Blitz it works!

[Cannibal]

Katank's idea of blitzing (see Turkish guide) works really well.

I started a game with Byzantines on early with Expert setting. The principal problem playing on Expert is shortage of funds and it can be solved. Using Katank's ideas I have held the Turkish Sultan for ransom once, and done the same to the Egyptian Sultan twice.

The year is now 1105 and the Turkish and Egyptian factions have both been wiped out. The Empire now stretches from Egypt in the south to Bulgaria and Serbia in the west and Georgia to the north with over 30,000 florins in the treasury. This was achieved with starting troops, vanilla Trezibond archers produced in Contantinople, and mercenaries hired at the inn in Trezibond and the inn saved from destruction in Tripoli.

Having difficulties with finance? Try this, you might like it

Cannibal

[Quokka]

It does work well indeed. I tried exactly the same thing to see just how well and I had just over 40,000 Fl , Turks and Eggies dead, the same borders plus Kiev, Khazar and Crimea by 1111. I stopped then as there was no point in going on except maybe to see just how fast I could finish.

I got lucky and there were plenty of Cav troops avaliable in Trebizond and then in the Inn in Anatolia, Georgia and Lesser Armenia that I started building first turn. If there had been less cav the Turk HA would have been a bigger pain to handle.

Very good strategy but too overpowering to a weak AI.

[Ragss]

Sounds like an exploit to me, which is a fancy word for cheating.

[katank]

blitzing shouldn't be considered cheating although heavy merc usage could be due to the AI never really hiring mercs.

I usually crank out Byz inf from Const. using your starting troops plus the By inf is usually enough.

[mdutr0]

How is being aggresive in the early game cheating?

How is cutting the king of an enemy faction off from a route of escape cheating? Sounds like damn good strategy to me...

Thanks,

Micah

[Doug-Thompson]

Quote[/b] (Ragss @ July 21 2004,00:14)]Sounds like an exploit to me, which is a fancy word for cheating.

Who here wants to volunteer into an infantry company with a commander who's worries he might be cheating?

I realize we're playing a game for fun with sprites on a computer screen.

I also realize that this game is a reflection, however shallow, of war.

Wars are meant to be won, and won as quickly as possible with as little loss of life as possible.

I cannot enjoy a game where I'm sitting around, thinking I'm going to subject my empire to a long, drawn-out war where many of my subjects and soldiers will die and the treasury will be bankrupted, because that's fair.

Many people complain that MTW is too easy if you blitz. They have a point. However, the challenge then becomes how to bring the war to a close at a faster rate than you did last time.

[katank]

it's also a matter of taste.

I frankly hate huge battles in which there's little need for much thought but just solid spear wall with skirmishers out front and later behind the spear wall. maybe a few HAs screening and harassing swords on flanks for flankng cav behind swords ready to maneuver behidn and rear attack etc.

I find a unique charm in being able to maneuver 2-3 units around and win the battle using them only.

I love fighting the battle in Toulouse when you send your hobilar and archer to face off against the spearmen, archer, and ballista.

there you truly begin to appreciate the mobility of the hobilars.