shadow their movements.
Let them come... let them take settlement after settlement... let them spread out and divide their forces... let them create a bloated, fat, poorly defended and spread out Mongol empire... and suddenly blitz their provinces which are defended with no more than one stack.
Slay them all.... rinse and repeat.
Seiges are too easy to kill the defender, especially when the defender is an AI. Seiges are the name of the game.
Possibly not. I got this version back in the day. Which was a Thursday, by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusted
:beam:
Dont hurt me too badly yet, give me time to exploit all the weaknesses in my current version.
Right now I have HRE trading away half of their empire for 18000 florins, and then getting that money right back with promises to attack their evil neighbors, and then allying with their neighbors and backstabbing them.
Pretty big exploit, if you ask me. Hilarious though.
I'm off to kill the Kaiser, the Kaiser of the Roman Empire.
The emperor was a wonderful ally, a wonderful ally he was
And now the emperor will bleed to death with his filthy corpse atop a pike
because because because because because.... because of the horrible things I does.
:knight:
__________________________
MY 500th POST!!!
Was just curious as my latest version has improved campaign AI and diplomacy, and was wondering how it would cope with blitzing.
@ askthepizzaguy
lol sometimes i wonder if u even read the other persons post cos u seem to have completely missed the point he was making.
althoguh i have no doubt that you are an excellent blitzer and probably can thrasht he ai in you sleep in a true multiplayer game i doubt it will be that simple. all the points you make are valid against the AI but against a human its not that simple or straightforward.
also i really dont understand how u can manage to have so many stacks and assume you can support them and reinforce them throughout you blitz. once the blitzers borders are wide enough he will be vunerable to counter blitz by other human players.
also if it was a true maltiplayer game exploits will be banned so you cant really rely on exploits to prop up your blitzing strategy.
i'm with most of the others here i got bored of blitzing when i played the original MTW semi turtling is more fun. once u have a a certain number of provinces managin the rest of the is plain boring.
and if i may also add i dont really want a half page reply to this post of things u have already said. i doubt you will convince me after so many posts.
cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy
I can understand your strategy, but I can also see two (imo) flaws in it.
First: you are again assuming a human player is as incompetent and predictable as the AI. That would probably not be the case.
Second: it is the first turn of the campaign, and you are going to START your blitz. Where have you exactly got your multiple stack attacking armies from? I have not tried that many factions, and I know some (generally the small ones to even things out) start with large armies, but not all. You are using a small army to attack a (usually) small garrison, and you win because the AI is bad at defending (or attacking for that matter). In this case, reinforcement used by a human player will make a huge difference (imo).
Imagine you are catholic player, you cannot exploit crusades off the bat as no catholic faction will be excommunicated for a while, and either getting the Pope to accept it or reaching your destination takes time. Then again, I am assuming the aim of the crusade is a human player, who will make a much better work than the AI. Assume you take my settlement, next turn I will declare Jihad on you, which means things will level out, or even if you don't, I will do my best to punish you, I am a turtle, but not stupid. I do not even have to wait until you take my settlement, I can call for a Jihad and face my "almost free army" with yours ... of course mine in a defending position.
The whole point of the blitz is to gather momentum, the larger number of settlements I conquer, the larger the armies I can field. What I am saying here is that a HUMAN player can deny you that momentum.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It appears as though you are guilty of that which you accuse me of.
If you had read my posts, you would realize that I've stated, not once, not twice, not three times, but over and over again, that blitzers are vulnerable to counter blitzes. This runs contrary to what the Turtle's stated objective is. Blitzing therefore makes a turtle not a turtle anymore. Like turtling makes a blitzer not a blitzer.
If you can't imagine how I can manage to support all those stacks during the blitz, I refer you to the PROOF that it can be done.
My thread, England. 108 provinces by turn 58.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=87236&page=2
Most of the good stuff begins on page two, however, If you are wondering where all the troops came from, I refer you to the bottom of page one.
However page two begins on turn 15... yes, you can believe your eyes. Those are all my troops, those are all my provinces. I have roughly as many stacks and provinces as I have turns in the game at this point. Even more so, in fact.
Simply put, the Ai will trade you lots of florins for diplomatic concessions. Crusades bring you thousands of free troops. Trading for territory gives you even MORE recruitment facilities. If there is an AI in this fictional Turtle V Blitzer game, guess what I will be attempting to do yet again?
You refer to game exploits. I am assuming you mean no one is allowed to crusade, or that there will be house rules that there are limits on the total number of crusading stacks? That's fine. But no one has stated such terms here thusfar. And it might be "exploitative", but then again so is making your enemy's entire empire rebel through spies. That's unrealistic as well, but perfectly legal... so call it what you will, turtles are attempting to play by the game rules to their advantage as well. Blitzers will do the same.
I can blitz without a crusade, but obviously it would be less devastating. Just as a defending turtler would be less effective without spy/assassin/rebel stack/enemy rebellion exploits.
As for convincing you that I am correct, it is not my goal. Feel free to believe whatever you want. A person does not need to convince his opponent to win a debate, or to be correct to begin with. Call it arrogant, perhaps, but it is also the truth. If I cannot convince you with the facts, with reason, and with proof, then you cannot BE convinced.
I'll also choose the appropriate length of my own replies, as will you. It's a free forum.
I appreciate your feedback, though. Please do not mistake my vigorous argument for hostility. I'm quite happy with the debate. I do feel you have overlooked what I have said. But I don't expect you to go back and check. Like you said:
Cue the music-
"If I haven't convinced you by now, you will never never never never be convinced.
Ooooo, ooo ooo"
:beam:
____________________
Apologies for the shameless plug of my England thread, yet again, but it was necessary to prove a point.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Firstly, no, I am assuming the human player is as competent, or more so, than I. But I am looking for stated strategies which will work, I've seen few so far which would really be much of a bother, with the exception of spy rush rebellions or a single raider stack hitting me behind the lines.
Those, I've admitted, would slow me down considerably.
But no, I am not convinced the most vigorous defense of a citadel is any bother to me. It simply does not worry me, because I would use every option except the frontal assault, which means eventually the defender would need to attack me. Which means I can surround and pound by the sheer weight of numbers. Granted, versus humans the losses would be exceptional. But by then, I've half the map rolled up and several, hundreds even, battles lost do not concern me. They are meant to wear your economy and your reserves down, cripple your trade, and completely distract you while my empire grows and prepares actual defenses and the best garrisons in the game.
Actually I can precisely exploit crusades right off the bat. I don't need to aim at another catholic faction to destroy them. The purpose of the crusade is to get free troops. I can easily take the target city and leave the other 10 stacks near my territory.
Never mind ending the crusade while most of my troops are in the middle of your territory. Mind a turn 15 rush of 10 stacks? I would. Again I refer you to my threads detailing blitz/crusade/jihads for proof that its not only possible, but routine.
As for the fairness thereof, I didn't design the game I just play it. Assuming I'm not using cheat codes or modded files, it's all perfectly legal.
I would expect the other player to make use of jihads or even join my crusade in progress. That would be a nifty counter strategy. However, strangely, you're the first one to mention such a tactic. Congratulations!
I appreciate the innovation.
I do believe it would be a nice trick to aim a jihad deep into catholic territory so soon, as there's no way you could hold any settlements without mass exterminations and huge garrisons. That cripples your economy.
Still, your use of a jihad to create defensive troops would WORK assuming I was even headed in your direction. Otherwise the jihad will end and you will have a lot of disbanding to do to stay afloat.
I appreciate your feedback! This debate is highly enjoyable.
ATPG, surely there are limits to this? you're not saying you don't build? not even merchants guilds in pursuit of that elusive monopoly on fruit?
definately a pure turtle makes soup and the sounding-body for a primitive lyre. but as the blitzer don't you need to exert some control over vast empire at all.
reminds me of Iain Banks is it feersum enjinn:What happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object?
The unstoppable force stops; the immovable object moves.
I do indeed build. Mostly troop recruitment buildings in cities that would actually benefit from them (actual cities, decent castles). Then I work on public order buildings, if I have the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanaquil
Eventually, I will capture regions that have blacksmiths and so forth... so it's fairly unneccessary to build my own.
I wouldn't pillage a decent merchant's guild. And by the late game, it's too wrapped up for me to be concerned with merchants, guilds, or anything peripheral to the actual seiging and destruction of the enemy.
Yes, there are limits to my strategy, it fails against multiple human opponents, fellow blitzers (or an even game... we both lose), and in games like The Long Road where I can field exactly two seiging armies at a time, if I try really hard. Then... it's defender advantage? Actually, they go bankrupt trying to defend and cannot field enough troops either. So we are both weakened, but at least my territory is expanding.
I've noticed the Lands To Conquer mod makes holding blitzed territory or purchased territory harder and unprofitable to some extent. That does indeed slow my advance.
But eventually, it's all the same result.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Since I'm starting to be held up as the "Turtle Champion" I should make something real clear. Again.
In my opinion, in a 1 v 1 M2TW Grand Campaign MP game, a pure turtle will always lose. My posts have only tried to refute some specific points about how easy such a victory would be for the blitzer. I claim that I can add to the time it would take for the blitzer to win. I do not believe I could effect the eventual outcome though. The math is just too weighted in the blitzer's favor. Eventually you will be crushed by the sheer weight of numbers. No matter how good of a pure turtle you are, eventually the rest of the map will be the color of your opponents faction. And then you will get stomped on like a bug.
Kingdoms might change things a bit. The Brittania Campaign might be more difficult for a blitzer due to the massive unrest that a different culture causes when you take a settlement. So, without having tested it, I believe the English in the Brittania campaign have a good chance at winning as a pure turtle in a 1 v 1 MP game.
In MP games, no matter what campaign, that have more than 2 people, things change for the blitzer. There, the name of the game is diplomacy. If the blitzer can gain diplomatic support, he can blitz in the early game and be in a powerful position in the middle game. If no one sees the threat he poses in the middle game, he can then whomp in the later game and win. If the blitzer can not gain diplomatic support, then while he is blitzing, he will find that all of his settlements have disappeared and have been divided up amongst the other players.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
They don't hand out those awards for nothing. Privateerkev is absolutely correct on all points.
King Turtle and King Blitzer agree, one on one it's no contest, but in 3 or better its anyone's game.
Blitzing is a terrible idea as no one would permit the blitzer to carve up the map, even if they were allied. Not unless the blitzer was also ceding territory to his ally. And even so... why trust the dangerous, powerful blitzer? He might be used as a tool to eliminate your neighbor and expand your empire through territorial gifts, but otherwise, why tie your fate so completely with someone who's stated goal is to eliminate you?
The blitzer, i.e. me, would be willing to cooperate as it offers me every advantage. Gifting you territories I can't afford to hold on my own in exchange for florins to build my armies, alliances, and promises of your own to guard my flank? that is a diplomatic treaty I'd be willing to sign AND honor.
You would need to demonstrate trustworthiness at the beginning. Leaving myself vulnerable to you means I need cash up front in case you betray me. And as you well know, the blitzer does not need to betray you until you're the last one standing. And I'll even tell you up front that's my intention. You'd bog me down in the interim if I backstabbed you, for little gain on my end. In other words, yes, I would be trustworthy as an ally. If you give me the starting florins I need, the honest defense of my border against an aggressor, and an alliance, I'd be willing to wipe out your neighbor for you and gift you half of their territory as payment. Just maintain my trust and you might get more favors from me, like additional territory in exchange for religious conversion missions to soften up my targets.
Or perhaps military assistance on the battlefield, rare if ever that I might need it.
Just remember, if you were to betray me first (as I expect you would) I would make certain my next crusade or jihad landed on your doorstep, I would burn your cities to the ground, and gift them to your worst enemies.
I'm very honest, but I'm also someone you may not want to deal with, and definitley not one to betray too soon. It might not be to your advantage to help me, unless you feel me increasing the size of your turtle empire prepares you for my eventual assault, and gives us an even endgame which would be fun. In which case, my diplomat is at your doorstep willing to make the deal.
I betray the computer routinely, but that is only because the AI is absolutely untrustworthy whenever there is even the slightest motive to betray.
I would be much more reliable an ally with a human. Probably because I miss having allies I can trust.
Sounds like Kingdoms will be a fun game... if I werent busy with Final exams I'd look for it.
Turn 16?!?! When did that happen? I thought it was Turn 18. I'd love to see the post and screenies.Quote:
Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy
SQ: Is 108 every province?
You have inspired me to take on the challenge. It might take me a month to rework my style but I am up for it. I thought I was pretty damn spiffy doing the short campaign in 13 turns so I obviously have some work to do :beam: Unfortunately commuting and working 48 hours severely cuts into playing time. Gah, and my boss asked me if I wanted 4 or 5 days next week and I said 5. WHY!?!?!
that's what I thought, but I got about eight turns into the super blitz and got so bored I went out and bought Kingdoms insteadQuote:
Originally Posted by ReiseReise
I'm not saying I would have beaten or even equalled the 16-turn record, but after a few turns you can see how it can be done
This is the screenshot of the finished product. Since the entire campaign was brief, predictable slash and burn, I felt it didn't need a thread of it's own.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReiseReise
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Check out my other threads,
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88366 (Russia)
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88116 (Egypt)
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=87236 (England)
Having taken over the known world using Catholics, Muslims, and Orthodox factions, I have since switched to Lands to Conquer. My current quest is the Danes, on VH/VH, and so far I've decimated the HRE, France, Portugal, Moors, and I'm only on turn 15 or so. This is very difficult to do as the Danes, given their sole starting province, isolated starting location, strong neighbors, poor economy, and on LTC anything outside of the middle of Europe earns you practically no income, plus there are public order penalties.
The fight goes well. Thus far, the biggest threats to my power are England (Which I just backstabbed), France (Which is already crippled), Venice (which I repulsed using town milita), the Holy Roman Empire (which is almost completely destroyed). I plan on taking all of France, Spain, and the British Isles while harassing northern Italy, then I will head east into Poland, Hungary, and Russia. Spain is in the process of being conquered, Portugal is already destroyed, the Moors are crippled and helpless, and I've too many troops for England to counterattack me.
Anyone interested in a LTC Danish thread with screenshots? I think you might find it pretty sweet.
Sorry, off-topic. Back to topic.
And yes, 108 provinces is the total number for the Old world. This does not include the Americas because it is impossible to blitz there. So it's fairly pointless to wait until you can.
__________________
Edit: The HRE blitz screenshot works, but I've since lost all the save files. Sendspace deletes them periodically! Dang them.
@askthepizzaguy
I just read your thread about conquering 108 provinces before turn 60. I have to admit I never thought the "abuse" of the crusades could reach such a scale, and please do not understand "abuse" as a derrogatory remark. I am basically impressed. I do not like to play the game like that, but that is my gaming style. I am not judging your style either, this is just a game after all.
I have to admit I have not played that much with catholic factions since I find them a little bit to much aim them and slug it out. Muslim factions add a little bit more in my opinion. Must admit, haven't played with eastern european factions though. And I seldom use crusades/jihads, only to keep up with the AI.
Anyway, I seem to remember that I tried crusading with the English in my initial campaign, and that I lost a lot of unit to desertion (playing 1.3). Have you tried your crusade tactic with the latest patch? I am not completely sure it will work since you loose units if you do not approach or slowly approach the crusade goal. It could also be because I only use a single stack army, so it could have an influence as at least one of your stacks is getting close to its destination.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Don't be ashamed to say it. It IS abuse of the crusade function to use it for non-crusading purposes.
I 'abuse' ALL the loopholes in the game. Crusading through Byzantium even if they aren't the crusade target, diplomatic trickery, crusading in the wrong direction and then leaving/joining the crusade to prevent desertion, and intentionally abusing the captain promotion device (even if you have a general, if you have overwhelming odds, let your troops ride ahead with a captain and slaughter your opponent on the field for an easy promotion) so that I can have endless stacks of generals and troops for crusades, buying/selling provinces to my advantage, the list goes on and on.
I don't do this every time. I am perfectly capable of 'restraining' myself and enjoying the game with actual use of assassins and merchants and realistic conquests and economic growth. However, one of the things that pleases me the most is seeing what the maximum limit is for possible advancement in this game, and attempting to reach that upper limit.
Is it possible to conquer all provinces by turn 55? Who knows until we try?
I say it might be possible. I was only 3 turns shy. 2 with France.
So my objective is to see what's possible with the game, without actually hacking the game files or using cheat codes. Just whatever the game allows you to do in it's original version. Different versions have different rules.
Example: There is no way to conquer all provinces on Lands to Conquer by turn 60. It is absolutely, physically impossible, and that's a fact.
But what about turn 90? It may be possible. The trouble is, excommunication is a much larger factor in LTC.
If you saw my Egypt thread, you know that the Muslim factions have the capability to roll up the map as well. I can abuse jihads very well indeed.
And with Russia, none of that was possible. But I did manage to obtain more than 1 province every turn. Which is pure blitzkreig at it's finest.
I am sure that if I played the game more often as the rest of you do, I would have more stable, defensible empires. But it's not all that impressive to look at if you post screenies of it. Anybody can do it.
I also think my skills as a general might improve if I slowed down a bit... but when you can win the war with force alone on the campaign map, it feels like a step backwards to put yourself in the position of turtling and using a stack at a time, even with better troops.
I know I can paste the computer with town militas, mounted scouts, and mercenaries. The only point of getting better troops is either overkill or amusement, and I'm plenty amused already. I note that many people say they become bored with blitzing... I don't know... it's easy to begin a blitz. What's difficult is going full throttle constantly, without breaks in the action, facing every single faction at once. If you blitz carefully, of course it's boring. You're supposed to blitz like you need to own the entire world by lunchtime.
:knight:
In a player vs. AI game, I combine the two.
For instance, as England, I rush to unite the islands, then settle down to create a steady economy and a military infastructure. When it comes to attacking the continent, multiple large stacks, each containing a core of elite units, are more effecient than a gajillion massive stacks of peasants. If you ever get to the point where you can't continue without excommunication and rebellion, you can always go back into turtle mode and still defend yourself well until you get your initative back.
This is also the way I play..Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkut
At the start of the game I blitz and take all available rebel settlements cause don't want a war with any factions...
Then I turtle for a while ... Recruit and build and defend ...
After that it is time for blitzing again and so on ...
we really have to get you in a hotseat game ATPG, Zim blitzed me very effectively during a crusades one, not that I'm a hard player to beat lol.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I tend to agree.
By the time I need to slow down (if for some reason I do... mostly I don't) I tend to disband less useful soldiers and solidify my weakened stacks.
That's why I travel with two or three or four or five stacks at a time in a given assault. When the stacks are depleted I can reorganize them into unstoppable double stacks again and continue the assault unhindered. Unless I'm doing a kamikaze, which is loading up a worthless general with disposable troops and taking as many provinces and causing as much mischief and devastation as possible before he's defeated. Nice cheap distraction. Usually pays for itself and thensome.
I find that if I need to slow down I go from blitzer to berserker. I disband large portions of my armies and send off some kamikazes. I keep my main generals and my main army inside my border in a strategic position, and I "disband" the rest of my troops by using them as kamikaze assault troops. The objective is to disband them and destroy as much as possible in the process.
I'm a cruel and cunning leader, after all.
The funny thing is that in SP I'm far more of a turtle. Keeping up a blitz gets tedious to me after a while if my only opponenent is the hapless AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elite Ferret
ATPG would probably approve of that game. I used a Jihad to make up for the large distances I had to cross (and took advantage of the free upkeep to hire a much larger army than I could normally afford), managed to get myself a ton of generals, maneuvered my armies to make sure I had overwhelming numerical superiority in any battles I initiated. And I've never even blitzed before. :clown:
Overwhelming numbers doesn't always beat quality in autoresolve, though. In the Teutonic hotseat game in one of the battles where my force was much bigger, the TO's auto resolve superiority won them the day (with oddly few casualties for the losing side, though).
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I approve of jihads as a means of troop recruitment and fast marching.
I approve of massively overwhelming the enemy and crushing them under the pure weight of numbers.
Blitzing can be boring if you're only attacking on a single front. Try blitzing against the entire map as soon as possible (and as soon as you've extracted whatever you can through diplomatic means from your enemy) and DO NOT STOP the blitz... ever. Not until every province is securely in your hands.
Tip: Save Rome for last.
Auto-resolving doesn't get you as many prisoners. If they can rout, they can escape. The computer seems to end the battle as quickly as possible...
Oh and by the way
The computer has a BIAS against your first few units. If you have a weakened peasant unit or two in front of a stack of useful troops, and you beseige someone who has serious defenders (but you should theoretically still win easily) guess what... the computer will make your whole army rout.
Pretend the computer is comparing them, one at a time, lead unit versus lead unit. Thats why you don't lead with cavalry. Thats why you don't lead with weakened infantry or peasant archers. Too easy to rout your army in auto resolve.
Test it for yourselves. I took Vilnius with a vastly superior force and I lost the battle every time on auto resolve because I had religious zealot peasants as my lead troops and mercs and crusader knights in the back of the stack.
Ummm bad idea. Lose every time to routing. But on a human-controlled battle, I won EASILY every time.
Well, it's a Crusades hotseat, so I have to autoresolve and there's no Rome. I'll have to remember that about autoresolve. It could very well have been the reason I lost. I had a general as the first unit, but number two was a kazak, whose crappy stats couldn't have helped any.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Lead units should be your HEAVIEST and highest morale infantry, followed by your heaviest cavalry, and at the last should be your insta-rout units, such as peasants, militia, weakened units, and all your French mercenaries. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
Alternatively, you can lead with a strong general and then your heavy infantry, or several generals and then heavy infantry.
Ugh... auto-resolving every time? That takes away from the most critical aspect of gameplay... using your jedi skills to win impossible battles.
:knight:
If I had to auto-resolve every time I would go crazy :dunce: and they would need to give me happy drugs :nurse: until I began to see pink elephants :elephant: and walk out in front of traffic :policeman: and get hit by a semi. :angel:
_______________________________________
Insert relevant smiley face here.
It's a pain, especially when my horse archers that get slaughter in autoresolve could turn the Order infantry into pin cushions in a real battle, but I think it's worth it to play against human opponents. I can't really play SP anymore, it doesn't hold my interest.
How can i reorder units in stack?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpedar
It's simple really. Take the unit you want as your captain (if you dont have a general... if you have a general this is not something you can choose) and move it one space adjacent to your stack. This is now your lead unit in the new stack and the captain by default (unless you have a mounted unit... sometimes the computer chooses a captain for you as a mounted unit... I havent figured out why it doesnt happen every time).
This is advantageous if you've had lame captain units... peasants make bad captain's bodyguard units, but archers are by far the worst. Anything with a special ability (like knights who have formations, spear militia which have a formation, archers which have flaming ammo) means you can't use the rally troops function. Which is like having no captain at all.
If you have scouts (Denmark) they make great captains. they have no formation, they are light and mounted, and they can rally troops. Use them as your lead unit always. Except auto resolution battles where you want a lead unit of heavy infantry.
If not, go with infantry that can rally. Sometimes thats pathetic peasants... but if you have dismounted knights, and they have no special function, please by all means go with that. Or any mounted unit with no special function.
But like I said, if you have a general, this discussion is moot. Your general, no matter how bad he is, is always better than a captain due to the ability to rally, and his bodyguard unit is comprised of the toughest knights in the game.
A blundering idiot general (unless his morale penalty is for some reason negative 10) is always better than the most elite captain unit.
Next, select your toughest infantry. Hit shift (or control, I forget) and click on your toughest infantry unit and all the others of the same type will highlight. Now have them join your lone captain unit/general in the adjacent 'stack'.
Now select all your other mid level infantry, and do the same thing.
Now select all your light/bad infantry/achers, and do the same thing.
Now select all your mounted units, and do the same thing. This is how you practice effective stack management for auto resolutions.
Save the best for last. Your objective should be to burn infantry before you burn your elite cavalry, is it not?
Of course, if you're playing only on auto-resolve... why would you ever USE cavalry??? Cavalry are worthless, just like archers, on auto resolve. Elite infantry is always better. Pretend you're meeting in the middle of a bridge. That's how I imagine auto resolve battles. Which unit would you send in first? The best morale/stats infantry unit you have to force a rout. Archers and cavalry will run away.
If you can only auto-resolve... then simply use a full stack of armoured seargents/dismounted knights. Those are the best best best auto resolve unit. Have them under any general and you win the auto resolve battle.
Except in extreme tactical situations like... uh... hmm... hilltop/bridge battles.
And seiges where the enemy has exactly the same troops as you do.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to ever happen, because that would be just plain stupid (for many strategic and tactical reasons) If you have that many good troops, you need them on the field. Worthless militia are all you need as garrisons. Use elite troops as relief forces and have them sit on bridges, hilltops, or hidden in forests for ambushing. Remember, against smart humans ambushes will never ever work!
A single worthless scouting unit always rides ahead of the main force when I play versus AI or human. I NEVER get ambushed. Sorry. I wish the computer would simply allow you to choose whether or not to spring your trap on a lone worthless unit, and just reroute you if you choose to ride through it. The only way you should be able to spring a trap is by clicking directly on it and occupying the space, thus revealing an army lying in wait.
But I digress... and this is only vaguely related to auto-resolution stack management and that's only mildly related to human versus human battes and that's only tangentially related to turtle versus hare. So it's a bit of a stretch to say I'm on topic here.
:focus:
This line of questioning could be the basis for a new thread.
Other than perhaps ports and wharfs, the economic buildings aren't worth the money. Markets are a complete joke and farms are only marginally less poor. In essence, regular sacking will easily make you more money.
In short, the Hare will win. Blitzing has always been the most efficient way to play TW games. Maybe it's design intent, maybe it's not. To me it's just bad design. Civ 4's economic aspects are far superior.
I play my second camapign (as Milan, first was Venice). I was somehow medium agressive at first (rebel taking phase), then went to slower motion and developing cities. And even this way, its hard NOT to beat it too fast (I want to get to gunpowder units). And my feel is, that if I (noon in this game) could beat it much faster, if i did not restrict myself.
So I must agree, that full agressive approach is probubly much stronger than cautious.
Well I'll be hornswaggled! I had no idea that the order in a stack made any difference! Was that on page 2 or 3 of the manual. Not that such information is important a player, of course. This is great information. Now I won't be forced to field battle all the time when I am in a hurry to finish and go to bed. I can't believe that in 11 months I never came across this info. Was it that way in MTW too?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Actually this is all my pet theory about auto-resolution battle mechanics, based upon oodles of experience auto-resolving and hitting bizarre snags when my lead units are weakened.
Sometimes all you have to do is solidify your troops by joining together weak units and all of a sudden the battle will auto-res better. I figured that out because it makes sense... you wouldn't send 20 units of depleted troops into battle, you would rather send 10 units at full strength to avoid routing.
But I really, really think I am on to something regarding auto-res calculations. You will get better results if you organize your stack properly. Much better.
In fact, I rarely if ever lose an auto-resolve battle ever since I've been subconsciously combining troops after every battle and purposefully managing stacks without generals.... and finally stacks with generals.
I would have to agree on this... That's pretty much what I do in hotseat games (as all battles are auto-resolved)..
A few tries in SP games led me to believe that the way you order your troops can really make a difference...