Strategy or Cheating without codes?

[Atraphoenix]

I will not write any explanations on what they are, I just wanted to know how you implement on your style of play.
I give mine I hope you give yours...

I put S for strategy C for cheating without codes

For me:

Retraining = S
Retraining gold chevron units who lost at least 2/3rd of the unit: C
There should be exp loss like merging Unf. no...

Blitzing = S
Blitzing until no one left behind = C / if you play all the battles sorry men it is sadism

Using FD (Forced Diplomacy) = S sometimes C

Using all the FM in armies /like 6 Fm in one field army = C

Using just an elite army / full catas, full legions etc. = C

Mercenary dominated armies = C /if they are more than 1/3rd but I do not count a Full MERCENARY army a C, if you grow in power and have at least 2 native 1 merc. field army.

Changing historical Capitals = S / like AS revolts less if you move it to Susa ETC.

Building lots of forts = S

Banners = for me S for many C / Pahlavans used them

Breaking Alliances = S

Raids = S / temp. conquests to gain money

Making unhistorical moves for the specified faction= S / like night battles for Pahlava in fact a rarity, again using lots of inf. they mostly never used them for field armies

Naval Invasions = S

and many more so what do you think are they Strategy or Cheating without codes....

P.S. The only cheat I use that is coded cheat is 'toggle_fow' that is godmod of RTW.
I cannot live without her

[SlickNicaG69]

Retraining = S regardless of unit experience.

Blitzing = S regardless of how you blitz.

FD = C

6 FM's in Army = S

Full Elites = S

Merc Army = S

Chg Capital = S

Forts = S

Banners = Doesn't matter

Breaking Alliances = S

Raids = S

Naval Invasions = S

Toggle_Fow = C

*Money Script = C


I use none of the C's and all of the S's.

[Metaluis90]

I don't get why banners are classified as some kind of strategy/cheating...

[Olaf The Great]

Force Diplomacy to me is not cheating, it's reverse cheating. The AI "chests" by having every dice roll you can think of go badly for the player, and because of the way the AI works in the last 4 total war games....the other factions are all hellbent on fighting YOU and JUST you. Force Diplomacy to me is the only way I can play as any faction with some sanity. It also helps roleplaying too, since you can roleplaying historical client states, or bribes, or territory swapping for money. You can also bypass those really irritating diplomacy screen "features" like "You messed up one this turn, so no matter what you offer or give us we will never talk to you again for 3 months" or "You want t o trade maps? OUR ALLIANCE IS OVER!" or "You're being very generous, but since we cannot offer you ANYTHING, we decline". You can also prevent the turn 1 "EVERYONE DOGPILE ON THE ARCHE" business, and if you're playing as the AS you can actually make your sattelite nations actual vassal states, and force them to end when appropriate. Add_money+Force Diplomacy+Bribes or move_character can help easily get rid of those tiny armys that potential enemies like parking in your lands for some reason, though that could be considered cheating.

Adding money to AI factions can create very interesting situations, like the Pahlav actually doing something/the AS breaking up. I also like to move_character the starting armies for AI factions, especially the ones that don't do anything. Moving the two FM's for the Sauromatae in the begining turns makes them actually do stuff.

As for unlikely tactics for certain factions, I don't consider this cheating but bad roleplaying. If I have say, a 1-3 star general, or a general with any of the "bloodthirsty" traits, I will stack all the swordsman into one group and just rush the enemy, if I have a general with higher command I'll use actual strategy, especially if it's the time of Soldiers. If I play as the Roman's I'll use the roman checkerboard for low command and more advanced tactics for higher command. If I have a "Wants to settle" or "Nomad" general, I'll play them accordingly.

Full elite armies aren't that great, but if I'm deep in a campaign I'll have one "Royal" army that has a higher elite-regular ratio.

Changing capitals is something I don't do often, but If I'm playing a faction like the Gauls, who elect their leaders and start off very tribal, I'll freely move my capital anywhere in the Celtic sphere. If I'm playing a "New Persia" faction like Pontos, Pahlav, and especially Hayasdan I will move my capital to Babylon/Persis once my empire spreads to the corners of the old Persian Empire. If I'm playing a faction that is very nationalistic about it's capital, I will never ever change it (Pella, Carthage, Rome) unless I somehow lose it. I immediately change my capital to Athens as KH, and depending on the ethnicity of the current leader(except the primary leaders in 272) I'll change it accordingly. If I'm playing a nomad faction like Saka, Sauromatae, or early Pahlav, it's free reign, ,my capital can be Chignu, Babylon, Camulosadae, or Terhazza, this can change though if I consider my empire "civilized" which may or may not happen.

Retraining elite armies is something I do depending on the .exe I'm using, rome and BI=No, Alexander=Yes. The AI in Alex.exe does actually retrain, and yes, that includes elites.

Toggle_fow I do not consider cheating, and I use it very often. I don't use it to spot enemy armies, but I do use it to find cities that I want to conquer/negotiate with, since I forget where they are sometimes. I also tend to use it in crowded areas like Italy, Gaul, and Greece when I'm movign diplomats around, since it's irritating to see him go back and forth between two spots because there's an army blocking the way.

[Atraphoenix]

what about bridge wars?

I have not lose any AI is incapable of blocking bridges. I have lots of heroics one that I block the bridge and place my archers on the flanks of the bridge and let the massacre begin.

Also not adopting none - S/C/V generals = for me S but there were lots of stupid generals and governors who incited many rebellions thanks to their pompous charecter...

[Olaf The Great]

Yeah, bridge battles are pretty much a guarenteed win if you have any decent line infantry and missle troops on your side. I once fought a battle with the Casse where they threw all of their army on the bridge at the same time which became a meatgrinder, then they charged three units of chariots on the bridge which pushed half their army off the bridge.

[Atraphoenix]

I don't get why banners are classified as some kind of strategy/cheating...

In war many friends will kill each other and in diadochi they nearly had the same type of troops if you use banners you can decide what units are yours and you use them accdordingly. but in real real battle chaos I do not think that sometimes command orders can reach the units on time BTW we have no option to implement it. You can onlu select your center as your commanders main unit and flanks are under AI control but I do not do it :*)

and I can say that under the chaotic atmosphere if you omit banners you lose more men. I do not count it a cheat without code but it reaaly give the human player great advantage.