I'm rubbish at battles...

[Gregoshi]

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

[ToranagaSama]

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

To master one's skill at all things Total War

The use of Cheesy tactics defeats this purpose.

Upon the day C-MP is finally revealed, those who have incorporated cheesy tactics into their generalship will become sheep to my....ahhh....strike that....THE slaughter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that's my take on the issue.

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

So, I repeat it comes down to 1 16 unit Stack vs. 1 16 unit Stack. I don't know WHATTT people are doing in these 3 hour marathon battles. Certainly, they aren't becoming better TW Generals, though they may be having great fun.

AAAAHHHHHHHHHH Campaign Multiplay AAAAHHHHHHHHHH

TS patiently awaits the day

[Tartychops]

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

And thanks Gaius Julius for the encouragement

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

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

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

Anyway, onwards and upwards

[chilling]

Thats the type of battle I try and save for a damp Sunday afternoon.

[Gregoshi]

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

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

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

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

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

That is the extend of my argument. However, you are the King of Cheese, so I'll defer to you final ruling on its official status.