Cheesy Tactics Definition and List

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

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

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

Definition:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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

---

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

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

1) Raid, Destroy, Withdraw, Raid

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

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

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

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

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

5) ???

5) building large trade routes

6) targeting the AI general

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

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

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

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

Exile,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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

---

I would alter this to:

Targeting the AI General with seige weapons..

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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

---

Yeah, I had noticed that...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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

---

Damn straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (fodder @ Jan. 23 2003,07:29)]Another cheesy tactic: when the player takes all the rebel provinces at the start of the game, eg. italy taking sweden, ireland, finland, etc... whether by bribery or invasion. The AI doesnt do this and its not realistic.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Dr_Who_Regen#4 @ Jan. 22 2003,12:34)]The whole idea is to create a realistic challenge. Trading over all of Europe was not done much during these times

---

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the time period that M:TW runs approx. from 1087 - 1453.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Michiel de Ruyter @ Jan. 22 2003,21:14)]Exile,

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

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

---

Me, I have never used the mentioned tactics.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ Jan. 27 2003,05:50)]Anyone know if the English crusaders went by sea or by land?

---

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 ..

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.

Gaius: Sorry didnt come across the way I intended it too, as usual. I was simply saying you shouldnt get upset if someone comes here saying "Im the bestest general because...." then start a post about limiting yourself because your a true hardcore gamer. True these are some cheesy tactics, and I think if it were programed correctly, the computer would take full advantage of the trade thing. This is just my view, I wanted to truely see what people thought was cheesy, though it wont effect my play style either way. As for it going south there were a couple ideas that seemed silly to me, though Ill not bring any up here. Besides playing with peasants is the only way to play. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif


Naagi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif

I have had games where the AI has not set up trade routes as mentioned above but I also have had games where the AI has built huge trade routes, at least I think they are pretty big. I am playing as italians, early, normal. French and English both had trade routes from england to the med until they went to war with each other and the english no longer have any ships and french only have from england to spanish provinces now. Turks also have a trade route through the med from the baltic? (or is it the black, cant remember off-hand) sea around up to venice and around naples to the eastern spanish coast. So I dont think trading is cheesy. Also the computer gets money when you trade (taxes on imported goods) that they dont have to have ships for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (LadyAnn @ Jan. 25 2003,13:52)]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.

---

This will make the game a little more fun.

All of my ships are kept close to its original port. The furthest distance is 2 sea regions away.

In the case that I need to send my troops to or from a distance province, I will have to start stretching out the ship line until I finish moving troops. After that, the ships will go back to its home water. It's like loading the troops onto the ships then set sail. The longer the distance, the more time to travel.

I limit trade by limiting my fleets. I only allow myself to build ships in one province. That one province is the "Home Base" and all ships stay in the sea of that province, usually one of my start provinces or the Capital. This means that when something happens and I need to deploy the fleet it takes a LONG time. The farther away the problem the more difficult it is to deal with.

The only ship allowed to maintain the trade route is one early era ship, a long boat or some such. This gives the AI a pretty good ability to build navies and its own trade routes. It also makes it very easy for the AI to kill your trade.

In my current game I am playing as Novgorod and am allowing no trade past gibralter. I spend about half my time with no trade income do to the ease that the AI is able to disrupt my trade and the time involved in sailing my very small fleet from the baltic and back every time there is a naval conflict.

If you used deep sea vessels for war fleets, it would take only 2-3 moves to get deep into the meditarranean from the North sea anyways.

How about this, one I'm trying after reading this thread.

Rather than looking at your ships as trade, use them as transports. You can only place ships on sea areas that are adjacent to provinces that you own. A sort of glorified bus route.

It's early days so I've no idea how it will resolve.

"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."

That's very easily done. You just modify the starting income for each faction (except the one the player will use)in early.txt, high.txt, late.txt, whatever you want to use.

(As an example)
SetTreasury:: FN_ALMOHAD 250000 250000 250000 250000
etc., etc.

You only really need to modify the 2nd column entry since that's the one the AI uses on expert (unless you play on hard, it don't know which it uses for that - so change 'em all).

The important point is that it isn't money per se, but the inferiority in advanced unit types and development that dooms the AI.

If the AI simply builds hordes of peasants, then giving it more money didn't work. Something else may need to be done. There are a number of additional possibilities suggested by various dungeon dwellers, all of which are fairly easily accomplished, such as :
1. substitute spearmen (oh, hell, even substitute order foot if you want to go that far&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif for peasants, (eliminate peasants and change the AI build preferences) (Or you could toughen up the spearmen - assuming you were going to play a Muslim faction).
2. lower the build and/or maintenance costs for AI's units (but not the player faction specific units and/or increase the maintenance cost of the player's units),
3. increase the AI build preferences for high end units so that the AI will build more of them and not so many urban militia & peasants, etc.
4. increase the province title honors (by adding command stars for the province governor's title) for each province (so that the AI gets better generals).

BTW: I notice that the AI does provide a reasonable fight if you tweak the build preferences and province attributes a bit (I based my changes on Kraellin's & DOC's suggestions). You want to see reasonably good play balance between the AI factions? Just increase the rebellion factors in early.txt to 2 minimum for each province and you'll see Last campaign, playing as the Byzantines (probably the easiest faction in early), after I had reached a certain size, all the factions went to war with me and launched crusades against me It was touch and go there for quite a while, my income fell from 80,000 florins to -36,000, I couldn't build any units, no one would make peace with me, no-one would trade with me, it definitely wasn't easy I've got most things under control now, but just lost a mammoth battle against a horde of (4,000+ feudal knights). It's a struggle just to maintain income to keep my armies and replace losses. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

To sum up, I don't believe that it's necessary to limit yourself as the player. When you play chess against a computer, would you think it was a good game if you had to refrain from taking advantage of the AI's bad moves? What kind of game would that be? While MTW AI will never be as good as a chess program, the engine isn't really that bad. It can be tweaked to give a reasonable challenge. It just takes a little effort (but lots less effort than the Sisyphusean task of creating new unit bifs, and a new campaign map like the Patrician and LOTR folks are doing). Now THAT'S hard http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/wacko.gif If we're not even willing to make the limited additional effort to tweak the game to produce a better performance, we shouldn't complain CA only had so much time and money for programming and Q & A. They produced a game that is fun to play and generally works

I totally don't agree with those who simply assume the AI is hopelessly broken and that we need to limit ourselves to avoid taking too much advantage of the hopeless cripple. We simply don't know yet because we haven't really made a concentrated effort to check. Kraellin and a few others have made some modest changes and achieved some results, but compared with the amount of work large numbers of people have put into new campaign mods with new unit bifs & maps, we as a community have really only made miniscule efforts along these lines. So, how can we tell?

Preference http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

I don't mind reloading a lost battle. As a matter of fact I would save the game and replay the battle over and over till I win. Sometimes chances are so small to win a battle, some other times we just simply lost them. Thats how I learn and enjoy the game. Likewise in mp games, I'd save my losts and learn the replays. Cheesy? well it's my kinda cheese then. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

Finding out AI's limitation is also my hobby in every game i've played (maybe there were some exceptions, but I can't recall). After that I'd move on and find something more interesting.

Some others may enjoy the game differently so when it comes to a preference, is it worth arguing?