The comprehensive guide to hotseat play

[Domen]

M2TW Kingdoms: Teutonic The Teutonic campaign is interesting but not very balanced for AR games. Things to note: (...)

- The Teutonic Order (TO) has by far the best units on the map. They crush everyone in AR with their Order Spearmen (...)

- In an AR (...) the Lithuanians are very disadvantaged, (...)

Uhmm, nope... :P And this requires just 2 words as a response:

Samogitian Axemen

[Myth]

Order Spearmen:

150 men per unit
11 attack
20 defence

730/155 in cost/upkeep

Samogitian Axemen:

120 MPU
16 attack (armour piercing)
14 defence

440/125 in recruitment/upkeep

So far so good. In an equal fight (3v3), the OS are clearly victorious, mainly due to superior numbers. In a 3v4 fight, the axemen are clearly victorious. The OS give ~50% casualties, while the axes give about 30-35%.

However that's not telling the whole story. A staged fight just between these two units, with the numbers always favouring the axes to make the men count equal is not a fair way to analyse the units' power and potential in a forced AR game. First of all, the initial unit training costs are very different - the axes are 40% cheaper. However upkeep is the much greater limiting factor on maximum army size, and that differs by only 20%. I would say that based on gold, it is fair to say that for 10 OS, the enemy will have 13 axes, but not FOR ever 10. The ratio will change based on unit numbers. For a full-stack, the troop numbers will be in favour of the OS (even if you have one or two more units of axes) as upkeep will devour most of what is saved from the initial cost. If the OS have any numerical advantage, they are going to win.

Now, let's factor in some other things. First of all, making pure armies is not practical in a hectic hotseat, unless you can sit back and build elite armies or you control the pace of the game. The fighting in this campaign begins around turn 3.

The TO can recruit spearmen out of any castle with a Tier 2 barracks or greater. They start with four stone castles in their possession and the option to upgrade the barracks structure and armour smith in all of them. The Lithuanians in comparison, can only recruit these axemen out of their temples. They have only one starting city that has the correct temple. So one turn of demolishing and another turn of building is needed before they can be on at least even footing to the TO in terms of production. By the time you get your first wave off, the two TO fullstacks will be knocking on your door with catapults.

Now let's consider other things. The TO has greater starting armies for autoresolve (and arguably for lead-battles as well). They start with at least 10 units of order spearmen and can crank out 10 more on turn 1. They get a mission that grants them free units for the taking of a small village up north, and those units are either Christ Knights or Order Spearmen (50/50).

And that's still not all. In a pure 3v4 situation the spearmen lose to the axes, however in a mixed stack the units with the greater armour give lower losses than the less armoured ones. I observed this multiple times in Britannia with Gallogaich and Armoured Swordsmen mixed together. When fighting mixed armies with mixed armies, your medium armour AP attack troops will pack a serious first punch but you will progressively become weaker as you fight more, since they lack the sustainability of high armour units.

Retraining is a pain, as you will have to build temples in newly conquered regions. It's even worse if you lose settlements, as the game automatically razes religious structures upon conquest, so you will always lose your troop training centres. You can't return the favour however, as the TR rules forbid the razing of structures (such as barracks).

Overall I'd still say the TO and OS win out. Not to mention that you can't survive the onslaught with just 1 unit per turn per training center. You'll be forced to recruit other units, and Lithuania's other units are all weaksauce for AR.

In comparison, the TO can make Sword Bretheren with 15 defence, very strong cavalry units and quite decent pike militia units right at turn 1.

[phonicsmonkey]

Good analysis

[Domen]

Yes good analysis indeed.

I had an impresssion that Samogitian Axemen are even better than Order Spearmen in AR. But you proved it the other way (OS slightly better).

Anyway - Samogitian Axemen are still very, very powerful. They crush such - for example - Dismounted Polish Nobles, easily.

And I was referring mainly to Lithuania being allegedly "very disadvantaged" in AR battles. I still wouldn't agree with this. Lithuania is right after TO or maybe after TO & Denmark - but certainly isn't disadvantaged at all compared to the Mongols, Poland or even Novgorod.

The fighting begins around turn 3, true (well in my first Hotseat on Kingdoms Teutonic in turn 5 we already destroyed TO - me as Poland & my Lithuanian ally - but TO player was a real newbie; in another Teutonic HS in which I'm the game master, the Polish player lost his faction in 3rd turn when TO killed his last family member, but he made a mistake in calculating range of enemy army and lost one stack already in 2nd turn).

Anyway the overall conclusion that the Teutonic campaign is not well balanced at all is correct.

Poland for example starts with mostly peasants and cannot resist TO in a 1 vs 1 fight. At the beginning Poland doesn't have the best unit production at all (especially when it comes to production speed of "relatively good" units - such as dismounted nobles, spearmen, woodsmen). TO has lots of good units including completely ahistorical ones such as for example those Order Spearmen (who are wearing plate armour and visors - which is interesting because the campaign starts in year 1250 and plate armour & visors were not invented before +/- 1350 ... ).

Lithuania in the beginning of the campaign indeed is weaker than the TO. But when they start producing elite units such as those Samogitian Axemen, they can match the TO. The key objective for Lithuania is to play her diplomacy well (i.e. find allies against the TO). Denmark is on the strong side too when it comes to unit balance in this campaign. The Mongols, Poland and Novgorod are on the weak side. Lithuania is not.

Poland can produce its elite units (i.e. dismounted Polish knights) not before Citadel. Usually HS will end before they can build a single Citadel. Even Novgorod is in a better position than Poland because they have some really good units already available in Fortress.

It is way easier to build a Fortress (4500 inhabitants required) than a Citadel (9000 inhabitants required).

And Novgorod has woodsmen (who are decent because of their AP attack) available 1 level of castle before Poland...

The only good thing about Poland in Teutonic HS is that they are capable of becoming a real economic power - but this requires surviving the first several turns, which is not easy when you start with stacks full of peasants and lacking decent number of good units.

In one Teutonic HS, playing Poland, I am close to building a Citadel in Marienburg (currently it has ca. 7000 inhabitants).

But I am keeping there a high chivalry general and building everything which gives + to population growth all the time.

And maybe I will have a Citadel around turn 20. Normally most Teutonic HS campaigns are pretty much decided by this turn.

=======================================================

The most balanced and well-made of the Kingdoms expansion campaigns is Britannia and arguably also Crusades.

That's because the British people made this game, I guess.

=====================================================

Edit:

If you are interested - I translated the rules that we use on that Polish forum where I play HS campaigns. You might want to read them to see what rules we use - there are some differences. I guess we could adopt some things from your rules to our ones, and maybe you will also find something which could be useful to add to your rules:

http://forum.totalwar.org.pl/viewtop...&t=3097#p55661

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1. Turns:

a - c - not really important (strictly organizational)

d) After resignation of a player, his/her deputy - if he/she plays also another faction in the same HS - until finding a new player (who doesn't play in the same HS yet) is allowed to sign & renounce non-aggresion pacts and alliances, as well as to continue wars of this faction which have already been in progress, but is forbidden to declare new wars (of course is allowed to fight in case if someone attacks him/her first).

e - f - not really important (strictly organizational)

2. Diplomacy:

a) Only treaties signed officially, i.e. announced on the forum and confirmed by all interested parties, are considered binding / valid. Game Master (GM) will not take into consideration secret agreements between individual players.
b) Treaties signed on the forum must be reflected in the game, if only its mechanics allows to do this. It means especially, that players are not allowed to break an alliance in the game, if they didn't do this on the forum before, as well as that players cannot reject an offer of an alliance from a diplomat of a faction with which they have signed such a treaty on the forum.
c) In case of considerable violation of an agreement GM can implement a punishment appropriate to the scale of the violation (including even "desertion" of units or destruction of buildings) and there is no appeal against GM's decision. A punishment can be implemented only in case of violation of an official pact, signed in embassy on the forum.
d) In case of renouncing a non-aggresion pact (nap), the one who renounces is allowed to attack first (start war) not before the injured party carries out 2 turns; in case of renouncing an alliance - 4 turns. The injured party is allowed attack first at any moment.
e) If a faction with which we have a nap or an alliance with us, invades our ally, and we renounce our alliance with the invaders - we are allowed to attack them after this faction carries out 1 (if we had a nap) - 2 (if we had an alliance) turns.
f) If faction A, allied to B and having a nap with C, wants to support B protecting its settlements with its own forces, C is allowed to attack those forces of A without consequences. After the first battle contact, the nap between A and C automatically expires.
g) When faction A, with which our faction has a nap (or there is a non-aggresion period between our factions after we renounced a pact with A) protects units or ships of their ally B - against whom we have war - in such a way that A put their units near units of B, we are allowed to attack units of our enemy B and the fact that units of faction A will take part in the battle, does not mean that we broke the nap (or the non-aggresion period) with that faction.
h) Entering territory of a faction with which we have a nap with our military units - even accidental - will be considered as an attack / breaking of the nap.
i) In case of war between 2 allies of a player, a player is obliged to break one of conflicting alliance - a player must choose whether he/she wants to renounce an alliance (with all of its normal consequences) or to transform it into a 5-turns long nap.
j) Rewinding turns / queue is forbidden [unless absolutely necessary to save the HS - for example some game crash, etc.]
k) Signining an alliance automatically means permission for armies of allies to enter your territory
l) Agreements not explicitly mentioned in the rules (such as vassalizations, unions, etc.), for which all interested parties agree, can be recognized as binding, but in such case GM is required to approve them (and he/she has the right to refuse and deny approval).
m) Vassalizations:
- After resignation from a HS of a player playing a vassalized faction, senior is playing his vassal's faction and is allowed to undertake any decisions for this faction until finding a new player.
- If a player of a vassalized faction resigns, senior has 2 turns to find a new player on his own, after this time any random player is allowed to take such a faction.
- If a new player takes over a vassal faction, he/she is allowed to renounce vassalization, but with prospective invasion of his former senior he must wait 6 turns of his senior.

[I added "chapter" 3. at the bottom because it is optional only]

4. Agents:

a) It is forbidden to open settlements/forts belonging to human players with use of spies.
b) It is forbidden to assasinate family members and the Pope (this rule doesn't apply to inquistors)
c) It is forbidden to "trample to death" agents with armies.

5. Forts:

a) It is forbidden to bribe forts with diplomats
b) It is forbidden to have more than 2 garrisoned forts per faction per region (it is forbidden to cumulate limits - for example 4 in one region, 0 in another region). Abandoned forts don't count.

6. Other rules:

a) It is forbidden to attack ships which are in ports as well as to sail out of blockaded ports.
b) In situations not mentioned in these rules, all decisions are to be taken by GM.
c) It is forbidden to artificially keep collapsing factions alive, by giving them settlements in remote regions somewhere in the corners of the map, away from their enemies.
d) After taking over a settlement via diplomatic way, all units which appear after such a takeover must be disbanded (except one, necessary to maintain public order).
e) Trading a settlement is allowed only with GM's approval.
f) It is forbidden to surrender the game by deliberately leaving empty settlements so they can be easily captured or by giving all of them to another player.
g) It is forbidden to demolish buildings in a settlement which is already besieged. It is forbidden to demolish ports which are blockaded.
h) An army which was defeated by forces of a faction which has its turn in the queue after the faction, to which that defeated army belongs, is not allowed to move in its next turn (victorious player should inform about the fact of defeating that army on the forum in a proper thread). This rule is valid only in cases in which in a reversed situation game mechanics would automatically deny movement of a defeated army of a faction which has its turn later in the queue.
i) It is forbidden to exploit the "seaborne landing bug", i.e. to move just next to enemy forts/cities/castles with an army immediately after disembarking it from the fleet.
j) It is forbidden to exploit the bug with movement just next to enemy forts, when they are hidden in the fog of war. This bug is present only in some mods.
k) It is forbidden to exploit the greater (or unlimited) range of movement of units, generals, ships or agents, if it does not arises from the game mechanics, but is a result of a bug.

7. Organization of games:

a) Every HS campaign with 9 or more players is required to have its GM.
b) HS campaigns with 8 or fewer players need an "occasional GM, password keeper", which rather doesn't intervene in the game, but carries out turns for players who delay.
c) These rules are the basic, but if players agree between themselves, they can create another version or form of rules, or add or remove some points from this main rulebook.

3. Crusades and Jihads (note - only if a HS is played with crusades and / or jihads allowed - otherwise simply ignore this entire chapter):

a) The right of calling crusades goes only to the Pope (that is, to the person playing the Papal State, GM). In case of lack of such, what decides is the vote of the Catholic factions. While voting for a Crusadem each player must say a certain faction and vote for calling on a particular settlement of that faction. To join a crusade in case if a Catholic faction has a nap / alliance / other pact signed with the target-faction, they must first renounced that pact and wait a proper number of turns before joining the crusade and starting a war, according to the rules. The same refers to Jihads and Muslim states.
b) It is forbidden to sell / give away to another faction target-settlements of a Crusade / Jihad. These rules are aimed at making the gameplay harder and more climatic. Breaking them will be punished with exclusion of a player from a campaign.
c) It is absolutely forbidden to attack with crusade Christian factions (including Orthodox ones). The only exceptions from this rule are:
- a Christian faction, which during a crusade supports Muslim factions, can be attacked by crusading armies on Muslim territory.
- a Christian faction is allowed to attack with crusading army another Christian faction if this faction gives passage across its territory for Muslim armies during a crusade.
- a Christian state supported during a crusade by Muslim armies on its own territory, can also be attacked by crusading armies of other Christian states.
d) It is forbidden to attack Muslim states with Jihad.
e) It is forbidden to attack Pagan states with a crusade.
f) It is forbidden to use stricte Crusade / Jihad units during the course of a crusade against faction of the same religion.

As you noticed (and I already wrote before) we don't play with save/load forbidden. And we also don't have demolishing buildings forbidden. But demolishing buildings is absolutely forbidden (and severely punished) if a settlement is already besieged. But when a settlement isn't besieged by any enemy, you can demolish any building you want. Also the guy who captures a settlement is allowed to demolish buildings inside.

On the other hand, for example, you have more liberal (except of save/load ban) rules regarding agents. You can do anything with assasins, for example (but limited to only one action per one turn, IIRC). In our rules assasins aren't allowed to kill family members. Etc.

But personally I like that idea with limitation of one assasin action per turn. We could try it too (or maybe 2 actions?).

Without such limitation a game can turn into war of agents, if you give time & money to a player to recruit hordes of assasins.

I experienced this in a Kingdoms Crusades HS. Turkey had hordes of agents of all types. Egypt as well.

We also have really expanded rules on diplomacy - no such things like "backstabbing an ally" can happen in our hotseats.

Ok, it theoretically might happen, but a backstabber is going to be punished by a Game Master.

[Myth]

Hi Domen,

yes theoretically they are good. But you seem to be matching high attack/AP shock troops vs. high armour units like OS and Dism. Polish Nobles. They are best when pitted against enemy units who cost more and rely on 20+ armour. Try making stacks of basic infantry (let's say militia level) with a few elite units thrown in as a core. There you will see just how well the high armour units perform and how the 16 attack SP infantry loses out when the bulk of the enemy are hordes of 150 MPU spears with 9 defence, but outnumber them 2 to 1.

Not only will they diminish in performance because there is not much enemy armour to pierce, they will also die more due to their own armour being low. Yes, theoretically Lithuania can become strong in an AR game, but it requires a lot of juggling. If it's lead battles then Poland, Novgorod and Lithuania all have excellent units (jav cav, HAs), as well as the Mongols.

You got me curious about Poland, I think they have some units that perform adequately in AR but I can't remember. I remember Nightbringer nearly beating one of my fullstacks as the TO with his armies, he had some halberd units IIRC. Let me look into that, perhaps we can play a deathmatch game with me as Poland and you as Lithuania?

Regarding agents, this rule I took from the .net and I think it caught on here pretty well. One action per turn - spy first, assassinate second. So two agents, two actions, in that order. This makes it fair, reduces the value of massing the agents but still allows one to have fun with them and use them as intended.

I see you toying with Crusades but the mechanic is so broken that unless it's a team battle people will be hurt by it.

On the destroying of buildings - that will make any warzone cities absolute fodder with only farms and walls in them. It also gives a lot more value to raiding - go in, loot, destroy 6 buidings and suddenly you have 30k gold. That is not balanced IMO, as it will give a lot more of an advantage to backstabbers, factions that have better positions to attack and retreat and to factions that have better units in their earlier level barracks (since less rebuilding is required)

[Nightbringer]

Hi Domen,

yes theoretically they are good. But you seem to be matching high attack/AP shock troops vs. high armour units like OS and Dism. Polish Nobles. They are best when pitted against enemy units who cost more and rely on 20+ armour. Try making stacks of basic infantry (let's say militia level) with a few elite units thrown in as a core. There you will see just how well the high armour units perform and how the 16 attack SP infantry loses out when the bulk of the enemy are hordes of 150 MPU spears with 9 defence, but outnumber them 2 to 1.

Not only will they diminish in performance because there is not much enemy armour to pierce, they will also die more due to their own armour being low. Yes, theoretically Lithuania can become strong in an AR game, but it requires a lot of juggling. If it's lead battles then Poland, Novgorod and Lithuania all have excellent units (jav cav, HAs), as well as the Mongols.

You got me curious about Poland, I think they have some units that perform adequately in AR but I can't remember. I remember Nightbringer nearly beating one of my fullstacks as the TO with his armies, he had some halberd units IIRC. Let me look into that, perhaps we can play a deathmatch game with me as Poland and you as Lithuania?

Regarding agents, this rule I took from the .net and I think it caught on here pretty well. One action per turn - spy first, assassinate second. So two agents, two actions, in that order. This makes it fair, reduces the value of massing the agents but still allows one to have fun with them and use them as intended.

I see you toying with Crusades but the mechanic is so broken that unless it's a team battle people will be hurt by it.

On the destroying of buildings - that will make any warzone cities absolute fodder with only farms and walls in them. It also gives a lot more value to raiding - go in, loot, destroy 6 buidings and suddenly you have 30k gold. That is not balanced IMO, as it will give a lot more of an advantage to backstabbers, factions that have better positions to attack and retreat and to factions that have better units in their earlier level barracks (since less rebuilding is required)

Ha! That stack of yours that died was defeated by three stacks of mine. And the one that only nearly won was facing nearly two stacks of polish units! (the remains from the previous stack) From what I could tell, in AR the units poland started with were quite worthless. Although their high cav numbers could be very strong in lead battles.

[Myth]

Yes but you tend to carry archers in your AR stacks which IMO is a liability - like in the second Britannia game where you had expensive longbowmen in all your armies. Sure Poland is nowhere near as strong as the TO but a 2 : 1 ratio with archers in your stack is still a decent result. Ask Thanatos what casualties he took in a 3v1 fight of his lithuanians vs one full TO stack. Granted, he had archers in his stacks too...

If you want to see perfect AR stacks, look at how Tristan had composed Antioch's armies in LS and later how Thanatos continued playing, or see my army from the first Britannia game where it 1v2ed the Irish+Welsh armies led by their respective kings, I think it really matters just what percentage of the whole are good AR units and what are fodder units that are only marginally effective but take up income via upkeep.

Of course when the enemy is coming at you, you recruit whatever you can, so I can't blame you for having archers as Poland since you've got literally two turns to recruit before the TO comes to play.