Strategically, HOW do you play the slow game

Hi all, been reading this forum since RTW was released and finally got around to registering (I was going to wait until Shogun 2, but I got impatient).

I've done a short and a long as England and a long as French, and am currently doing a long as Sicily.

I read quite a few posts pointing out the advantages of adjusting the time scale to 0.5 and taking time to get their economy on an even keel and let the AI tech up by expanding slowly, rather than the easy blitz in the early game, and so I thought that would be the way I'd play Sicily.

However, strategically I don't see how to do it. They AI nearly owned me on half a dozen occasions in the first 50 turns, and I was hard pressed to defend my core provinces and the surroundings I'd initially taken off rebels (Tunis, the two islands west of Italy and that western greek province across the bay from Naples). Every passing fleet saw my habours and thought, "not mine, not the pope's; I'll have it". Every catholic country has attacked me unprovoked, or made alliances with someone who has. I started out being the pope's felch boy, but he rapidly grew to hate me on principle and I've had to assassinate at least 6 popes now, to reconcile myself after being excommunicated (which I couldn't at the time afford, since I was so poor from constant sea blockades that my cities were several turns behind in upgrades with poor public order and more spies than legitimate population).

I'm at turn 155 now and things are smooth, but only because, lacking the money to defend myself by military and naval strength, my only economically viable defense was to deal a few solid smites to my enemy, crippling their economy and thinning out their armies. In short, I'm in about the same position as if I'd just set out to kick the tripe out of everybody from word go, rather than trying to be the nice guy.

So, strategically, how the hell do you hold everyone off your arse while you try and play the slow game?

Oh, great board guys, it's given me years of fun advice and FBE's amazing RTW guide.

Firstly, welcome to the Org ~:wave:

As to your question, to be honest, i sincerely doubt that it's possible to keep the peace with the way the ai is inclined to launch seabourne invasions every few turns for no particular reason.

Your best bet would be to pick a faction that has a reasonable chance of expanding without fighting other factions on land (egypt's probably your best bet in that regard) and just putting up with the constant incursions into your territory.

Still, all this is coming from a guy whose idea of a slow game is not destroying the first faction that attacked him for a turn because he needs to build up his forces :laugh4: , so it's not likely to be of much use :sweatdrop:

well, in my sicilian campaign, im now at turn 46. playing on VH/VH. I own only 12 provinces. i own northern italy (plus bern and zagreb; includes genoa, milan, venice, Bologna (which i took from venice, which they took form the HRE) and florence), Tunis, Ajaccio (corsica), the sardinia city, naples and, last but not least, Palermo, in sicily.

Now, the first few turns were quite simple. i took tunis, sardinia and then corsica. i took a city on the east coast of the adriatic, but i decided to give it to the papacy because i didnt want to get involved with the byzantine empire at the time.

I was lucky enough to empty Genoa (which belonged to milan) of its only unit, a governor (5 star general, with high loyalty and high chivalry), by marrying him to my princess, i recruited a few mercs and marched into the city unopposed. whats best is that they were excommunicated earlier, so it had no consequence.

Since then, i took valencia, while they took back genoa, which i took back again, and then i took bologna, milan and berne. when the venicians got excommunicated got excommunicated, i took that too. i even traded money, a trade agreement and an alliance with the hungarians against the city of zagreb.

during that time, i often suffered blocuses, sieges, and i sometimes lost a settlement or two (which i took back afterwards)

So, it is possible to play the slow game. sell alliances and trade rights with everyone and everything you meet. it wont stop them, but they might think twice before attacking you. keep one good army, and reasonable garrisons everywhere, then simply push back everyone's attack with the garrisons. if an attack is too big, use your good army.

Use that army for attacks again excommunicated factions. use the money you dont spend on units (and their upkeeps) to build up your markets, harbours and roads. accept merchant's guilds if possible. spend lots of money creating merchants- i have 4 merchants near vienna doing each between 150 and 200 per turn trading dyes and silver (two of each), and they acquire everything in thei paths.

you can never cease to be attacked, but simply push them pack everytime; dont bother attackign them if you dont want to. simply deal with their armies as they come.

especially since you are sicily, you will have plenty of income, simply keep building milities in attack areas, and youll have no trouble, since italian spear militia rox even in the middle game.

Oh, and welcome here! i'm more of a lurker, but heh.

The Normans in Sicily aren't Italian, Muslim, or Orthodox, meaning you have no real allies in the area. Your entire existence is fighting.

Anyway, the game wasn't meant to be slowed down. I've got it set to two turns per year, but even though gunpowder hasn't been "invented" yet, the game's down to nine factions (not including the muslims or the aztecs who aren't in the game yet). It's too easy to conquer, there's no real system of desertion or upkeep that would normally hinder troop movement beyond a province or two.

That, and the game's built on conquest. I mean, that's kinda a given, but still, one would hope that there could be a strategic building/trading element to the game.

The one major tip I have to offer, is to play on Medium instead of H or VH campaign difficulty. Apparently (see other posts here), this normalizes your relations with other factions towards neutral a little bit every turn, if you're not doing something to upset them... like blockading ports or taking their provinces. Sinking ships seems to be immune to degrading relations, which is interesting (and useful).

Hard and Very Hard normalizes towards worse relations every turn, unless you bribe everyone to boost relations. In other words, you'll be constantly at war. It looks like CA substituted relations degradation for economic boosts for AI factions, on the harder settings. At Medium, it's MUCH easier to keep your neighbors at bay with strong border defenses like garrisoned cities or big standing armies near your frontiers.

For example, in my Spanish campaign I really didn't want war with France because I was busy elsewhere. They started a war anyway, I took their closest two provinces but didn't do anything else.... just garrisoned them and kept two big standing armies there. They sent several probes over the border, I killed them, but relations kept slowly improving every turn until they finally accepted a cease fire. If I had kept expanding and taking their cities, relations would have worsened. That's okay for blitz/steamroller expansion, but not if you're trying to maintain a static border with a neighbor.

This is different from RTW, where war was a binary condition -- on, or off. In M2TW, there are degrees of hostility in faction relations, and you can improve relations even while at war, if it's a war you don't want at the moment. I think this is affected by which side of a shared border the combat occurs... but I'm not 100% sure. At any rate, it's a lot easier at Medium difficulty. Otherwise you're likely to be constantly at war with someone.

(Edit): amending that last sentence: Of course you can't win this game or build an empire without warfare. What I meant is that Medium campaign difficulty makes it a little easier to choose WHO you're going to be at war with.

Some factions have a harder time than others when it comes to diplomacy. The French for example get ganged up on simply due to their location. At least in my two campaigns they did. The English dont have it too bad nor does Denmark. I've played Spain a couple times now and they manage to keep peaceful with most countries. If you play a faction like HRE or France where you are surrounded by other factions you are more likely to get ganged up on by other factions. Especially once they realize you are becoming a powerhouse. Might want to try a faction that has their back to a corner with only rebel territories behind them or the sea.

If the thought of changing the time scale to 0.5 has you worried try 1.0(1 turn=1year). I'm using it and I enjoy it alot. Allows me to take my time in the game. I dont have to rush out and conquer the world. I can take my time and develope as I expand.

Despite their open aggressiveness, i've found that AI factions are woeful at taking advantage of the player's weakness.

In my milanese campaign, at turn one i moved everyone out of my cities to destroy the papacy, and none of the neighbouring factions moved in to take the open cities.

Foward 20 turns, and i'm the undisputed military leader, so i'm betrayed on all fronts.

Huh? ;)

Just because you get attacked doesn't mean you have to retaliate. Just crush their army and go on ignoring them.

Actually, while trying to be all sweetness and peace, I did end up having to retaliate. My economy was so controlled by port blockades, and my meagre poor man's military so run down, that my little empire was dying from neglect and attrition, with insuficient funds to make repairs or retrain, let alone improve. Trying not to fight it out really allowed the AI to nearly crush me. Only when I mustered what was left of my forces and retaliated by sacking a few provinces, did I generate enough income to beat the senile city syndrome and even my economy out, but it wasn't until I sacked their cities and kept them, that the collapse reversed and things turned up (by the twin goods of having the enemy resources, and reducing their military).

Now I have all but the two most northerly HRE provinces and all but the two most northerly Hungarian provinces, all of the non-iberian Moorish land and a goodly chunk of France is in rebel hands or belongs to the Pope (from before I took the gloves off), and things are sweet, but equivalent to if I'd just gone forth and been angry all over them buggers to start with.

Don't play on Very Hard... In my opinion it just makes it stupid and not hard... because the AI gets suicidally aggressive. On Normal, if you crush an AI faction's field army (And I mean crush, not just beat) it will generally send a diplomat post-haste to humbly request a ceasefire, and will generally accept an unfavorable agreement even.

On Very Hard they'll just keep scraping peasants together and throwing them at you until you destroy them completely.

I like to play a slow game, using espionage and diplomacy etc, but i feel kinda like im cheating if i play on medium, because it is way too easy to trounce the computer. Why can't the AI on V/H just be very clever or something but at the same time actually have some sense of self preservation:furious3:

The trick is in the balance. You want to play slow, but not so slow that you can't stand on two feet. Example? In a current game as Denmark (call it as you want) I had to desperately conquer something because of the massive Holy Roman Empire that was forming under my little peninsula. The HRE at the start of the game was loosing badly and used to be hard-pressed by surrounding factions, but somehow, some time later, it started winning battles and expanding, and expanding, and expanding. It's year 1302 right now with 1 year per turn. So about 50 turns ago I started my invasion of Britain and finally after much pain, suffering, treachery and cunning I've managed to conquer the whole of it (pitting England against Scotland, making sure to abuse when a faction was excommunicated, I sued to peace Scotland desperatly at one time, and so on).

Now Great Britain (and Ireland, I guess) is a great locomotive for the standards of my meagre Scandinavian economy. Yes, the English are still alive (whatever they should be called now) in the north of France, and they do invade from time to time, but because they only have two provinces their stacks are weak enough to be beaten by my Militia Island Defense Army (free upkeep, hurray!).

So, what I suggest is that you go slow indeed to face really cool stuff like this super Holy Roman Empire I have in my game and also a Spanish Leviathan that owns all of Spain, bits of France and the whole of Western North Africa. But be aware: you do need to expand a bit! Just a bit, just enough. Getting the entire Great Britain was overkill, I should've done what I'm doing now, taking the Northen provinces of Russia.

Go slow, expand as little as you can but as much as you need. By the time you think you're done expanding, hopefully there will be powerfull enemies for you to face.

Thanks Wado, thanks guys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antipodean

off your arse while you try and play the slow game?

Oh, great board guys, it's given me years of fun advice and FBE's amazing RTW guide.

---

What's your problem? Sounds like you got what you wanted - a challenging game. Are you at the same place as with an early blitz? Yes, but it was probably more fun getting there. A blitz is easy, wipe the AI's early, then coast. The whole point of slow development and allowing them to tech up is so that they provide more of a challenge - which is what you got. It's point is not to be as easy as a blitz strategy. If you thought that, then you misunderstood the point of this.

I have a tendency to blitz in the very early game. The first 40 turns usually see constant warfare as I 'establish' myself. Once I've got control of fa fair chunk of land, I'll 'ease' off and let the remaining AI's tech up. Usually my goal in the early game is to carve out a kingdom thats easily defendable geographically. For instance, as Sicilliy, I would conquer all of Italiy then hold. As spain/Moors/Portugal It would be Iberia and Western Africa. As Byzantium/Hungary it would be the balkans. Poland/Denmark/Hre/France....well, I couldn't play a slow game with them.

Once I got my kingdom set up, I'll just stick to defense until I'm fielding nice gunpowder armies. YOu know, since its so obvious that the Total War Franchise should have done the 1500-1800 era instead of revisiting the dark ages...

I agree with Blademun. Select a suitable chunk of territory and biltz your way through the first 50 turns, then slow down and start teching. 15-20 regions is a good figure to aim for. Expand too fast and you'll find yourself spending more money building up the outlying provinces than they can generate for you, plus you risk becoming over-extended when the big three events turn up (Black Death, Mongols, Timurids). Once you have established your superiority beyond question, you can slowly grind forward again until you win.

Pretty much the same for me as the other people. I am playing as Russia, 1 turn = 1 year. I'm at about turn 70 or so, and am only at war with the Rebels. Even Poland has backed off of me after I killed their king in battle. His heir apparently didn't want to go to war with me, and after killing their King, we were no longer at war for some reason.

The trick is to expand enough to get a few good provinces that either have good resources, or nice land that can be upgraded for farming.

I do this by keeping only the forces that I need (plus a little more in case of a large attack). At that point I start building an infrastructure. Roads, farm upgrades, try to get as many coastal provinces trading as possible...all eventually.

Also another thing that works well, especially with Russia...is have your landlocked provinces be castles (as many as you think you need, I only have 3). Each region capable of generating an impressive income should be a city. All my coastal regions are cities, so I can meddle with the taxes, and other buildings that will generate income that aren't always available to castles.

As Russia, taking (Helsinki I think it is? the one across the sea from Novgorod) helps, as I'm making almost 3k per turn there, not including the 2-3 merchants in the area making 150 each per turn.

You probably mean Stockholm. That city is the jewel of the Baltic in terms of trading. You should absolutely try to beat the Danes there.

Yes, Stockholm, thx. Couldn't think of it.

i usually built up a good navy, good army, good economy... taking only necesary cities... defending necesary chokepoints, exploit diplomacy as good as possible... than train a massive army and mount a massive invasion... like i train 10 full stacks and attack spain and france taking it over in like 10-20 turns... I also like to make an island empire... taking italy that 3 islands under anatolia, malta and sicily, sardinia and that other one...

personally I like to choose a short campaign. This way I am not pressured to conquer the whole map. It's easier to play slow when you don't have to take over the whole map. While it may easy to get te 20 regions, I won't destroy the factions needed for victory. Then, when i am ready to start a new campaign I just eliminate the faction needed. For example, as the moors take over a majority of spain and leave portugal with only one settlement. This way i can continue playing, but can also win when I feel like it. :laugh4: :2thumbsup:

You know that you can choose to play on after victory, right? That means you don't have let the faction just sit there while you take territories that are further off just to play longer.

no ! didn't know that, thanks for telling me. You learn something new every day. :book:

Napoleon said an army marches on its belly, some greek said the sinews of war are infinite money. So below tips generally are aimed at maximizing money so cities and armies can be made most efficient.

So building a bullet proof economy is paramount and goal #1, concentrate on merchants wharfs and highways in particular.

Paying for troops which sit aound and do nothing is probably the most expansive mistake you can make. So gaol #2 is not training too many troops.

#3 Sacking cities is the most profitable.

#4. If everyone attacks you , Loose a province you have sacked and which has too many borders(ie strategically difficult to defend), you'll find the ai much less aggressive then. Conversely try to mould an empire with few borders.

#5.Bribe the Pope( usually 500x10 will give excellent results) or if excommed send your king on a suicide mission to get reconciled , easier than assasination

#6 Most generals produce less money in a city and hence are generally better used only for fighting, if they die they are usually easily replaced ( you get offers)and make great front line troops. So keep them out of your cities unless desperate to control.

#7 Moove your capitol to produce best income(look at financial details, use auto-tax and try several cities near the middle of your empire)

#8 Send those merchants to timbucktoo!

why should you move your capitol to the best income-based city? you don't get a bonus at your capitol... do you?

I think he means experiment with capitol location so that corruption is minimized across your empire, meaning higher total income.

Hence, geographically central capitals are great. Note: you get a public order bonus for your capital. Thus, if several cities are close in terms of minimizing corruption etc., make your capital the largest city among those (where the public order bonus is likely to help the most -> more taxes).

yeah... i know that they should be centralized for loyalty and such... didnt know it mattered for corruption...

It does. If you conquered 1/2 of Europe as England and yet never moved your capital from London for example, you could be missing out on a healthy chunk of income.

hmmm maybe yeah... but by that time youre usually so rich it doesnt matter anyway... in RTW i only moved capitol to fight against disloyal behavior of cities...

True, I still like to optimize though.

I find myself quite often studiously avoiding moving my capitol, no matter how far away my most-distant provinces are. Nations didn't (very often) move thier capitol around, and I kinda like the extra challenge the distance penalty presents. Yes, I know that some of the game mechanics may be out of whack and this might be silly, but I enjoy it nonetheless.

I also keep generals in cities for as much as I can, only moving a guy out when he gets really bad. I end up with lots of bad traits and such, but again, its a personal choice and I think it makes the game a tad bit more difficult later on. I usually pull out a bad general and replace him with a new guy (or his son) when the first guy gets too bad. It can get tedious...

Also, just for reference, in my Sicilian game, its about turn 75 or so and I have only 5 or 6 provinces. Want a slow game? Its pretty easy--don't blitz, and only take the lands the councils tell you to...or Crusades...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razor1952

So gaol #2 is not training too many troops.

---

No. The AI makes invasion decisions based on:

1. Strength of your 'frontline' troops (those manning the border).
2. Strength of your 'reserve' troops (those sitting further back ready to respond to any incursion.
3. Production capacity of your empire compared to theirs (how many units you crank out in a turn).

Having a weak frontline invites those 1-2 unit stack sieges on your cities. Weak reserves invites an invasion. Having a 'weak' production rate invites a massive buildup of AI troops, followed by an invasion. This last factor is tricky because apparently your production rating is based on how many units you produce a turn. I hardly produce anything once my garrisons and field armies are at full strength, so the AI usually thinks I'm weak.

So if you only have minimal garrisons and skimp on the troops, expect more raids and outright invasions by the AI. Being peaceable doesn't pay. Parking a full stack or two of elite troops right on each border with another stack in reserve can sometimes deter the AI from rash decisions. It also allows YOU to grab some new real estate across the border should the opportunity present itself.

"So gaol #2 is not training too many troops."

I guess I should have qualified this, but I stated it rather from an economic point of view, particularly so you don't leave expensive to maintain troops in other than frontline positions. I also use a lot of spies and basically know how much defense I'll need, not only does that hurt order in the ai cities it allows me to sa ve considerable $'s. But I take your points regarding ai's and their inclination to attack.


On the flip side of that i like the desperate defense scenario with a few troops. I 'taunt' the ai if you like to attack and get whipped.

eg. I defended with a few spears and crossbows against an attack of one dismounted knight stack/several feudal knights/general and was able to delay the ram's attack long enough for it to be destroyed by a suicide foray of spears, so the attack failed.

" So goal #2 is training just enough troops to do the job required" would I guess be better put.

Deterrence is too expensive. Maintain a "weak" front and then smash and grab when they strike. Then again, that's not exactly the slow game.

Playing slow is essentially handicapping yourself.

My turkish campaign is on turn 100 or so, and I was having a hard time controlling the pace of the game, until I developed my "DMZ" strategy.

What I've done to slow the game down is determine early in the game which provinces I intend to hold long term (these are regions I intend to keep as part of my 45 occupied settlements.) For these settlements, I proceed in a calculated manner and heavily favor occupying unless my economy is totally strained. But, if I am attacked by a faction owning provinces other than the 45 I intend to hold, I fend of the attack and counter attack -- except instead of occupying, I exterminate or sack, and then destroy all of the settlements buildings.

After this, I either let the settlement revolt and attack again to get extra sacking income, or I gift it to an ally. I've found Russia to be a particularily good ally for this, they don't seem to be that aggressive, have no other allies and have been embrolied in a long struggle with the Poles anyway.

The DMZ strategy has some good advantages:

1) After launching a full-stack invasion, the AI is generally pretty weakly garrisonned, but will rebuild quickly if you don't counter attack quickly.

2) Taking and holding their provinces will spread out your garrisons and make you weak, and if you up your production to compensate, it will weaken your economy.

3) Destroying their buildings cripples troop-producing capabilities in cities on your borders, so even if your ally loses control of a border city, the faction that wins it isn't usually left with much. (Pre-gunpowder, I'll often flip castles to towns just to further hamper troop production.)

4) Sending border cities through the sack/revolt/sack cycle more than pays for the army that does the heavy lifting, and is a good cash infusion.

I don't mind the AI attacking, as they'll just provide me with higher experience troops in the end. I agree though, just maintain the amount of troops you need. I also try to delay producing troops for invasions as long as possible. The recruit in as many provinces near the invasion as possible, and attack asap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by katank

Deterrence is too expensive. Maintain a "weak" front and then smash and grab when they strike. Then again, that's not exactly the slow game.

Playing slow is essentially handicapping yourself.

---

Well, yes, in the sense that the quickest way to beat the game is a continual blitz. But it's not the only way to enjoy the game.

In my last Spanish campaign I really enjoyed keeping France at bay (after taking two of their provinces).... just holding them in position for a long time, while I expanded in North Africa and took the British Isles. I was using France as a buffer against Milan, who was very powerful, and also as a barrier between me and the British. France couldn't make any progress against my heavily fortified border, so they bled themselves out against Milan (who I was bleeding on the sly with sabotage and spies, to prolong the conflict). And Britain had no direct access to my territory, once I started the back door attack via Scotland.

I could have taken out France in 10 turns or less, but they were more useful as a buffer. Playing this way is more interesting to me, long-term, than a steamroller approach. Yes, it is expensive to keep all those extra armies to hold static borders, but this gets less important as the game progresses.

I agree Zeniticus, a slow torure policy for the ai satisifies my sadistic impulses, slowly garrotting each ai prolongs the game and increases enjoyment........

Having the money to pursue this course is the key.

Then again, having sufficient force for effective deterrence is often too much for your economy to bear. Not to mention the fact that if an AI faction is at peace for too long, they are hard coded to attack the human. Thus, to avoid war, you need to do some serious diplomatic intrigue.

It's better just to keep enough troops to be able to beat them back. Consider this constant training. This also strains the economy less.

The AI actually doesn't seem hardcoded to attack the human, I thought. That line in the AI file is commented out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flavius Gonzo

3) Destroying their buildings cripples troop-producing capabilities in cities on your borders, so even if your ally loses control of a border city, the faction that wins it isn't usually left with much. (Pre-gunpowder, I'll often flip castles to towns just to further hamper troop production.)

---

I do this if I am fighting against a partiularly powerful opponent. Since Milan often becomes such an opponent, in both my Scottish and Sicilian camps I made a nice border of sacked, building-less cities for the Milanese to take. It certainly hampers the enemy and makes life easier. And its not really an exploit, since that sort of thing actually happened back in the day.