Hello All, and a Major Question

Hello all from Portugal! I know I should have introduced myself in the proper forum first, but I was extremely eager to ask this... :embarassed:

Well, ever since I bought the game (M2:TW) I managed to pick up stuff about Campaign and right now I don't consider myself to be as bad as I used to be. However, and you might gasp at this, I always auto resolve my battles. This is because the tutorial thaught me only battle controls and nothing about how to actually fight a battle :wall:. Since I have no idea how, I always auto resolve so I won't end up worst than I would if I actually fought them. :dizzy2:

What are the basics of fighting a battle and battle strategy? Cuss all you want at my horrible noobness and immaturity :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M_is_D

Hello all from Portugal! I know I should have introduced myself in the proper forum first, but I was extremely eager to ask this... :embarassed:

Well, ever since I bought the game (M2:TW) I managed to pick up stuff about Campaign and right now I don't consider myself to be as bad as I used to be. However, and you might gasp at this, I always auto resolve my battles. This is because the tutorial thaught me only battle controls and nothing about how to actually fight a battle :wall:. Since I have no idea how, I always auto resolve so I won't end up worst than I would if I actually fought them. :dizzy2:

What are the basics of fighting a battle and battle strategy? Cuss all you want at my horrible noobness and immaturity :help:

---

the real simple answer is use units as designed and you should be okay for the most part. dont charge with archers and dont persue with dismounted armored knights.

Also combat in the totalwar system (against the AI) is normally a matter of using common sense. An archer is better suited to shoot arrows while ontop of a hill. A unit that charges down hill has more momentum, woods provide natural cover for arrows.

Just take a common sense approach to basic command option, and jump in there and take some lumps ! Believe me my first time in STW that I had a bridge battle and saw the AI had 1 unit defending it i sent in all my units and was summarily handed a gruesome defeat !

Dive in !

And welcome to the org.

I would recommend not worrying too much. Maybe play some custome battles to get a feel for things or play a campaign on lower diffuculty settings. The best way to learn is just have a go! You will make mistakes and get beaten at times but you'll learn from your mistakes and improve! That's the luxury of the computer game, if your empire is in ruins just start a new game :laugh4:

Once you've played a few battles you might have some more specific question you can ask here, which should give you better help than a very broad "what the hell do I do?" kind of question :idea2:

Good luck :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hollerbach

I would recommend not worrying too much. Maybe play some custome battles to get a feel for things or play a campaign on lower diffuculty settings. The best way to learn is just have a go! You will make mistakes and get beaten at times but you'll learn from your mistakes and improve! That's the luxury of the computer game, if your empire is in ruins just start a new game :laugh4:

Once you've played a few battles you might have some more specific question you can ask here, which should give you better help than a very broad "what the hell do I do?" kind of question :idea2:

Good luck :2thumbsup:

---

Oh, but I have, I've fought both siege and field battles. And sometimes while I had numerical advantage, I would only get a close victory, while I would get a heroic victory if I auto resolved in similar situations. Immediatly I realized I was doing something wrong, so that was why I came for help.

generaly speaking you are more likely to suffer lower losses if you ai a seige when you are attacking (not if you are the defending party). this is becasue the autoresolve doesnt seem to take into accout the walls etc very well and calculates as if it was a field battle - if you have more soldiers you will normally win. there are other issues like for example normally when you are layingh seige it is necessary to kill virtually all the enemy troops as they will retreat to the town square and stop routing. the autoresolve seems to calcualte that the army will rout - so if you look at the losses on each side they are quite low, but when you take a settlement all the enemy troops automatically die.

in field battles however there should not be any advantage to autoresolving. it often results in undesirable outcomes such as losing significant numbers of your top quality soldiers, as oten you just seem to lose a percentage of all your soldiers, when if fought out you wqould ideally not lose too much nights for example.

:jawdrop:

I think Auto resolving battles really removes a huge part of this beatifull game mate, no matter how bad you may think you are, practise makes perfect=) Just make sure you only fight when you are sure you'll win and when you outnumber your enemy in the beginning=)

Are you playing Portugal? If so, you want to learn to use jinettes. They are mighty fine units once you learn to use them properly. See this guide on mounted missile units for a lot of good info, but focus in on the sections on jinettes especially. In the early going they are simply battle winners, and they remain useful a long time with upgrades. They give you a hit and run force (if you need to inflict casualties out of proportion, then withdraw in strategic defense situations) that is cheap to maintain, can build up a lot of experience and become very powerful, and make great general killer units.

When I play Portugal, I use a few spear units as an anvil line, put a line of archers or crossbows in front or a bit behind, use jinettes to drive the enemy nuts around the flanks and rear, and use my general or some mailed knights as the hammer once the enemy is stuck into my spears. If you have archers (as opposed to crossbows), some aptly timed flaming arrows just before a charge crashes into the enemy unit, can result in an instant rout (and loads of impact casualties from the charge). One of those can trigger a mass rout if it's a good enemy unit. (Routing junk units is less useful, since the better ones turn their noses up at the fleeing riff raff and just soldier on.)

But, I admit, I auto-resolve a lot too. I don't play out many offensive seiges, for example. For some reason my multiple rams tend to get burned up before they reach the gates, though when I auto-resolve, they seem to never fail. And I don't enjoy the assualts on fortifications as much as more open and fluid field battles. I will play defender in a seige though, as I find I can often do better than auto-resolving.

As others have suggested, take a break from the campaign to try some custom battles. If you have a situation that's new to you in the campaign game battle, make notes of the forces and the terrain, save, go set up a similar custom battle and play it a time or seven. You'll find you can do MUCH better than the AI once you get some practice. The AI isn't very good at manipulating morale on the field. Morale is 2/3 the battle. I think the guy who said that campaigned in Portugal too.

Good luck.

E si e portugues, bem vindo!

(now back to killing the French...)

Ooops, I mean to link this thread on horse "archers"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M_is_D

Oh, but I have, I've fought both siege and field battles. And sometimes while I had numerical advantage, I would only get a close victory, while I would get a heroic victory if I auto resolved in similar situations. Immediatly I realized I was doing something wrong, so that was why I came for help.

---

I think this might be your problem, don't base how well you do in a battle by comparing what you can do to the auto-resolve! It's very unpredictable and gives some odd results at best. The only battles I auto-resolve are when I can't be bothered crushing yet another badly outnumered band of rebel peasants. The auto-calc seems to do pretty well for these battles, often losing less troops than I would have (though that's not why I auto-calc, these types of battles becoming boring very quickly) but I don't take that to mean I'm a poor general, just that the auto-calc code isn't perfect (and why would you expect it to be?).

As I say, battle more, worry less and you'll be fine :yes:

M is D, I envy you your predicament. My biggest worry about the game system is that I lose so few.

I myself have a ghastly suspicion that auto-resolving battles probably gives a more "realistic" result, whatever "realistic" means in the context of a TW game.

Part of the fun of the game system is learning the best way to handle any particular unit on a battlefield. And one of the nice things about the campaign game is that you don't start out with very many types of units, so learning how the inter-relate (or don't) won't be all that complicated.

I've never worried much about what the game characterizes as the extent of my victories. I care much more about what the consequences of that victory are in terms of my overall campaign. I'm usually much more concerned with making sure that the enemy army disbands at the end of the battle, or that one or more of my units got some battle experience, than with the adjective the battle attaches to my win. For all I know this aspect of the game (heroic vs. non-heroic nomenclature) is totally bugged, and I couldn't care less. The little crossed swords on the map are fun to look at, but I'm usually more interested in knowing that I deflected that horde of Huns that was bent on sacking Constantinople, and they're now headed for the Dalmatian coast.

Maybe if you described one of your battles you could compare notes on how other people would have fought it. Your basic question is pretty vast and reads a bit like an invitation to re-write Sun Tsu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippe

For all I know this aspect of the game (heroic vs. non-heroic nomenclature) is totally bugged, and I couldn't care less. The little crossed swords on the map are fun to look at, but I'm usually more interested in knowing that I deflected that horde of Huns that was bent on sacking Constantinople, and they're now headed for the Dalmatian coast.

---

I now think it IS bugged. I just can't see a clear pattern in what's a clear, crushing or heroic victory. And I see about 20 clear victories for one of anything else. I sent a general with 19 men (20 total) against a spear unit with 75 (76 with the captain). I lost 1 man, killed 72. "Clear victory." In RTW or MTW that would be at least crushing. Either it's not based on numerical proportions as in the prior games, or it's bugged. If it's based on proportionate "strength" as judged on the pre-battle screen, it's still weird.

That said, I got all the heroic victories I've seen so far as the Russians. That seems similar to RTW where horse archer-based armies saw more high-end victories. That is, with land battles. For whatever reason (or lack thereof!) I went three for three in naval battles in the Baltic that same game start. Three heroic victories, that is. And in those cases the power bar was way against me, so maybe that is the key. I think it may have been in one of the border slaughters of Poles too.

Maybe forcing the enemy to disband plays in too. Not sure that I did in the great Pole extermination though. I think some of their horse archers got away.

I went back and tried RTW again to see if I was remembering wrong. Three heroic victories later I decided I was not. That was in about 10 battles. A few more were crushing. There is something different in play.

Probably a bug.

Oh, and I mostly agree on it doesn't matter much. Except when I need new generals badly. I
m getting better at avoiding that need. Good breeding will show!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vonsch

I now think it IS bugged. I just can't see a clear pattern in what's a clear, crushing or heroic victory. And I see about 20 clear victories for one of anything else. I sent a general with 19 men (20 total) against a spear unit with 75 (76 with the captain). I lost 1 man, killed 72. "Clear victory." In RTW or MTW that would be at least crushing. Either it's not based on numerical proportions as in the prior games, or it's bugged. If it's based on proportionate "strength" as judged on the pre-battle screen, it's still weird.

---

We had a long thread on "Heroic" victories back in the RTW forum.

If I had to guess, I think Heroic's require all of the following:

1) Troop strength is worse than 1:1
2) You kill a high percentage of enemies killed (>75%?)
3) You have a low% of your army killed (<75%?)

If you score an amazing victory against incredible odds but most of your troops are killed you will get a close victory.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I think you'll find these 3 things are a pretty good predictor of Heroic victories.

Edit: Horse Archers get lots of Heroic Victories because the BattleOdds calculator doesn't give them nearly enough credit. You'll routinely be rated the underdog against armies you can kill in your sleep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dismal

We had a long thread on "Heroic" victories back in the RTW forum.

If I had to guess, I think Heroic's require all of the following:

1) Troop strength is worse than 1:1
2) You kill a high percentage of enemies killed (>75%?)
3) You have a low% of your army killed (<75%?)

If you score an amazing victory against incredible odds but most of your troops are killed you will get a close victory.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I think you'll find these 3 things are a pretty good predictor of Heroic victories.

Edit: Horse Archers get lots of Heroic Victories because the BattleOdds calculator doesn't give them nearly enough credit. You'll routinely be rated the underdog against armies you can kill in your sleep.

---

Yeah, that's how I was assuming it works. That pattern isn't holding here. I routinely have those sorts of victories and they result in nothing more than "clear victory" in most cases.

You'll note the one I described meets those criteria easily. 1:3 odds, 95% of enemies dead, 1 trooper (under 5%) lost: clear victory.

There may be a minimum number of troops involved restriction on heroic victories. But I still don't see how this one is a plain "clear victory." It should at least be a "crushing victory."

Had a fight against a crusade army outside Constantinople about a couple of hours ago, and got a heroic victory.

Now, I don't remember the pre-battle odds, but I sincerely doubt they were less than 1:1, as the enemy were pretty much the same as all the other crusade stacks I've whacked, and they've all had odds of 2:1 or 5:2 in my favour. My army is completely the same as it has been against all of the others. This one was a milanese one, and so had italian milita and pavise crossbowmen in addition to all the normal crusader units, so it may be rated a bit higher, but I doubt it would have been much.

The results were 90% kills, and 45% losses. Now, the thing is, they didn't break until I had killed 80% of them. I think that was the reason why I got a heroic victory, the game may only count enemies actually killed, not the ones captured.

Regarding the small battles were you kill say 100 troops and lose only a couple, I think there is a minimum number of soldiers on the field to be able to get a heroic victory...

There is absolutely no evidence to back up the claim that this part of the system is bugged, as we don't know how it works...If we did, we would find out wether it is bugged or not.

On the "famous battles"-thingy, I wish they would be awarded when you've lost a LOT of soldiers in a big battle, like 60%+ with more than 1000 troops. Those battles are the ones you'll remember, you'll be proud of, and you'll want to remember...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vonsch

Yeah, that's how I was assuming it works. That pattern isn't holding here. I routinely have those sorts of victories and they result in nothing more than "clear victory" in most cases.

You'll note the one I described meets those criteria easily. 1:3 odds, 95% of enemies dead, 1 trooper (under 5%) lost: clear victory.

There may be a minimum number of troops involved restriction on heroic victories. But I still don't see how this one is a plain "clear victory." It should at least be a "crushing victory."

---

BattleOdds is not the ratio of troops. It's the strength ratio you will be quoted in the screen before you go into the battle.

In the case of a general versus a spear militia the odds I believe the odds will be strongly in your favor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dismal

BattleOdds is not the ratio of troops. It's the strength ratio you will be quoted in the screen before you go into the battle.

In the case of a general versus a spear militia the odds I believe the odds will be strongly in your favor.

---

Ah, that would explain part of it. It would explain THIS case, at least.

Yeah I would say it looks like it's based on the relative strength in favor of or against you, as the game calculates and displays on that balance bar before the fight. This notion is somewhat reinforced by the game files, where various triggers utilize the battle odds as opposed to the hard numbers of troops, IIRC. While I'm thinking about it, I also notice that we have determined very little about how the game determines those odds and the relative strength value of any given troopy types, or armies as a whole.

Then there is also the issue of how re-inforcements go into the odds? Are they treated the same as the main force or scaled down in thier relative contribution?

Why I ask is I saw somthing odd yesterday. I was sieging a Spanish town with ~1000 good troops (swords, highland nobles, highlanders etc) and the town contained ~1000 militia, but there was also a full stack of ~1000 militia types of spanish next to the city. If I went to assault the town, thus facing a combine force of ~2000 troops including the re-inforcements the odds were displayed as 1:1. Fair enough, my troops were professionals so made up for lower number in quality.

What was weird was that I broke off the siege (due to the Pope) but a turn or so later was attacked by just the one stack, the one that hadn't been in the town. So now it was ~1000 militia vs ~1000 professional troops. BUT, the odds were 1:1.... The addition of 1000 extra troops (and city walls...) the first time seemed to make no difference to the odds! This is why I suspect re-inforcements are treated differently, though this is a long way from a definitive test!

Thank you all a lot for your help =)

One of you asked me to describe how I run a battle. Guess what, it's barbaric style. I start with archers from a safe distance, send all infantry units, and then all cavalry units to attack. And that's all there is. Anyone can tell this is beyond inexperienced. And yet surprisingly, I almost always manage to kill the enemy general...

(btw, I noticed that sometimes units wouldn't obey orders right. Maybe I need the patch for 1.1? If so, where to get it?)

Once again, thanks a million, you're the best =D

I'm sure you know all of this already, but reviewing the basics never hurts.

Fighting a battle is about making a cascading series of yes/no decisions. Are the numbers/strengths of the two sides relatively even? Is any disparity in size great enough to influence how I’m going to go about fighting this battle? If I’m a lot stronger or weaker I’m not going to behave normally. Assuming opposing strengths are relatively even (and in some cases even if they’re not) do I want to fight a positional battle or a maneuver battle? This is where the famous Napoleonic coup d’oeuil comes in: to make this decision you have to look at the terrain while thinking about the relative composition of the opposing forces – what can I do to him, what can he do to me. If I’m badly outnumbered but much more mobile than he is -- maybe I can maneuver my entire force against one of his flanks in the style of Frederick the Great. Alternatively, maybe I should look for some set of terrain features that restricts his approach, sit behind them, and fight a defensive battle. However you arrange it, always try to fight a portion of his army with as much of your own force as possible. And keep track of where his commander is – a good decapitation strike can be the start of an army-wide panic. This was one of Alexander the Great’s secrets that he learned from reading Xenophon's Anabasis.

Somewhere along the way you’re going to have to ask yourself about relative missile troop strength and firepower. A thorough dusting with missiles can really change the odds. But I don’t want to just exchange missile fire and trade units with him unless I can make sure that I have some kind of unfair advantage like higher rate of fire, more firepower, elevated position, some kind of cover, and all of the troops in range of his missiles in open order when he’s not. Failing that, can I flatten part of his firing line with a quick cavalry charge that doesn’t get snarled up in his spearmen, doesn’t get counter-charged by his cavalry, and doesn’t get shot to pieces on the approach? And do I really want to lose fire opportunities by having my missile troops cut and run every time someone gets moderately close to them? Of course, if your enemy has lots of cavalry and/or you usually fight outnumbered, you’ll probably find yourself lining your archers up to shelter behind your spearman with stand and fight orders. Just don’t forget to tell your spearman to fire at will if they’re capable of throwing their spears.

Remember that cavalry is usually the arm of decision, and always keep a reserve. The reduced scale of the TW games makes cavalry disproportionately mobile, so one of your most important decisions is going to be how to use your cavalry. Throwing it into a head-on charge against anything that it won’t immediately route is a waste (having said that, in RTW I liked to attack large armies of peasants with only my general’s bodyguard in order to maximize the experience gain). The beauty of ridiculous mobility is that you can go zooming around your opponent’s flanks, forcing him to maneuver. If his spear wall starts moving when it’s within charging range of your cavalry, you’ve got him. As to the reserve, remember that you’ve only got a few building blocks to work with (your spear wall, your missile units, your left and right flank cavalry contingents (if you’re lucky enough to have two of them), and your reserve. Since you’re probably going to be throwing this thing at the spot where the battle is getting out of control, if your reserve is just your general’s bodyguard, you’re going to be losing him a lot. The reserve is what you win battles with, so make sure you have one.

If you want to role play a medieval Western European army, you need to ignore almost everything I’ve said. Western Europeans drew their armies up in three large formations called Battles that were stacked one behind the other. Western Europeans tended to simply hurl their Battles sequentially straight at the enemy without bothering about any unmanly maneuvering around the flanks. They fought this way because it guaranteed an unwinded reserve (very important in real life, because the horses would quickly become blown after a short charge – think of all the weight they were carrying) and because western medieval armies tended to be ad hoc affairs without much cohesion or command control, but lots of social attitude. Using these tactics against an equally powerful Byzantine, East European, or Middle Eastern army can lead to amusing results.

But whatever you do, never, ever reposition or realign your army when you're in charging range of his. Always move forward by short hops so that your battle line doesn't fall into disorder (even if you're attacking in echelon).

[Sits back and waits for the fireworks to start...]

Or you can be like me.. and don't use any battle strategies, but charge your whole dam army into the enemy and see who wins :smash: It always works for me

The simplest way I can put it. Works for nearly all open terrain battles with well rounded armies against the AI...

Attack from range and cause as much damage as possible until the enemy attacks with melee units. Move your archers to the back and then you send your own melee against the enemy's.

Let the archer regroup in the back and give them targets that are not engaged in the melee to avoid friendly fire.

During this time, use your cavalry to flank or attack the rear of the enemy army. Use your cavalry on the enemy's weakest units such as missiles and light infantry, or anything that's routed and easy to kill. Only engage your cavalry in the big melee if they have nothing else left to do. Line them up properly and make them charge into the the enemy's side of melee for maximum damage.

The basic trick when trying to beat the enemy, is simply engaging them in the front with infantry, then charge them in the back with cavalry while they are fighting the infantry.

When you do that, you cause a LOT of casualties in a short time, and more importantly, you cause so much morale damage that unless they are super troops, you will start a chain rout - which is the way you win battles.

Oh, and also target the enemy general quickly, killing him makes it much more likely to break the enemy.

Once again, thanks for all the help, guys =)

If you wouldn't mind, I have a few questions now that I've tried more battles.

1. What are exactly anvil and hammer in military language? I see those terms around very often.

2. What are generally the best deployment methods?

3. In the same vein, what is the best way to start a battle when it comes to each unit?

Infinite thanks for all your help once again =)

anvil and hammer is where you have your main infantry line engage the enemy. This should be heavy infantry whose job is not to kill the enemy but to act as a wall and hold the enemy hence the name anvil in place while you have cavalry or other infantry charge into the enemy's flank or back acting as a hammer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

anvil and hammer is where you have your main infantry line engage the enemy. This should be heavy infantry whose job is not to kill the enemy but to act as a wall and hold the enemy hence the name anvil in place while you have cavalry or other infantry charge into the enemy's flank or back acting as a hammer

---

Thanks =) turns out it's a technique I'd heard of but didn't know the name.

It's a very basic military tactic, probably used from "the dan of day", and is still being used. Pin the enemy down from one direction, then whack them from somewhere else.

When you have taken away their mobility, and you still have yours, you are at an extreme advantage..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M_is_D

2. What are generally the best deployment methods?

3. In the same vein, what is the best way to start a battle when it comes to each unit?

Infinite thanks for all your help once again =)

---

I prefer to use small but elite army stacks to fight my enemies. This means they usually outnumber me, and come after me as a result.

I also prefer this general formation:

Missile Cavalry_____________Missile Cavalry
Cavalry_____________________Cavalry

_______________Archers
____________Heavy Infantry
Light Infantry______________Light Infantry
_______________Javelins
_______________General

Set up the cavalry as far ahead as possible on each wing. The missile cavalry's job is to charge ahead and try to catch the enemy in a crossfire like so:

Missile Cavalry--->___Enemy__<---Missile Cavalry

The heavy cavalry's job is to stay close to my missile cavalry and keep the enemy horses away.

When the enemy comes into range, my archers will fire on them before moving behind my heavy infantry. If my heavy infantry consist of pikes, I usually put them in a spear/pike wall and hold formation so the enemy runs into my spears. If my heavy infantry consist of swordsmen, I will countercharge them against the enemy. Either way it will look like this:

___________________Enemy
_______________Heavy Infantry
Light Infantry_______Javelins_____Light Infantry
__________________General
__________________Archers

I like to put Javelins behind the Heavy Infantry as they are usually armor piercing and stand a chance of killing the General. I use my General as a reserve to charge if any part of my Heavy Infantry line looks like breaking.

After my Heavy Infantry has engaged the enemy, I will move the Light Infantry up on both sides to flank the enemy. I will also try to charge my remaining horses into the enemy's back.

___________________Cavalry
______Light Infantry__Enemy__Light Infantry
_______________Heavy Infantry
__________________Javelins
__________________General
__________________Archers

Of course, you need to vary your tactics depending on your enemy's troops as well, but this should be a standard formation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcturion

I prefer to use small but elite army stacks to fight my enemies. This means they usually outnumber me, and come after me as a result.

I also prefer this general formation:

Missile Cavalry_____________Missile Cavalry
Cavalry_____________________Cavalry

_______________Archers
____________Heavy Infantry
Light Infantry______________Light Infantry
_______________Javelins
_______________General

Set up the cavalry as far ahead as possible on each wing. The missile cavalry's job is to charge ahead and try to catch the enemy in a crossfire like so:

Missile Cavalry--->___Enemy__<---Missile Cavalry

The heavy cavalry's job is to stay close to my missile cavalry and keep the enemy horses away.

When the enemy comes into range, my archers will fire on them before moving behind my heavy infantry. If my heavy infantry consist of pikes, I usually put them in a spear/pike wall and hold formation so the enemy runs into my spears. If my heavy infantry consist of swordsmen, I will countercharge them against the enemy. Either way it will look like this:

___________________Enemy
_______________Heavy Infantry
Light Infantry_______Javelins_____Light Infantry
__________________General
__________________Archers

I like to put Javelins behind the Heavy Infantry as they are usually armor piercing and stand a chance of killing the General. I use my General as a reserve to charge if any part of my Heavy Infantry line looks like breaking.

After my Heavy Infantry has engaged the enemy, I will move the Light Infantry up on both sides to flank the enemy. I will also try to charge my remaining horses into the enemy's back.

___________________Cavalry
______Light Infantry__Enemy__Light Infantry
_______________Heavy Infantry
__________________Javelins
__________________General
__________________Archers

Of course, you need to vary your tactics depending on your enemy's troops as well, but this should be a standard formation.

---

I tried to do what you said with armies of equal sizes, and I had an average victory =) the enemy actually killed 20 more men than I did (around 680 as opposed to around 660) but they routed far more.

Guys, another million praises to your help =)

I just noticed that faction heirs are always the guys who marry the faction leader's daughters. Is there a way to make it follow the actual bloodline with some sort of tweak/mod/patch?

Not sure about tweaking it, but you can control it. Don't accept ANY offers of adoption to your heir, and don't marry his daughters. Wait until a male son has come of age, and the old king dies. Then you are free to accept marriages and adoptions, as the son has been named heir.

What the problem is, is that the heir is designated at the moment the old king dies and the new heir MUST be of age to consider. The oldest son of the new king will be chosen, or the adopted son of his oldest daughter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Not sure about tweaking it, but you can control it. Don't accept ANY offers of adoption to your heir, and don't marry his daughters. Wait until a male son has come of age, and the old king dies. Then you are free to accept marriages and adoptions, as the son has been named heir.

What the problem is, is that the heir is designated at the moment the old king dies and the new heir MUST be of age to consider. The oldest son of the new king will be chosen, or the adopted son of his oldest daughter...

---

Indeed, but wouldn't it be harmful to reject all suitors, since one would have considerably less generals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M_is_D

Indeed, but wouldn't it be harmful to reject all suitors, since one would have considerably less generals?

---

Yes, it would. I find it difficult enough as is to keep enough generals around. Granted I've taken to using some as governors though, so those of you who don't probably have less problem keeping enough generals on hand. I'd suggest instead of rejecting all adoptions for your heir, and all proposals for his daughters, that one simply makes sure to note situations where such men could become heir if the king dies (i.e. the current heir has no adult male children) and act accordingly. It's really not that awful if someone adopted or married into the family becomes the next heir... I only really take issue with it when it's some crappy guy I took on board just to be an extra cavalry unit. So my personal take on it is just to make sure you only allow good quality men into the family line if they have a chance to become heir - i.e. make sure you'll be okay with it if the man becomes king one day. Over the course of playing the game a while I've already become fairly tough on extra men offered into the family, and as a result I am very rarely disappointed by my heirs, blood-related or not. It seems like a much more reasonable course of action than just slamming the door on all offers to make sure a certain person becomes heir.