Playing Style - Long Campaign

[chemchok]

I'm curious to know how everyone plays the long campaign.

I'd imagine that at one end of the spectrum are the rushers, who try to conquer provinces as quickly as possible, and basically keep rolling over the AI with large stacks. The combat oriented players, I suppose.

At the other end would be the slow expansionists. They tend to try to keep alliances intact, even if it halts their easiest path to expansion. I would assume that they're also more interested in city building than the former group.

Then there's the players in who lie somewhere in between...

So, what's your playing style in RTW and what year do you usually end up at when you finally conquer 50 provinces?

[m4rt14n]

I rush fast, hard, enslaving as I go, all the while building my main cities as troop production cities. Then I stop the campaign around 35-40 cities, and start a new one. It gets really boring after a while.

[FURRY_BOOTS]

slowly does it for me, i usually wait for marius reforms before i go for it.
sometimes you just have to take settlements nearby for your finances,as population grows you have to make armies to reduce squalor, more soldiers means more expences! also, i know its sad but i try to capture lands that was conqured historically at the time.

[a_ver_est]

I am always at war, at least with one faction, sometimes with two or more.

I like have allies but in this game find a true ally is very difficult.

Most times you can't expect any help from them, in fact you have to be cautios and keep them well controlled.

[The_678]

I usually start with a good rush till I have a good finacially secure base then I build up. Once I have full high-tech armies with onagers I go at conquering again and rush till the end, with my base provinces all money and troop producers. My core provinces are still my main troop producers though.

For example as Brutii, I'll rush and take all of greece and Macedonia, then build up till the marius reforms then attack with brand new 20 stack post-marius armies and steamroll till the end.

[HopAlongBunny]

I prefer going slowly, but this game seems built for rushing.

Cranking out units and constant expansion works as a bit of population/squalor/unrest control.

[Pellinor]

I normally rush - in fact, it took me several games of STW before I managed to build heavy cavalry before winning the game.

I have just started a new campaign with a self-imposed handicap which has completely changed that, though. There are two aspects to it:

1) Conquered cities are only to be occupied, never enslaved or exterminated. We're bringing civilisation, after all ( I may be confusing the Roman empire with the British )

2) Legions are made up of Roman citizens: that is their glory and their strength. Only citizens of pure Roman cities are given Roman citizenship. Therefore, legionary units may only be recruited or retrained in cities with NO culture penalty to public order. This includes hastati, principes, triarii, equites, and the various flavours of post-Marian cohorts and cavalry. Non-citizens may be recruited into ships, artillery and auxiliary units: peasants, town watch, velites, archers, and anything post-Marian with "auxilia" in the name. Mercenaries may of course be employed as normal.

The net effect is that I can send a couple of legions (each of three units) plus some mercs to take a city, but I have to keep it for quite a while before that army is able to move on to the next. Legionaries are precious - they can only be replaced by shipping out new units - and so should be reserved for critical moments, the brunt of the fighting being absorbed by mercenaries. Mercenaries are now required to make up armies, rather than being expensive and unecessary luxuries - previously, it has always been cheaper and more effective to build troops than to hire them, except for Cretans of course.

It is now 240 BC in my Scipii campaign, and I only have about 10 provinces. Marius has not yet made an appearance, and I have had several reverses and close calls due to not being able to make troops, nor ship them out to where they're needed, fast enough. This is unprecendented - it's nice :-)

Cheers,

Pell.R.

[dismal]

My typical game is usually grab-consolidate-expand.

In the first few years I try to grab a few (~10-12) key provinces either from rebels or in a small war if it's worth it.

Then for a while I try to build an economic/military base in these provinces, generally not acting agressively.

Then, around the time where my army is pushing the limits of my empire's financial capability, I start attacking. Usually on VH there's no need to go looking for enemies, and I take them out in the order they attack me.

[nokhor]

in my current game, i have made it my mission to only make 1 quadrant of the game my core. that corner is slowly being absorbed into my culture and teched up. for the other 75% of the map, i go on punitive expeditions that begin as occupations and end as raids. for example gaul will be part of my culture but britain will not. i occupy gallic cities and get rid of the culture penalty. britain will not be. so when i'm at war with them, i occupy all their cities[to prevent them regaining it throug civil revolt] until i have destoryed the british faction. then i destroy all the buildings in the formely british cities and move my troops towards germany. while rebels now occupy britain. then i repeat the process for germany.

[Gunboat]

I normally rush - in fact, it took me several games of STW before I managed to build heavy cavalry before winning the game.

I have just started a new campaign with a self-imposed handicap which has completely changed that, though. There are two aspects to it:

1) Conquered cities are only to be occupied, never enslaved or exterminated. We're bringing civilisation, after all ( I may be confusing the Roman empire with the British )

2) Legions are made up of Roman citizens: that is their glory and their strength. Only citizens of pure Roman cities are given Roman citizenship. Therefore, legionary units may only be recruited or retrained in cities with NO culture penalty to public order. This includes hastati, principes, triarii, equites, and the various flavours of post-Marian cohorts and cavalry. Non-citizens may be recruited into ships, artillery and auxiliary units: peasants, town watch, velites, archers, and anything post-Marian with "auxilia" in the name. Mercenaries may of course be employed as normal.

The net effect is that I can send a couple of legions (each of three units) plus some mercs to take a city, but I have to keep it for quite a while before that army is able to move on to the next. Legionaries are precious - they can only be replaced by shipping out new units - and so should be reserved for critical moments, the brunt of the fighting being absorbed by mercenaries. Mercenaries are now required to make up armies, rather than being expensive and unecessary luxuries - previously, it has always been cheaper and more effective to build troops than to hire them, except for Cretans of course.

It is now 240 BC in my Scipii campaign, and I only have about 10 provinces. Marius has not yet made an appearance, and I have had several reverses and close calls due to not being able to make troops, nor ship them out to where they're needed, fast enough. This is unprecendented - it's nice :-)

Cheers,

Pell.R.

I think that this should be an option for a campaign game that the player can check. By "this" I mean the restriction of building legion units in true Roman cities and auxlia everywhere else.

[Maltz]

I guess difficulty plays a psychological role. If you expect something very hard coming, you wouldn't give your opponent any chance - so you want to crush them as early and as hard as possible.

Another influence might become from multiplayer strategy game experiences. The more you wait the more likely you are going to be rushed - and lose. If only the AI can be as tough as real human then there won't even be a discussion of "to rush or not to rush".

[Spino]

Rushing is very tempting but I don't do it because it feels so damn gamey and ahistorical. When I play RTW I try to adhere to certain 'gentlemen's rules' so as to not exploit the AI and make for a more realistic experience. I'm more of a wargamer than a pure strategy gamer so I always feels compelled to treat RTW as a simulation/wargame than your basic turn based strategy game. On the other hand when I play your average 3D shooter I always opt for tactics and techniques that exploit the AI, especially those infuriating boss monster levels.

Another influence might become from multiplayer strategy game experiences. The more you wait the more likely you are going to be rushed - and lose. If only the AI can be as tough as real human then there won't even be a discussion of "to rush or not to rush".

Well I don't think it would take that much for the AI to become a better opponent. If it only stopped building massive navies and better consolidated its stacks it wouldn't be such a pushover.

[chemchok]

Then I stop the campaign around 35-40 cities, and start a new one. It gets really boring after a while.

Yeah, it becomes drudge work to get that last group of provinces.

slowly does it for me, i usually wait for marius reforms before i go for it.
sometimes you just have to take settlements nearby for your finances,as population grows you have to make armies to reduce squalor, more soldiers means more expences! also, i know its sad but i try to capture lands that was conqured historically at the time.

It's not sad, I try to do the same thing, well, sometimes at least.

The problem is that I usually get impatient. A smaller faction continues to harass me, I try to get a ceasefire, fail, and simply end up annihilating them instead. I can't wait for the protectorate bug to get fixed...

I like have allies but in this game find a true ally is very difficult.
Most times you can't expect any help from them, in fact you have to be cautios and keep them well controlled.

Aye, it's too difficult to gauge how "friendly" you are with allies. There's a fine line between lining your allies' pockets and providing them with enough cash to make their AI stance flip and suddenly attack you.

In general, the game does seem built for rushing and mass production of troops. I did play several games with some self-imposed limits and they were definitely the most enjoyable. Letting the AI handle the build queues might be interesting, but I'm too much of a control freak to let that happen.

Well I don't think it would take that much for the AI to become a better opponent. If it only stopped building massive navies and better consolidated its stacks it wouldn't be such a pushover.

My thoughts exactly. Some people seem to believe that the AI can only be improved through some massive changes by CA. On the contrary, a few changes here and there in the AI's priorities could have a dramatic effect on how competent the AI is in the campaign.

[acheronsbane]

i'm playing the very very long game. i'm playing carthage right now and rome is the only remaining bastion of the roman way of life. i'm fulfilling my megalomaniacal fantasy of ruling ze verd. year is 209 bc. i will not take rome until tara is captured and that campus at the edge of the map is under carthaginian rule.

thrace and egypt are in their final two or three provinces. i'm allied with gaul which has only three regions left, and dacia, which is expanding northwards against the seluecids. its an alliance of convenience however, and time will tell when it will break. when i'm at war with a faction i continuously insist in allying with nearby faction sharing borders with the faction i'm at war with in order to force a two front war.

my strategy is to exterminate the populace, but even when you exterminate cultural difference still persists, patavium is an example, don't know why. i'm thinking of inciting revolt and exterminating the populace again. after conquest i build-up the territory's financial structures, later on public order stabilizing buildings and finally military builidings.

i rarely put up 20 stack army, i immediately deploy when i think such army is sufficient to take on whatever comes its way. but its not always the case though, i sometimes attack a settlement using relief forces (these are units i send to replenish heavily understrength units), when such opportunity exists.
when all factions are gone and only carthage is left to rule ze veld, i'd stop playing and wait for the expansion. bwahahaha.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

No matter what faction I play I am always the unstoppable force, sometimes quite slow in my military advances but always unavoidable, unflinching, uncomprimising. Only Rome has really stopped me but then I sacked Croton, Thermon and Rome. As Seluecids the Armenians, Ponts, Egyptians and Parthians slowed me, they were all at war at one time with me!


Just lay down and die of your own accord for I shall not cease to butcher you all!

[KiOwA]

Slow & steady does it for me. There's just something satisfying in conquering barbarian lands and bring civilization to the province, building all sorts of culture and military buildings. Even if said barbarians don't always agree with me.

[Tyrac]

Game was just too easy so i try to play with as many "Iron Man" rules as I can force myself to do. No pause, generals viewpoint for battles, NEVER EVER sell map info, and a bunch of other things.
Doing tons of Iron Man rules really bright the replay value of the game way way up.
Then I try to play as if I were just a nation trying to survive not really rule the world so I only go to war with those who war with me etc. This makes it hard at the start when no one is at war but rebles and money is hard to come by. :)
Right now I am playing Dacia and with all these restrictions I actually LOST. It was great!
This time around I have not lost ..... yet , but I am finding it very challenging. I have lost my capital more then once and NONE of my leaders die of old age :). I may lose again. Things are very tight atm. :)

[Didz]

Basically, I started off doing as I was told. A model servant of the senate trying to carry out their orders and only using my own initiative to eliminate rebel factions and cities.

Once the senate got nasty and tried to have my faction leader assassinated I turned on them and took Rome pretty quickly. It then became a case of fighting off the other Roman factions and seizing their territory whilst keeping the rest of the world docile.

Ended up eliminating the Scipii completely and forging a massive empire in the Middle East and North Africa whilst fending off the Julii in Northern Italy.

[Kyoujin]

I just did the Blitz thing...

After conquering 90%+ of the map I got massively bored, whipped out the process_cq cheat to quicken the military development (Marius hadn't shown his bastard face yet.), and then sacked Rome with haste. Rome fell to the Brutii in 240bc**...but man, did it feel a lot later than that. Making sure 60 cities, a dozen mobile armies and innumerable spies, diplomats and assassins are in order makes the turns very, very slow. Oddly enough, my original faction leader was still kickin' in the end. Eighty-something years old and living the retirement life with the amazons in the north.

I think I might start over and try things a bit slower. Wait for factions to declare war on me before rolling over their cities etc.

**Probably could have taken rome as early as 255bc if I had been more broad in the scope of my expansionism earlier on.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Slow and steady for me. I only rush if i need more money, and even then, i only rush a few provinces and stop.