New approaches to MTW: Do CRAZY stuff!!

[bretwalda]

Maybe sail off to England and Ireland with your army and never conquer anything else ;)

[English assassin]

Hmm, In my current Almo game its about 1200 and the Byzzies have just stabbed me in the back. (well. more of a pin prick really)

I was going to attack back, but, fired with the spirit of this thread, instead I am going to clear the seas of their ships, do nothing except take Kazar only in, shall we say, 1225, and garrison it with the biggest peasant army you have ever seen. Which I will of course disband in 1231.

Hey presto, the Super-Horde shall do my dirty work for me.

[CherryDanish]

I was going to attack back, but, fired with the spirit of this thread, instead I am going to clear the seas of their ships, do nothing except take Kazar only in, shall we say, 1225, and garrison it with the biggest peasant army you have ever seen. Which I will of course disband in 1231.

Hey presto, the Super-Horde shall do my dirty work for me.

This is one of the funniest MTW ideas I have read in a while. I gotta try this on my next campaign.

[Marquis de Said]

I was going to attack back, but, fired with the spirit of this thread, instead I am going to clear the seas of their ships, do nothing except take Kazar only in, shall we say, 1225, and garrison it with the biggest peasant army you have ever seen. Which I will of course disband in 1231.

Hey presto, the Super-Horde shall do my dirty work for me.

Is the size of the Horde dependent on the size of the garrison in Khazar, i.e. the more troops someone has there in 1230, the more stacks the Mongols come with?

I'd like to know, because I'm playing a Turkish campaign and it's 1115. I've decided to build up Khazar and make it one of my strongest provinces, and worry about the arrival of the Horde later.

Marquis

[Lacker]

I posted this awhile back but I think if fits this thread pretty well.

I play campaigns now trying to stay as peacfull as possible. It's a real trick! I avoid any kind of wars suing for peace the minute they start.

I also tried to play a campaign as ONE person. I picked one unit ( a unit of Mounted Sergents) and aside from initial set ups in each battle I'd ONLY fight with that one unit, and keep the camera as low as possible right next to them. I command units near me only if I'm the commanding unit on the field. It's lead to some pretty unfortunate routs, as well as my nation pretty much going to buckets in a few years, but it was really fun!

[Frankymole]

I posted this awhile back but I think if fits this thread pretty well.

I play campaigns now trying to stay as peacfull as possible. It's a real trick! I avoid any kind of wars suing for peace the minute they start.

Playing as the HRE, Early, Hard, I've managed to keep alliances with most small factions. Byzantium and the Papacy got really big (Byz with territory and top generals, Papacy with huge armies on a re-emergence), and Europe is divided now between three huge empires - mine, my allies the French (holding everything west of the Rhine including North africa, Britain, Spain etc) and the Byz (everything East of Poland except the Baltic states). Yet a 20-year standaoff with Byz has them now sueing for peace and asking me to ally with them against France! (I politely declined)!! France is falling apart due to a failed crusade into Byz-held Tripoli, so I am cleaning up the rebel provinces. Touch wood, neither French nor Byz will break the peace, they're too busy dismembering each other while I pick up the wreckage and grow ever more powerful, heheheh.
I've never known alliances last so long, it's now 1213 so that's nearly 130 years of peace, apart from a few skirmishes with Byz over Poland, Austria and Kiev. My next step is to get the Papacy and Byz to attack each other - they are at war, but I'm in the way...

[Ludens]

Is the size of the Horde dependent on the size of the garrison in Khazar, i.e. the more troops someone has there in 1230, the more stacks the Mongols come with?

Indeed. All rebelions work like this, and the arrival of the Horde is essentially a sort of programmed 'faction resurrection' rebellion. If you leave no troops in a low loyalty province, the rebels will also get few troops. If you have a large garrison in a low loyalty province, the rebels will get a large army. This makes rebelious provinces like Portugal so hard to keep down: if you have a garrison that is big but not big enough, there will be a large army of rebels knocking on your castle gates shortly.

Mind you, the number of troops does depend on the kind of rebelion: especially faction resurrections get loads of troops independent of the size of the garrison. So however little men you will have in Khazar, there will always be a large number of Mongols. But putting a large army there will only increase the threat. It does, however, make for exhilarating battles .

[Marquis de Said]

Mind you, the number of troops does depend on the kind of rebelion: especially faction resurrections get loads of troops independent of the size of the garrison. So however little men you will have in Khazar, there will always be a large number of Mongols. But putting a large army there will only increase the threat. It does, however, make for exhilarating battles .

I knew about the rebellion mechanism and formula in general (=the bigger the garrison, the more rebels), but I'd never thought that the Mongols emergence followed this formula.

I guess I'll have to put a few stacks of hard-arse Turkish troops in Khazar around 1230 "to be prepared for the threat all my messengers in Asia are warning me about" Should make for an interesting battle.