A new plan!!!!!!!!

[clayton ballentine]

I have adopded a "do not attack unless you have a reason to" it works good. I only conquer if i have a reason to and Greed is not a reason.

[antisocialmunky]

That's fun, it got booring in MTW though... Seeing if oyu became powerful enough, no one screwed with you at all. Except the Golden Horde, I think they feel unloved and therefore lash out at the world.

[Lancome]

Nahh I usuallly attack only The factions that own the 7 wonders. I usually go for Rhodes and the city above Sparta that owns the Zeus statue. Then after a few alliances I go to attack Egypt before they be come hard to handle.

[asilv]

I have adopded a "do not attack unless you have a reason to" it works good.

Is "taking over the world" acceptable reason?

[clayton ballentine]

Is "taking over the world" acceptable reason?

no that is Greed. And lancome are you takingabout Cornith?

[aw89]

Corinth

[clayton ballentine]

Corinth

that is what i said!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Viking]

No you didn`t.

[Betito]

That reminds me of how i used to handle GA campaigns in MTW: I usually attacked only my nearest neighbors at the beginning of the game, and then i would just develop those provinces to their maximum. The interesting side effect is that one of the AI factions always emerges as THE superpower, so, if you let it grow (and sometimes, just for the challenge, you WANT to let it grow), you can have an ultimate showdown by the late game.

In RTW, this showdown is almost always against rome (either by civil war or by fighting it united). With one notable exception: Carthage. In my carthaginian campaigns, i always manage to destroy rome early (perhaps i let the senate live, just so i can get the improved bodyguards). So, its harder to predict who will you be facing in the end. In my cases, it has been seleucia(yes, they beat the egyptians, with a little financing...) adn Macedon(these guys did it on their own). It gets funnier this way...

[The Stranger]

in mtw i once took the richest provinces (no less then 1500) and i made 150,000 fl a year at the highest point

[Mongoose]

well, at least it makes the game harder...

[The Stranger]

want a hard game, play the rebels. there aint nothing harder than that game

[antisocialmunky]

no that is Greed. And lancome are you takingabout Cornith?

Ever heard of 'Peace Though Conquest?' World Hegemony is for the good of all.

[The Stranger]

not if that man was called HITLER

[Marquis of Roland]

I just attack until I own a nice kingdom (I usually grab all the provinces with "historical significance" for that particular faction) with good bottlenecks and then not attack anyone else unless they attack me. Works well if you want the AI to build up and have battles with better units in the end.

Usually you'll be fighting lots of Brutii (if you left them alive and in control of Greece). I let them build up and they send lots of Urbans and Praetorians. Good times.

[spacekraken]

I have always used this strategy. Like Sun Tzu says, wars are costly and no nation has benefitted from prolonged warfare. Not attcking allows you to become very stable. Then when everyone else has beaten each other to death, and fragmented themselves, you can just mop them up.

[ManqueM]

One problem is that the AI attacks you even if you are 100 times stronger. I'd like to be able to enforce peace though power. At least make them afraid enough not to attack.

In my current campaign on vh/vh I have about 20 provinces as the Seleucids (spelling?) And have epic stone walls in all of them and have built all buildings available in half of them And the year is around 160 B.C. The last 40 years I've played on the defensive and Puntus and Egypt have relentlessly attacked me every other turn, only to be repelled by my walls and/or armies. It's getting kind of boring and I see no sign of Rome becoming a superpower and I'm not sure if I want to just press turn the next 100 years to see what will happen. Do you guys think there will emerge a superpower able to rival the supremacy of my empire, or am I just wasting my time?

[Mongoose]

Only if you don't reload very often. Do you know about good'ole load/save?

[ManqueM]

Yes, I know about the save/load bug and I try to avoid it as much as I can, but I dont have the time right now to play for hours straight...
Next week I will finish my semster... Yay! Lots of beer for me!

[Ricgard]

how could that strategy work for say Sarmatia?

[Craterus]

Clayton, did you get your idea from what I said about my Macedon game? It's nice to see some other people like to play the game that way.. :cheers:

[Viking]

Next week I will finish my semster... Yay! Lots of beer for me!

What reasons do you have for conquering without beeing greedy, CB?

[Craterus]

He says he isn't attacking unless he is attacked. Meaning, if he is attacked, he will attack back and attempt to take some territories. This means that he cannot raise hostilities, he can just retaliate. This is how I'm playing anyway.

[The Stranger]

me too most of the time, but at the start i do take provinces untill i'm having a stable economy, but most of those are rebels. i don't attack most factions before they attack me, but when they do i continue till they propose a ceasefire or i've wiped them out

[Craterus]

This reminds me. If the Greeks attack me, I plan to hit them so hard that they'll accept a protectorate status. Is there any point in making them a protectorate? Bear it in mind, I'm not going to pay them to become my protectorate. Also, can they attack you if they are your protector?

[PseRamesses]

Welcome to the "roleplay-club" Clayton. Here are my set of rules:

1. I initially secure my "homelands". Ex: With the Romans (RTR) I like to secure the Italian pennisula from the alps downwards, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and mybee the Baliares. This is where my expasion stops. (I don´t like to micromanage 50 cities)
2. Fullfill all senate´s goals and return the conquered cities in a peacetreaty in the next turn or give it to a faction you´d like to support.
3. Never break an alliance unless you have to choose sides in an conflict.
4. If a neutral attacks I defend, counterattack and sack some cities subduing them into a peacetreaty or a protectorate.
5. If an ally betrayes me I don´t stop until they are turned into a protectorate.
6. I "play" my commanders traits and vices. If he´s brave I let him act accordingly on the battlefield, if my king is a harsh ruler I tend to exterminate rebellious cities, set highest taxes etc.
7. I only chase routers when betrayed or playing a defensive battle, never in an offensive battle. Let them live to fight another day.
8. Keeping the peace in a TW-game is the ultimate challenge. That´s why I like it! I´m concetrating on trade and fleets. Like in MTW fleets are the key to ruling the world. If you dominate the seas you dominate the world. In one RTR-game as the Carthaginians I only had one stack!!! to defend my empire stretching from Scallabis to Siwa.

[Viking]

This reminds me. If the Greeks attack me, I plan to hit them so hard that they'll accept a protectorate status. Is there any point in making them a protectorate? Bear it in mind, I'm not going to pay them to become my protectorate. Also, can they attack you if they are your protector?

When they get your protectorate, you will get a great amount of their treasury immediatly and they`ll have to pay a tribute each turn, so there`s alot of profit there. They will not attack you, but they can break the alliance if you attack on of their allies.

[Craterus]

Right, well everyone hates the Greeks so when they become my protectorate, I won't have to worry about attacking their allies...

Although, if they attack one of my allies, I might have to break the alliance. Ok thanks, I'm clear now.