I'm rubbish at battles...

Well, I thought the subject of this thread would be a nice contrast to the I are teh greatest1 ones and it's also quite true, alas

I don't play the 3d battles at all but concentrate solely on the strat map and auto-resolve all the fights instead - does anyone else do this or is it just me?

I had a go at a quick battle soon after installing and realised very very quickly how completely and utterly inept I am at marshalling and controlling an army in battle. Not having played Shogun at all I felt at a bit of a loss on how to control all those weird and wonderful units. I think the strategy of the campaign map is much more me.

/Tries not to mention having his entire army flee like frightened schoolgirls across the map the one time that he did try it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

I'm beginning to think that I'm perhaps missing out on a big part of the game here but I really am truly rubbish at this sort of thing... maybe one day I'll take the plunge and learn how to be a decent general but until then I'll continue to build large armies and cow the enemy factions into submission with the sometimes seemingly arbitrary auto-wotsit and my Mad Strategy Skillzz111 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

Fear not I installed the game, and being a gamer of many seasons, thought Id kick its butt. But instead it walked over me in that first 3d battle, so I too went for the auto resolve option. Problem with this is after about a hundred years or the right opponent it doesnt work anymore. So start up a couple custom battles and get your groove working, because its very fun to send your troops to battle and actually move em around.

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

I'd say I'm the opposite http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif I don't even trade in most, if not all, my campaign games, but rely on controlling battles personally. The only time I'll lose is if I'm outnumbered like 10 to 1 with crappy units. Of course, beating the AI isn't really that big of an accomplishment.

BTW, the controls at first are like trying to decypher hieroglyphics. Trust me, try a few custom battles with small armies(probably about 4-7 units) and practice that way. The controls are the hardest part but after a while it's like second nature. When you're good you'll be able to change your army formation on the fly during the heat of online battles. Just remember the basic rules in battle mode that generally apply but not always: swords beat spears, spears beat cav, most cav beat swords, cav mow down missle units, missle units rip apart cavalry when shooting. It's a basic rock, paper, scissors formula, not to hard know. The trick is finding each units strength and weaknesses, and see how they do against other units, which may take a while. But if you hold the mouse over a unit in the battlefield(or unit selection screen), it will cycle through all the strengths and weaknesses of that unit. And the general rule applies too: the more expensive a unit, the better. THere are exeptions of course, since there's over 100 units and each has a purpose.

BTW, check out the table of contents in the main hall, it goes over battle tactics, units stats, etc. Hope this helped.

hehe, it's not easy. I had many inglorious defeats before reaching the point where I could do better than auto-resolve in terms of casualties (except castle assaults http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif )

The suggestion of trying some custom battles was a good one. That way you can hone your skills and not lose your empire in the process http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Try first on easy setting and work you way to the more difficult settigns as you master it.

For me the battles and the greatest part of the game, but I enjoy the strategy aspect also. Just dont be discouraged from playing out the battles becuase the first thirty or so dont do in your favor http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

You are doing yourself a great disservice by not fighting the battles. While the opponent is AI and can do dumb things that make you go that's stupid (like charging general first over a bridge) -- if you auto-resolve your general also becomes dumb AI and does the same sort of thing.

Auto resolve the massively massive battles if you don't want to spend 2 hours fighting it, but the skirmishes and such will gain you a lot of good results -- especially if you focus on capturing enemy royalty on the battlefield.

Have you tried the Demo? The demo gives you lessons in manuevering and fighting your troops.

My suggestions to everyone new is to find and d/l the SHOGUN demo.

The basic units, Archers, Spears and Cavalry are the same in use. IMO, the Shogun demo compared to the MTW demo, is superior for training.

Once you've mastered the Shogun demo, then try the MTW demo or custom battles to get used to the different types of Mediviel units.

Another hint while learning: Use the Pause button. A lot. This alone helped me more than anything, because you can still give orders while paused.

Keep at it, the tactical battles add so much more to the game The first time you beat 5-1 odds when attacking you will feel great

TartyChops:

I know a woman who has played Shogun since it came out, and now plays MTW, and after trying to General one battle in each decided to never try it again. She plays entirely in Strategic Mode and always autocalcs battles.

She loves it

On the other hand, I recently tried my first online battle after lots of practice. I got killed twice, once badly.

Then I won, beating another human. It was quite satisfying.

Play the demos/tutorials and start small. There is a lot of advice in this Forum.

I have found that having the ability to fight my own battles can come in handy - I think there are times it has saved my campaign.

ichi

Hi Tarty, hi all.
Well, i agree with u, i love the strategyc map, and i usually play whole campaigns and also auto-resolve all the fights.
Anyhow the really importants battles i like to play by my own, and the others i let my gens fight without my help.
Of course to improve ur skills in 3d battles is nice playing vs AI, in high level is not so bad (i think better in MTW than in STW-MI), but if u want to improve faster i think the best way is the foyer. Playing online vs human fighters is the best way and always different.
AI has only on type of skill, but online there are many many differents.
Well, probably u will lose many of them (as u have said not very good in 3d) but trust me, u will learn very quick, and when u back to fight on campaign the 3d battles u will see that then is much more easy to win.

And in foyer u will have the possibility to met very nice ppl. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Ale

As a vicious frog, I usually tend to autocalc battles where tactics would be a burden(attacking bridges, for example), but play the ones where I have the advantage(much cavalry vs archers or arbs vs pikemen)... Choosing between autocalc & playing battles is rather a stategic decision for me.

I know, it's bad.....

i tend to do the same as el_slapper and mix and match what battles i fight

early in the campaign i tend to fight nearly all my battles but kater on with huge armies auto em can save hours (unless i defending and trying to kill his gen/heir)

did u hve good intel b4 u do 3d batts? maybes his troops had high honour so your troops will always leg it

try learning by defending with high honour troops because you really missing an excellant part of the game

I love both the Campaign and Tactical modes, but I admit the Tactical battles are nerve wracking.

I have suffered my army literally being destroyed before my eyes, it required a long period of 'contemplation' before I could play on.

I've also had some really fantastic battles which were both terrifying and great fun at the same time. Some of the big desert battles can be awesome. Plus i absolutely love using Siege weapons so I storm every castle I can

My advice is to play all the Tutorial battles (even if you are a Shogan pro - these are two different games you know&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif and have a good read on this excellent forum - there are lots of battle tactics in the Table of Contents thread and it will make you a much better general.

I hate using auto-resolve. The computer takes much, much heavier casulaties than I usually do, if the armies are evenly matched it generally seems to kill half my troops And that was using my intelligent generals.... Now I only use auto-resolve if victory is assured. Plus the computer captures prisoners, which is not much use if you're trying to eliminate a faction. Worse, it seems to let a lot more of the enemy run away - sometimes it barely seems to engage the enemy : very few are killed, most run away into the castle. Which is not good at all if the enemy has reinforcements... The only thing that really annoys me is that you can't save a game before you being a battle, so a singl turn can last hours.
IMHO, the AI is much better at the chess-like tactics of the campaign screen than the realtime element. The computer can positions its armies very strategically, so that even if I have enough to capture a province, I don't necessarily have enough to hold it for very long. Whereas on the battlefield, if the opponent enemy has a general with only himself in a unit, the general will be sent right to front line immediately Duh.... might be better if I upped the difficulty, mind you.

Same here: I autoresolve the 16+ units battles, and try to do all the smaller ones, except when you have 10 battles in one turn, and have to go to bed (eventually all of us need to get some sleep) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/wacko.gif

I think you really lose your numerical advantage on the battlefield when you have more than 16 units. Either that or I still suck and dealing with the reinforcements. If I have 3 or 4 full stacks, I just can't see going to the battlefield for a 1 hour marathon battle when autoresolve can do it in seconds and I can't get any better result.

I am finding that the end game is a bit draggy. Everything takes too long and the ability to do 3d battles is greatly reduced because the armies are so big. You'll never finish a campaign if you battle everything out.

I wish they had used a bit of the Lords of the Realm model where the number of units on the battlefield was constant and they would just change the ratio of units to figures on the battlefield. For example, a single swordsman could represent anywhere from 1 to 100 units in your army in order to keep the number of units on the battlefield a manageable number.

Hmmm, granted I'm playing on easy, but I don't see how people are losing nearly the same number of units by running their own battles as they are by autocalc. I also don't know what ya'll refer to when you talk about hour long battles. My longest battles only run about 15 minutes and that's having 2k to 5k troops on both sides.
Maybe it's the tactic I use, but I usually bait the enemy in and pepper em with archers, then wait for them to make their move, and unleash hell from all my troops. This will get an enemy to routing in very short order and I'll usually kill well over 1k of their force in the process. I hardly ever lose more than 200 to 300 troops in a battle and am usually outnumbered by the enemy.
I'm on my first campaign and nearing the year 1300. Does the scenerio change in the later years or something? As I say, I can't see how battles could possibly take more than a half hour. I just head em off at the point where they send in reinforcements and slaughter as the enter the battlefield. I'm a newbie, but I kinda think the SP battles are WAY too easy. (they are fun as hell to play though, as I like slaughtering tons of the enemy).

nemaj, if the SP battles are too easy, it is time to step up the difficulty - you are beyond easy skill level. You might also find the larger battles lasting a bit longer too. We've had reports of some battles lasting at least 3 hours.

Just had my first >1hour battle. 61 mins 45..... They attacked 6000 vs 2500, but my 8stars general helps a lot... And having hordes of Chiv sergeants vs hordes of Camels & Mameluks is rather cool.

I autocalc less, sinc I have a more stable game(thanks to various tips found here). And I might have lost that battle in autocalc. They had a bunch of good units too.

Tartychops

Do not give up
You'll cheat yourself out a great gaming experience.
I'm fairly new to this myself.
I'll admit, that I used to autocalc. a bit.
Not anymore though.
Just decided to general the battles myself.
You win some, you lose some; that's life.
Guarantee you; if you read through the advice from the more experienced players, and practice, you'll improve in no time.

if at first you don't succeed, try try again. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

I pressed for an option to make autoresolve fairer to the player (and to an extent, biased in favour of the player). I knew Sarah J certainly wouldn't play the game unless she had the option to completely skip the 3D battles, and I figured that in fact they could scare off a potentially sizeable audience who might be enticed by the strategy and the medieval setting, but who wouldn't want to fight battles all the time.

But I don't think I got what I wanted; autoresolve is still a very costly option, as seen above...

If you want Rome to offer the option to autoresolve more in your favour, speak up now so Jerome notices you :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Jan. 23 2003,17:56)]Have you tried the Demo? The demo gives you lessons in manuevering and fighting your troops.

My suggestions to everyone new is to find and d/l the SHOGUN demo.

The basic units, Archers, Spears and Cavalry are the same in use. IMO, the Shogun demo compared to the MTW demo, is superior for training.

Once you've mastered the Shogun demo, then try the MTW demo or custom battles to get used to the different types of Mediviel units.

---

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif
great minds think alike it seems,
We uploaded the Shogun Demo for posterity some time ago,

http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/demo_stw_index.shtml
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

ALSO
An option to make player biased auto resolve for battles would be good, but not a SET change to the formula, rather an Alternate OPTION Please.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif


Giljay, have you noticed the nice little tag above your Shield yet? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Cheers,
B.

Battles are what Total War is all about.

Just pratice pratice pratice.

It seems like they could just tie the autocalc result to the difficulty level. Personally, I like the strategic map, and I don't want them to make it any easier by screwing around with the autocalc.

The autocalc is working pretty good and I think the results are pretty fair, closer to what you would get against a human opponent, and thats the way they should keep it. Giving players an incentive to use the 3d battle option to get a better result is fine, but the tactical map is certainly beatable even if you autocalc everything.

I vote for making autocalc easier as an on/off toggle. It would be a nice option to have, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (nemaj @ Jan. 24 2003,17:16)]Hmmm, granted I'm playing on easy, but I don't see how people are losing nearly the same number of units by running their own battles as they are by autocalc. I also don't know what ya'll refer to when you talk about hour long battles. My longest battles only run about 15 minutes and that's having 2k to 5k troops on both sides.
Maybe it's the tactic I use, but I usually bait the enemy in and pepper em with archers, then wait for them to make their move, and unleash hell from all my troops. This will get an enemy to routing in very short order and I'll usually kill well over 1k of their force in the process. I hardly ever lose more than 200 to 300 troops in a battle and am usually outnumbered by the enemy.
I'm on my first campaign and nearing the year 1300. Does the scenerio change in the later years or something? As I say, I can't see how battles could possibly take more than a half hour. I just head em off at the point where they send in reinforcements and slaughter as the enter the battlefield. I'm a newbie, but I kinda think the SP battles are WAY too easy. (they are fun as hell to play though, as I like slaughtering tons of the enemy).

---

Dude, I just want to shake your hand

Granted, on Easy the AI is slightly easier, BUT don't worry your on your way to being a GREAT general (though I don't necessarily subscribe to baiting the AI).

Like you, my battles almost always end in under 30 minutes. I use the timer and in MTW have NEVER run out of time.

I have absolutely, NO clue as to what some are doing in their 3 hour marathon battles. None whatsoever

Give me a full stack, composing of a few Spears, MAA, CHMAA, 2 or 3 Archers and a couple of Knights and I'll beat the AI every time. The AI could have 50 stacks and it won't matter.

As Shogun vets know, Total War comes down to One 16 unit Stack vs. One 16 unit Stack no matter the numbers.

Recently, I viewed someone's Replay and was quite astonished to observe the player sit definsively at his edge of the map and, after defeating the initial attack, allow wave after waver of AI reinforcements enter the map and cross the battlefield.

People, unless you simply enjoy battling for 3 hours, there is no reason to do so.

If some of you wish to push your skill level, I suggest Turning On the clock/timer and attempt to dispatch the AI in under half the clock/timer cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (GilJaysmith @ Jan. 26 2003,19:46)]I pressed for an option to make autoresolve fairer to the player (and to an extent, biased in favour of the player). I knew Sarah J certainly wouldn't play the game unless she had the option to completely skip the 3D battles, and I figured that in fact they could scare off a potentially sizeable audience who might be enticed by the strategy and the medieval setting, but who wouldn't want to fight battles all the time.

But I don't think I got what I wanted; autoresolve is still a very costly option, as seen above...

If you want Rome to offer the option to autoresolve more in your favour, speak up now so Jerome notices you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

---

Giljaysmith,

Sounds like now is a good time to ask for some improvements in autocalc... I rarely use it except as a time saver in foregone conclusions, but where I have it's biggest failing has been castle sieges. It does not seem to account for the formidable defenses of the fortress/citadel, etc. I've often had losses of only one or two men when autoresolving something like a 400 to 10 castle siege at a fortress. What this means is that a player can get by without even bringing siege equipment. Seems to me that the autocalc should penalize you heavily if you fail to bring siege equipment to a castle assault and use autoresolve. Even with siege equipment and few defenders, in real battles I take losses in the hundreds against some of the citadels, because the AI will hide units and screen them so that I have to chase around alley ways in a hail of arrows in the desert...

Hope that Viking Invasion improves the AI method for assaulting castles in real battles... Presently it places its siege equipment poorly and often leaves it close and relatively undefended. I can rush out and destroy its catapults/bombards, etc. with mounted units. Even if it does take out the walls it still sends infantry up to attack the gates rather than exploiting the holes. It also places its other units poorly at battle start (like in the default hole facing a cliff that is a common start point) so that they are easy marks. A no-brainer win for the AI ends up costing it 1/2 to 2/3rds of its army against a handful of defenders on expert. This problem is right up there with the failure to exploit the 2nd bridge in river provinces.

Criticisms aside, the AI is far more formidable than back in STW. It does a decent job of picking high ground and using terrain in defense. It also does a nice job of attempting to flank. The crossing patterns it uses with infantry and cavalry can open serious gaps in my defenses at times. At normal speed, without using pause, in a large battle, it is difficult to keep up with the AI when it charges in since much happens in a few seconds. Fighting in the woods or bad weather is a nightmare against it because it is difficult to see what is happening on both flanks at the same time. The interface won't let you align properly and quickly in the woods (mouse pointer problem with restricted view)--while the AI can see all and tear you up while you struggle with the interface to align a single unit in some semblance of order. Please categorize this post in the category of a few refinements would be nice rather than the AI sucks.

I've noticed a few other minor strategy map bugs/unintended features that I hope are cleaned up for Viking. Would like to forward them to an interested party...

Hi Red Harvest,
there is a bug report thread pinned near the top of the Dungeon Forum, if you'd like to post them there the Developers keep an eye on it,

not saying they'll actually DO anything about it, they have deadlines to live to, but at least they'll know about them...

I'd vote to keep auto-calc as it stands. Having the incentive to play the battle keeps the tension high on the strategy map.

An option to save the capaign before you go into battle would be a god send. I can't remember the number of times where it's been getting late and suddenly the French will pick that as the opportunity to invade a few provinces. Do you auto all the battles or resign yourself to another night with only 3 hours sleep. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif

I'm not sure about biasing auto-calc. It depends how it works at the moment. What does it take into account to generate results ? If I was to send 100 spearmen against 100 peasants, who would win according to the auto-resolve (and would they slaughter the enemy completely, as I would ?) ? If I sent a general known for slaughtering prisoners in, would I not ransom back as many prisoners as one who didn't have this virtue (it's not a vice &#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif ?

Perhaps it could be based on the player's previous performance somehow ? For example, if you generally win, maybe auto-calc could use your average kill ratio ? Just speculating.

But chilling has it exactly right about saving your game, I really hate forgetting to save my game then finding I've got a huge battle to fight (yes, there's autosave, but my Dad plays the game too &#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif How anyone can do a 2-3000 strong battle in 15 minutes is beyond me. I like to set up and plan everything very carefully before engaging. Plus it takes time for the armies to reach each other, not to mention giving different sections different orders, but most of all just the time it takes to kill the enemy

But I digress, the most important thing is to allow you to save your game before a battle, rather than improving/biasing auto-resolve.

Battles length highly depends on sytle, and wether you want to play the perfect battle. I don't. I accept glitches in my setup, as long as they are not huge. I usually take the inital setting, if it does not fit I take infantry charge, the I stretch archers in thiner lines, and let's rock. Even in defence

I KNOW I could do better, with fewer losses, & so on. But accepting more losses saves you plenty of Real life time... That's a matter of what you expect from that game.

Sure, as generals NEVER slaughter prisoners in autocalc, it might seem less valuable to allow autocalc. But it helps advancing in the campaign. From every faction, I think I didn't play Turks & Sicilians. Played some several times, especially Spain & Denmark. Did play the important battles. Did not play the crappy ones - and they were many.

Toranaga, I understand what you are saying, but whilst reading, one word popped into my head - cheese. Is it realistic for 1 16 unit army to defeat 5-6 16 unit armies? Perhaps the anit-cheese rule would be to not rout off the first 16 enemy units to beat the game early. Wouldn't that up the challenge of the game most people seem to be seeking? Just a thought. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/idea.gif

Gregoshi, the ultimate aim is to be the BEST general one can be, is it not?

To master one's skill at all things Total War

The use of Cheesy tactics defeats this purpose.

Upon the day C-MP is finally revealed, those who have incorporated cheesy tactics into their generalship will become sheep to my....ahhh....strike that....THE slaughter. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

Seriously, defining and identifying cheesy tactics is not simply underscored by the definition I proffered, but also the consideration and question:

Will this tactic or foregoing of tactic help to make me a better Tactical and/or Strategic General?

If the answer is no, then, other than possibly a just for fun factor, there's no point.

Whatever one's view of the 16 unit limit, the fact of the matter is that, its the structure which we must deal with.

IMVHO, your suggestion, won't really serve to enhance one's capabilities. Providing one is a capable general, then sitting there, after its CLEAR you have won or can win, the battle, what's the point?

Regarding the realism question: The answer is YES emphatically Throughout history there are numerous examples. The first name to come to mind is ALEXANDER, and speaking of Greeks, I forget who, but how many Greeks held off all those Persians (it was Persians wasn't it?) at the little spot on the beach.

Also, Julius Ceasar, that little fellow Henry V of Agincort fame, Hannibal, Schwartnager, etectera.... Superiority of numbers is not a guarantee of victory. There are three important factors of which one is overwhelming most important (much the same with Sports as well).

Technology and Tactics; and, most importantly, EXECUTION (of tactics).

The Gulf War is a good example. The Iraqis had superior numbers, fair technology and dated and/or poor tactics (take your pick). The Allies (read that Americans), had greatly superior technology, inferior numbers and the right tactics.

BUT, despite popular belief, what won the Ground war was NOT the superior technology BUT superior EXECUTION. Probably, the best example of strategic and tactical military execution outside of the German Blitzkreg across Poland and Europe (here again, the Germans prevailed because they executed a rather complicated Tactic).

(Anyone interested in this, read up on the Battle of Kafji (sp?) The Iraqis made the tactically correct decision, and caught the Allies unprepared. They lost the battle only because they executed POORLY (of course, a stubborn US Marine unit and some determined Saudis had a little to do with it (eventually US airpower saved the day).

Reaching further back in time, Agincort, most think the English Longbow won the day. They're incorrect. It was the poor execution of the French that lost the day, and the excellent tactical execution by the British that saved the day.

BUT, if the Devs are listening, I'd certainly go for a nod toward more realism

Regarding Reinforcements, they should NOT enter the battlefield fresh. I think its safe to assume reinforcements weren't napping while the battle is going on. The incredible likelihood is that reinforcements arrive at the battle having completed a forced march. So a fatigue factor should effect all reinforcements.

Also, reinforcement should engage the battle under the command of their own General, NOT under the command of the General they are reinforcing. I do believe he is a bit busy and all, especially given the poor communications of the day. A reinforcement general would probablly access the battle and make the decisions of when, where and how (and if) to engage. Consequently, the reinforcing troops s/b effected by their General's Valor and V&V.

Give me this, and then drop the 16 unit limit, otherwise keep the limit.

One other thing about realism, how about having the AI Group, Mass or Form Up, before counter-attacking?

Anyway, my best and most enjoyable battles have been with my One stack (sometimes I'd have 2 or 3 reinforceing units in wait) vs. the AI's One stack and multi-stack reinforcements. With MI and MTW, the AI is lots better as it can bring its reinforcements from multiple directions (2 or 3); and bring multiple units almost simultaneously from a single direction. In one battle, I literally fought to the last man, my King.

Well, that's my take on the issue.

Realism and/or Anti-Cheesiness involves attempting Victory as quickly as possible; this results in the greatest challenge vs. the AI (and its multitudes) as the AI just isn't capable of utilizing reinforcements to its best advantage.

So, I repeat it comes down to 1 16 unit Stack vs. 1 16 unit Stack. I don't know WHATTT people are doing in these 3 hour marathon battles. Certainly, they aren't becoming better TW Generals, though they may be having great fun. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

AAAAHHHHHHHHHH Campaign Multiplay AAAAHHHHHHHHHH

TS patiently awaits the day http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/cool.gif

God advice there from you all, you've definitely given me some things to work with there. Ta Acronym.. I shall certainly give it a go after I finish off my current campaign, and start off with some small, custom battles to get used to it.. I'm sure I'll be able to pick up what units work the best after grasping the basics http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

And thanks Gaius Julius for the encouragement

If anything it'll certainly lengthen the time it takes to complete a campaign - I must have played at least 20 or so since I bought it and now it takes me about 3-7 days to finish one off, and usually before 1230. Though since the patch my campaigns have been stretching on a bit longer than they used to.

I think upping the Golden Horde's strength quite considerably is possibly a factor here - the last few times I've played I've had to postpone stomping over Europe in my big kingly stomping boots and creating specially or diverting many troops to rattle their swords and shields in a menacing Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough fashion on the borders of Khazar.

Hopefully in my next campaign I'll have gained some idea of how to play the tactical battles by the time the Mongols arrive.. the thought of playing out the battle I auto'ed the other day between my 17,000 Italians and 12,000 ravaging Mongol invaders makes me go eeeek

Anyway, onwards and upwards

Thats the type of battle I try and save for a damp Sunday afternoon. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif

Toranaga, you certainly present your arguments well armed with backup information. It still looks like cheese to me. You give examples from history of few beating many, but in MTW, the limitations of the tactical game are preventing a true result of few beating many. What you've accomplished is winning an even battle.

Here is a question for you: why did the AI manage to get such a large troop advantage on you? Two possible answers put your great general tactic in the cheese category:

1) The AI strategically caught you off guard. Shouldn't you be fair and allow them to reap full benefits of having done that? We can reverse that and apply it to the AI, but that rarely seems to be the case.

2) You know you can beat the AI 98% of the time. Let them bring 2,000 or 200,000 - your 1,000 men will hold the line.

If you want to look at it from the stand point of being the best general, if you let the reinforcements continue to come onto the field, you will be refining your skill in handling tired units vs fresh units.

That is the extend of my argument. However, you are the King of Cheese, so I'll defer to you final ruling on its official status. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif