Your skills

[Franconicus]

I tried to judge my commander skills and the result is not very good. I'd like to see if you are better. Here are some questions:

1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?
2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?
3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?
4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?
5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?
6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worht it?
7 Do you try to get a superior position?
8 Do you ambush?
9 How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)
10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?
11 How much do you take the terrain into account? (Not only rivers)

[Ianofsmeg16]

1. Sometimes, most of the time i play for fun
2. I choose them, most of the time....damn backstabbing Egyptians!!!!
3.Yes
4. When i can, but a great general takes what little he has, and makes them good
5. Yes, if i select the battles that is....
6. half and half, sometimes i just want to get my own back
7. Always, but if i dont then i work with what i have
8. No, i have never felt the need
9. Cav Flank, inf flank, shower with arrows + javs until they attck, HA actics (my favorite ;) ) all out charge (fun but annoying if it fails)
10. alot, if its good i make sure mine is better, if its bad i take advantage of that
11.again alot, i see hills with trees on them as perfect for my foot archers

hope this helps :)

[cunctator]

1 Sometimes
2 I choose my enemies. I stay defencieve and block thema mountain passes or bridges if i don`t want to fight them and they don`t make peace.
3 yes
4 I select my armies carefully if possible. All my armies have a neatrly identicall composition, so that they can be used against all enemies.
5 Mostly
6 no
7 no
8 no
9 I choose one suited attack/defence formation and than try to exploit the enemies mistakes.
10/11 I always try to fight downhill or on flat ground. I don`t like to fight in forests

[Coldfish]

1 Yes
2 Yes I choose them
3 Yes
4 Yes i select carefully
5 Yes
6 Yes
7 Yes
8 Yes
9 I wait my enemy to get closer and then shower them with missiles or artilery ,fire at will on,then attack with cavalry in wedge formation infantry or missile enemy units, to make them vulnerable to my cavalry and infantry attacks
10 I prefer flat grounds only
11 If there is a forest i only hide my genaral bodyguards there

[Moros]

1 Yes
2 Yes I choose them
3 Yes
4 Yes i select carefully
5 Yes
6 Yes
7 Yes
8 Yes
9 I wait my enemy to get closer and then shower with missiles or artilery ,fire at will on,then attack with cavalry in wedge formation infantry or missile enemy units, to make them vulnerable to my cavalry and infantry attacks
10 I prefer flat grounds only
11 If there is a forest i only hide my genaral bodyguards there

you can't hide your general!

1)I wait and see and I just exploit the other weaknesses whenever possible
2)I usually choose them but sometimes they do.
3)yes I have.
4)If I have different types of units yes, if not I'll just have to live with that.
5)I attack when I'm superior or equal. (except for naval combat ofcourse)
6)I battle when the victory is worth t
7)ofcourse
8) depens of the landscape. if there are trees why wouldn't I.
9)I don't know, I just always try to exploit enely weaknesses
10)I just try to pick in my enemy's most valuable regions and the valuable rebel regions ofcourse. afterwards I annex them.
11) always try to find as much advantages you can. If the terrain is one of them I'll use it.

oow my 200 post!

[Coldfish]

i ment that....i put him in the woods...not necesarly hide him

[King of Atlantis]

1.yes
2. i choose them
3.yes
4.usually
5.no i win huge anyways
6.ditto
7. yes
8.no
9. i dont know. My plan changes with each faction.
10.well the enemy usually attack me anyways even when defending
11.a lot

[Silver Rusher]

1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?

Well, seeing as these days I only play as Parthians or Armenians (only factions with both HAs and Catanks), pretty much, yeah.

2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?

Mostly. Sometimes the Armenians and Seleucids gang up on me when I play as Parthia, though.

3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?

Pretty much. It's always the same, send my spy in first, followed by my all HA/Catank army.

4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?

I ALWAYS select the composition of my army. I only use Horse Archers and Cataphracts.

5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?

Tough question. After mastering the great Parthian tactics almost to perfection, I can often win when threatened with an army that is supposed to be twice the size of mine.

6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worth it?

Yes. For me, a battle used only to stop other people from marching through my lands is pointless.

7 Do you try to get a superior position?

I'm not sure whether you mean in the campaign or battle mode there. In the campaign mode, I don't always find it necessary to do that. After all, careful strategic planning means you don't need a superior position.

8 Do you ambush?

I think you know the answer to that based on what you have read above. No, I do not. To ambush you need to be in a forest, terrain that I always steer clear of with my armies.

9 How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)

Only 1 really. That is just pumping the enemy full of arrows, and scattering their formation with horse archers, and eventually sending my catanks round the battlefield picking off the weakened enemy units.

10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?

A lot. Whenever I deploy my army, I look to try and see where the enemy would likely position itself, and deploy my own units based on that.

11 How much do you take the terrain into account? (Not only rivers)

Oooh... I don't think I have had a river battle yet (ironic, because there are so many rivers everywhere). But forests mean death to me, so I always do anything I can to stop my battles from taking place within them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I prefer a more traditional approach:

Espionage

Diplomatic Leverage (Parsiflage, Flatulence, or Arrogance as needed)

Bribery

Getting my Ally to take the lumps for me

Blockade

....Only after these "force multipliers" do I seek battle

Then, I'll use the "indirect" approach -- don't go straight at your target, but head to where they must come after you

As they come after you, you can:

Leave

Wait for them

Jump them, or

Divide and strike from a different strategic direction as "reinforcements" (the hammer) while they attack your main body (the anvil) -- but don't do it with more than 20 units total or the AI will command your surplus units -- ahem -- somewhat less brilliantly than you would.

[Conqueror]

1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?
I usually spend a good time staring at the map and planning which directions my faction should expand, at least for the earlier stages of the campaign. I typically set myself a goal to dominate few specific areas.

2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?
Given how diplomacy in RTW works, there's not much to do to avoid a war with a faction if they decide they don't like you.

3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?
I usually start a war by attacking with multiple armies in single turn to capture key provinces, from there on I might follow a plan or just look for opportunities to exploit.

4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?
I always try to build my armies with just the "right" units, even if it then takes longer to get them out on the field.

5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?
I usually won't attack unless I think I have superior army (not necessarily superior numbers), unless there is a good reason to risk defeat.

6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worht it?
I often ignore enemies such as rebels that are more of a pestilence than a real threat.

7 Do you try to get a superior position?
Yes, unless I have grossly superior army.

8 Do you ambush?
Hardly ever. I prefer to go and attack the enemy instead of waiting for them to possibly wander my way.

9 How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)
If I think a plan is needed, it's usually just one plan that I make, and it's usually enough for a clear victory.

10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?
I will gladly spend 30 minutes doing nothing but manouvering just so that I can seize advantageous position.

11 How much do you take the terrain into account? (Not only rivers)
I try to place my armies on hills or the side of a mountain on the campaign map to get high ground on the battle map. I avoid forests and try to get ford/bridge battles.

[Marcellus]

I tried to judge my commander skills and the result is not very good. I'd like to see if you are better. Here are some questions:

1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?
2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?
3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?
4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?
5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?
6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worht it?
7 Do you try to get a superior position?
8 Do you ambush?
9 How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)
10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?
11 How much do you take the terrain into account? (Not only rivers)

1. Usually
2. I choose my enemies most of the time
3. not really
4. I try to select the best composition for my army when I can, but sometimes you just need to use whatever is around
5. Yes
6. Yes
7. Not really
8. No
9. Several
10. Quite a lot
11. Quite a bit

[Norxis]

Good little thread you started here! I like to know about this type of stuff as well.

1. Well, usually the computer plans out already who you need to conquer and what your direction is anyway (eg., Brutti need to conquer Greece, Scippi need to conquer Sicily, etc.), so I just do what I need to do in the early game, then you can do what you want later.
2. Again, I usually start one war during the campaign (the first one), then usually everyone else starts declaring war on me, so I just keep on invading who's closest/richest.
3. At start of game no, just do what i can, at middle/end - yes, just have a couple of armies/lots of agents roaming round enemy territory.
4. Careful-ish, but lets face it, we're always going to load up on the best troops we can get!
5. no, I like tough battles.
6. No, if I lose but have a bit of fun, I don't care cause by the middle of the game you can raise a full, balanced stack in like 3 turns, so why bother worrying. But if i have a good general, then I need to win - I hate losing family members unless they're barking mad.
7. Position doesn't bother me (unless its on a bridge)
8. Only in barbarians.
9. Not really, Alexanders hammer and anvil is what R:TW is built for - though the occasional barbarian horde charge is fun too.
10. Quite a bit
11. Only rivers and dense forest, hills don't bother me that much.

[Oaty]

Well my master plan is the good old Hojo strategy. advance when I can and retreat when I have to and let the enemy smash there armies against your walls.


1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?
conquer
2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?
Very rarely do I need to start the war
3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?
Depends on thier strength, I attack there economy if they are strong and take out thier armies if they are weak.
4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?
I've got a few ironman rules, I only recruit good units out of cities with no culture penalty. All missile troops and most level 2 barracks I train everywhere. So I take what I can get and I limit 2 cavalry per army(merc cav is excluded from this rule.
5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?
It's war, Only start a war when it is profitable.
6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worht it?
When is victory not worth it.
7 Do you try to get a superior position?
I try not to exploit bridges and usually only use them for a depleted army returning home.
8 Do you ambush?
It's hard to bait an ambush when your motive is conquering. But on the rare occasion of predicting an invasion that only has an inferior force to defend with, I'll stage an ambush wich I'm 0-2 on staging the ambush.
9 How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)
Masterplan, unfortanately the A.I. is 1 minded. So most of the time I wait until the A.I. has no more reserves and form a C on thier army wich tears them up quick.
10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?
I'm assuming you mean there defensive position, well skirmishers on the low point or the high point and work there way down to draw the enemy army down the hill. Then I put the best troops to break the flank on the high ground.
11 How much do you take the terrain into account? (Not only rivers)
I prefer the flat lands wich at least guarantees the enemy has no advantages. If I find a spot with a rock crop I'll keep it in mind for a defensive position as it guarantees 1 flank of the army. Other than that I'll use passes to trap an enemy when I can.

[Enjoi_BlackHawk]

1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?
Yeah usually,

2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?
I wish i could say yeah, but with the AI in this game....

3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?
I dont have a schedule so to speak, but i have to have cordination, this army has to land at this point, and the other has to seige this city to prevent reinforcement...yada yada yada.

4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?
Yeah, 2 archers, 4 cavarlry (Excluding general), rest infantry.

5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?
lol, not always, sometimes i do it because i want to fight some one and stop micromanaging my settlements.

6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worht it?
since when is victory not worth it?

7 Do you try to get a superior position?
Always, i use chokepoints, hills (i always liked hills), etc.

8.Do you ambush?
On the campain map, no, on the battle field, yeah.

9. How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)
mine usually focus's to get the team to always go on the offensive, and then just rackle them with archery, etc... then charge them with reserves when it appears my first line is giving in, while my calvary attacks there flanks...

10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?
Alot, i spend alot of times setting up before the battle, but if i see one thing i dont like, i will adjust my army accordingly (if i got time that is)

11 How much do you take the terrain into account? (Not only rivers)
Alot, i like hills, forest dont really bother me because i havent fought any "barbarian" battles yet.

[ToranagaSama]

1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?
2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?
3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?

As someone has put it, I, also, spend a great deal of time *staring* at the Campaign Map, at the beginning and throughout the Campaign.

My first aim is to *secure* my terrritory. I simply hate with the greatest of disdain how in RTW enemey and potential enemey units are capable of roaming thru and all over one's territory. It drives me crazy!!!

Then, thru a bit of trial and error along with some good Org advice I discovered how to secure my territory thru the use of Forts.

So, I stare at the map and locate useful chokepoints, mountain passes, bridges, and passes between rivers and mountains, and aim to secure them (with Forts).

My second and actually Co- first aim, is to locate the most economically beneficial provinces within the general vacinity. Particularly those that are, or may be beneficial to neighboring Factions (potential enemies).

Economics plays a huge part of the game. So securing the best economic provinces for yourself and/or withholding them from neighboring factions is important.

Generally, I want to note the chokepoints which will serve as the Anchors to the borders of my territory; and, to secure all the *good* economic provinces within my *potential* borders.

Note: Forts are extremely useful tactically. First, as stated they serve to secure the chokepoints and thereby STOP the roaming enemy units (everyone is the enemey!!) save Agents, of course.

Second, once the chokepoints are secured, any attacking unit MUST first take one (or more than one) of the Forts, PRIOR to actually attacking a city. So, Forts serve as buffers to your cities. Since all it takes is a Single unit to secure a Fort, that's all it needs. Forts take 3-4 turns before *falling*, so there's plently of time to move an army to defend the Fort before it falls. Good idea to get roads built in order to facilite the movement of troops.

These are the goals in which I start a Campaign. Build, Secure, Develop.

The most economically important provinces are those with Gold and Silver mines, and with *good* tradeables capable of housing a Port. Coastal provinces with THREE *good* tradeables are far more important than Inland provinces with three good tradeables.

It's important to discern which provinces are most valuable in the beginning, as you only have so many units.

4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?

Yes I do, in a general sense. What you ALWAYS want is a *balanced* army. 2 to 3 Cav units; 2 to 3 Archer units; 2 to 3 Spear units to protect the Archer units from Cav attacks; the rest various types of sword units.

If you play the game fairly and with a minimum of *cheese factor* (that is game exploits) then you often have to take what you have. The above is with the ideal 20 unit stack. Often you'll battle with less than a full stack, so you'll have some variation of the above. Whether 10 or 20 units in your stack, the aim is to be *balanced*.

5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?

This is an interesting question.

By "superior" do you mean, numerically and/or qualitatively? There is a difference. Depending upon the skill and knowledge of the player, one can make up for a numeric disadvantage by having and bringing fewer, but higher quality units. Vice versa, one can sometimes make up for a qualitative disadvantage by having and bringing superior numbers to a battle.

So you see the question is somewhat subjective.

Now, to mix things up for your further try this on for size. How would a player know *if* his battle force is "superior" or not? Of course, the answer is by *spying*!!

Spying upon enemey Stacks is an interesting capability and can be advantegous; but that's the problem, it can be TOO advantegous. Once you know the composition of an enemey stack you wish to attack or fear being attacked by, a player can EASILY counter by tailoring the composition of *his* stack. Once your economy has developed to the point that money is not a consideration it is simple and easy to counter the AI's stack composition(s).

This can be interesting and somewhat challenging while you are a *new* player, but once you gain experience, for the greatest challenge, it is best to use self-discipline and refrain from spying in this manner. If you choose to play in this manner, the need for a *balanced* army is even greater, as a balanced army is what's best when dealing with the unknown.

Of course, a player will ALWAYS know if he has numeric superiority or not simply by looking at the unit flags on the campaign map, which is unavoidable. Again, if looking for the best gaming challenge, one way to counter this human advantage, is to use self-discipline and limit yourself in the number of Reserves you bring to battle. You could limit yourself to ONLY bring a single stack to all battles; or, a stack and a quater; or a stack and a half. Personally, I don't see much more need.

So, do *I* start battles only if superior. I try too, but as I've attempted to outline it's a bit subjective as to what is superior. The only pre-conceive notion I have is toward numeric, then I limit myself, generally, to a single stack. So, for me, as long as I have a fairly balanced army and of fair unit quality, I'm confident.

What is of greater consideration is the value of the province; and, most importantly, the capability of the AI to *counter-attack* and my capability to withstand a counter-attack. When I take a province, I take it for good, or I don't take it.

6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worht it?

Again, a subjective question. There are different styles of play, so *worth* is valued differently by the players of different styles.

For me, "worth* is all about Economics. What I can gain economically, and perhaps even more so, what economic damage I can inflict upon the enemy. Generally, my military/political goal is to drain the AI of money. That is get the (Faction) AI to the point where it can no longer sustain warmaking economically. Either the AI can no longer build enough units numerically (or qualitatively) to counter my *limited* stacks; and/or the AI simply collaspes into inactivity/non-agression by weight of the economic burden of maintain its huge hordes of troops.

In which case I normally, have most that faction's valuable provinces. Rather than finish off such a faction, I will move on and sight another faction(s). The AI, normally, will eventually make some rather stupid tactical mistake allowing me to easilty and steadily take its remaining provinces; and/or it will grind itself against my *hard* troops attempting to take its former valuable provinces in order to alleviate its economic burden.

Most often what will occur is some combo of the above, and the faction will slowly disintergrate into rebellion and become little to no consequence.

7 Do you try to get a superior position?

I take it you mean on the battlefield.

Yes, but mostly out of habit.

Unfortunately, RTW isn't has tactically challenging as previous versions of TW, so *positioning* isn't as crucial as it was in the previous games.

Frankly, once you get experienced, you'll find you can win a battle just as easily going uphill as downhill.

Though, personally *I* ALWAYS have trouble in Forest.

8 Do you ambush?

Do you mean on the Campaign Map or Battle Map?

I have attempted to manuever my Unit Stacks on the Campaign map into a L-shaped ambush, but once switching to the Battle Map, it didn't work too well. Attempting such an ambush required relinquishing control of one of your stacks/armies to AI control. AI Control simply and unequivocally SUCKS!! Never do it.

Do you mean setup an Ambush during Battle *Setup*? I used to do this in both STW and MTW. I started doing so in my early days with RTW, but as time went on discovered it REALLY wasn't necessary. The unit stats and speed settings that The Creative Assembly choose for RTW pretty much nullify most efforts at *true* ambush. So, what's the point?

Answer: not any more.

9 How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)
10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?

Unless you utilize one of the mods that alter units stats and battle speeds, it is VERY difficult to effect sophisticated masterplans. Things simply occur too fast to develop.

But, to answer your question. I have found it best to have a *single*, but HIGHLY flexible plan. The best plan RARELY survives the first blow, this is true in reality in this game!! IMO, formation is what is important, along with troop selection. It is important to have a formation, and a plan for the use of that formation that will survive the "first blow".

I have a core first line center, 2-4 units of Spears; behind them 2-3 units of Archers (the ratio of spears to archers is always 1:1 or better); behind the Archers is my General; sometimes I'll put a reserve unit between the General and the Archers; behind the General a reserve unit (these units can be either spears or swords. So its either one in front and one in back of the General; or both in back of the General.

The front line spear units are to protect against in Cav charge to my center at my Archers and/or General. These spear units purpose is to hold there position and not to advance. They are the core, my rock, my Anvil!

Now, here's an example of flexibility. Note, that Flexibilty is something you PLAN for!!! For me, the *key* is not in having a *masterplan*, where you do this and do that and bing you win. No, rather, I have a masterplan of *what-ifs*, of *Re-action*.

Take the two reserve units I mention above, prior to every battle I know precisely what I will do with them in one of two probable situations. First, in the event my center core is having difficulty then the reserves purpose is to bolster the center. This is the VERY first thing I note, how well my center core is holding, and the decision is made regarding these reserve units. If the core is holding then I can look and take my concentration elsewhere on the battlefield. If the core is having difficulty, I can send in the reserve(s) and, then look and take my concentration elsewhere on the field.

For example, if one unit in front of the General and one in back, then I'll send in the front unit and move the back unit in front of the general.

If, after sending the first reserve unit, the center core is still having difficulty, I'll send in the second reserve unit, and make serious note that I must take pre-cautionary action as my center may fail.

Note: All this while my Archers are firing under my expressed direction, no auto-fire for me!!

After sending in my second reserve unit, I will, often, pull back my Archers. Either put some distance between them and the front line, so they won't so easilty be over-run; or, move them to my Flanks where I will have (pre-planned) units to protect them. Here is where auto-fire can be useful, when things are getting dicey and you just don't have the time to direct fire.

More flexibility, say things go as originally outlined, and my center core holds nicely (or even if it doesn't). The reserve units have a secondary duty, which is why I like them to be spear units. In the odd event, which sometimes happends, the AI (or human) will manage to somehow get a unit(s) of Cav around my flank, behind my lines and into my rear (normally aimed squarely for my General). In this scenario, the reserve units can be moved out to the *rear* flank to protect against such a happening.

I cannot emphasize how important a capability this is. When such a thing occurs its most often a shock and surprise. Your attention may be elsewhere on the battlefield, and then OMG! Gotta be prepared for such an eventuality.

If neither of those two situation do not occur then those reserve units normally don't move and won't be engaged.

The above is just a partial example of the sort of *planned* flexibility I infer.

The rest of my stack is generally made up of 1-2 additional Cav units; 2-4 *fast* foot units (1-2 on each flank); with the rest sword units.

Each unit save the core-center, archers, and general, serve a dual purpose/multi-circumstance PRE-PLANNED purpose.

Even my Formation (which rarely varies) is dual in nature, I can either shift the formation in its entirety, left or right to might an attack; or, I can *Fold* the Formation to meet the direction of an attack.

There's lots I've left out, but I hope you get the general gist. Plan for flexibility. Be capable of meeting and defending *any* attack.

Take whatever the enemey gives you. Note, whatever the enemy does (AI or human), it will leave itself vulnuerable in some way. The key is in identifying the vulnerability and having the capability and flexibity to take advantage. Flexibility and Maneuverability, that's my game!

All it takes is practice and experience.

[Unfortnately, such sophistication is largely unnecessary in that which is called RTW.]

11 How much do you take the terrain into account? (Not only rivers)

Terrain is very important in STW/MTW, but in RTW its *much* less so. So, my greatest concern are Forest, as I have a *personal* weakness and hatred for Forest.

In RTW, other than Forest, the general concern is whether you are facing uphill or downhill. Of course, uphill is the concern, or, so it would seem. To my experience, I've found it RIDICULOUSLY easy to chase the AI off its perch.

A little bit of manuevering with one or two foot units along with one or two cav units, and the AI will come right down off its mountaintop; rather, than, as in STW and MTW sending/using its units to *counter* my manuevering.

RTW's AI is just plain brain dead in this regard.

---

BTW, Conquerer, you're my type of player!!

---

Luck!

[pezhetairoi]

I tried to judge my commander skills and the result is not very good. I'd like to see if you are better. Here are some questions:

1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?
2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?
3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?
4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?
5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?
6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worht it?
7 Do you try to get a superior position?
8 Do you ambush?
9 How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)
10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?
11 How much do you take the terrain into account? (Not only rivers)

1) Yes I do, and sometimes I have a clear plan before I start the game, when I'm still playing as another faction. I also drew a map to help me plan.
2) I choose my enemies. No one ever sneaks up on me.
3)I plan my attacks to the turn, but as you know all plans only last until the first arrow leaves the bow. Most of the campaign I fight after is based on opportunity and striking where the enemy is not.I always write a 'commander's intention' to clearly state to myself what my strategic goals and priorities are, and as long as my campaign accomplishes the commander's intention it doesn't matter what path I take to get there. I.e. my campaigns are really very broad-sense.
4) I take what I can get based on the basic parameters of my expectations of an army. But I'm flexible and use what I have, except when I'm creating armies from scratch. Alex the Great is my inspiration.
5) Most of the time I AM superior, not because I waited to be superior, but because my army > their army. I only willingly fight at a numerical disadvantage when I am defensive, or have a qualitative advantage. Needless to say at a qualitative AND numerical disadvantage with no mitigating factors like a river ford I withdraw.
6) Yes. But my favourite style is indirect warfare, striking where the enemy is not. I prefer to let my diplomats do the fighting, but I'm not on 1.2, so.
7) Only when I'm defending.
8) Tried a thousand times, but no army ever wants to be ambushed by me :(
9) My plan changes with the enemy's deployment. I begin with a masterplan but I adapt or switch accordingly based on situation. Flexibility is key, which can sometimes be ironic when you're playing with phalanxes.
10) Often, a lot. His starting position will define your deployments. Often I split my forces to tactically unsettle the enemy.
11) ...Almost never, except when I simply cannot ignore it, e.g. in the Alpine passes, e.g. in forests, e.g. at rivers.

[Somebody Else]

1. Not really, I just see what happens.
2. Initially, I invade whomever is nearest that I can get some decent money provinces off. Then, whomever tries anything on me gets squashed.
3. Not really - my invasions generally consist of a single strong stack, that goes from town to town - I ignore enemy armies unless they're in my way. If they attack me, I'll defend myself.
4. Invasion armies I generally select - trying to have tough units that can be easily replenished, with a few elites perhaps to give me that extra edge. Defending, I generally get together whatever's nearby, though I generally have an invasion style army nearby anyway - preparing to invade.
5. I'm always superior. Remember that.
6. Since when is victory not worth it? Though, as I said earlier - I don't tend to fight unless there's something in the way en-route to an enemy settlement.
7. Why wouldn't I?
8. Only if opportunity arises - don't need to though, with the general ineptitude of the A.I.
9. Depends on what I've brought to the field. Though, I do like shooting them own with archers, artillery etc. Don't like losing men.
10. I generally try to get myself in a position such that I can come downhill at them (well, actually, in a position such that they'll have to come uphill at me when I start showering them with arrows and things).
11. If it's there, why not use it?

[pezhetairoi]

5. I'm always superior. Remember that.

I like that attitude! :-P

[Megas Alexandros]

1.) Yes, every time. Sometimes only to conquer everything, sometimes only to have fun
2.) I always have a plan of conquest, (this is why I never ally with anyone if I play big) but happens that some weakling would backstab me. Then I produce an other army and conquer them a bit earlier.
3.) Always.
4.) More or less. At least 2/3 of my army is intentionally drilled together.
5.) I am always superior.
6.) I fight when I wish to. So, yes. (sometimes the battle's only goal is to massacre the enemy, weaken their ranks, not the actual victory)
7.) I not just try, I do it all the time.
8.) Never. Maybe one or two times in a campaign.
9.) 3 main ones, but altogether infinite. Of course, different situations need different plans, but I have always 3 main tactics for each battle.
10.) Usually this is only a minor and far from decisive factor in battles. Funny, but I always lure the enemy out of his positions.
11.) A major factor. Fighting uphill is more difficult; though I keep smiling when an impetous downhill-charge of the enemy general's cavalry unit ends up breaking through (ooh... I did that? ) my 2 or 3 men thick front line and ends up surrounded in an ocean of spears.

[PseRamesses]

I tried to judge my commander skills and the result is not very good. I'd like to see if you are better.

1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?
Yes and I´m also a hardcore roleplayer in all my games.
2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?
As much as I can. But up to a certain point you´ll get attacked from all sides by all neighbours, after all it´s a total war game.
3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?
Yes. First agents moves in. Secondly my campaign general moves in for the primary target while thirdly my support commanders blocks passes, bridges and other strategic positions with reinforcements.
4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?
Yes. Usually 10 inf, 6 missile and 4 cavs.
5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?
No. RTW is so easy that I can be outnumbered 5:1 and still know that I´ll win.
6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worht it?
No strat here. A human player can outplay the AI at any time so this Q never comes into my mind.
7 Do you try to get a superior position?
If you mean on the battlefield, yes.
8 Do you ambush?
It´s automated so I guess yes.
9 How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)
One main and one alternative and it depends on which faction I´m playing against. Can´t apply my "Roman-big-crunch" on the Scythians or Parthians, he he!
10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?
None. I always take the conflict to my enemies backyard.
11 How much do you take the terrain into account?
Although it doesn´t matter much in RTW (its to easy) I always try to make real life decisions on the battlefield. Always take heighs, always charge downhill with inf, never use cavs in woods etc etc.

[Ciaran]

1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?
No, since no plan survives contact with the enemy. Improvisation is the real talent.
2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?
By and large, I´m the one initiating wars
3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?
No, see question one.
4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?
I try and keep a balanced structure
5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?
Define superior. I start if I´ve got the feeling I can win.
6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worht it?
What victory is not worth it? And if it´s only the reduced enemy forces that are not able to fall in my back.
7 Do you try to get a superior position?
If possible
8 Do you ambush?
I´ve yet to figure out how to do that.
9 How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)
Maneuvres are selected on opportunity
10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?
As much as possible
11 How much do you take the terrain into account? (Not only rivers)
Again, as much as possible.

[Taurus]

I tried to judge my commander skills and the result is not very good. I'd like to see if you are better. Here are some questions:

1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?
2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?
3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?
4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?
5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?
6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worht it?
7 Do you try to get a superior position?
8 Do you ambush?
9 How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)
10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?
11 How much do you take the terrain into account? (Not only rivers)

1) Yes, I plan what I am going to do and I do everything in my power to do it.
2) Usually I choose my enemies but the occasional backstabber always slips through
3) Yes, I plan what cities I am going to take and in which order etc.
4) I get my army to my liking from all of the available units at hand.
5) No, I fight most if not all of my battles.
6) No, I fight most if not all of my battles.
7) Yes, I always look for an advantage.
8) Sometimes, when I can.
9) I have a reletivily similiar battle plan for all of the battles before they even start then I just adapt it for the situation.
10) I don't really.
11) A lot, a always try to gain a terrain advantage such as on a hill etc.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I play mostly MP, so that change a bit my point of view on this

1 Do you have a clear plan when you start a new game?

A new game is a battle.
Well, yes and no... If I play with clannie on a map I know, we sure got a clear idea of what kind of position/ landmark we want to get. On the other hand, fellow human players known as opponent will also have an idea. Sometimes they make big mistake, and you just jump on the opportunity to kill them, whatever you had in mind before.

I have played SP a bit too... In battles with equal forces, many humans are much worse than the AI...

2 Do you usually choose your enemies or do they choose you?

A bit of both It's MP!

3 When you invade another country do you have a detailed plan (schedule, coordination of different fractions of your army)?

Non relevant...

4 Do you select the composition of your army carefully or just take what you can get?

Yes, very much so. MP is nice in the sense you can build a nice army, without the ragtag whatever you get feeling there is in SP. If you want an army with 4 hastatii, 4 principes, 4 triarii, some velites and equites, you can, and it's fairly easy. The major issue here is balance, and as that is completly screwed up, that advantage of MP over SP is blown to parts

If you play with friends and agree on an army before hands, then it's really nice

5 Do you start battles only if you are superior?

Everyone starts with the same amount of denarii to start with, so no superiority involved.

From the few games I played in SP, I really don't know why you should start if you are superior. As long as you got cavalry, or really anything, you shall start the battles...

6 Do you start battles only if the victory is worht it?

Worth it is a relative concept in MP.

7 Do you try to get a superior position?

Yes, very much so. The impact on missile efficiency is huge. Height helps, or if outshot, forest helps. Most MPers will look for even very small hills to get anything they can out of it.

Superior position is also trying to get a position where, for example, you would split ennemy armies for teamplay, or being allow to double one.


8 Do you ambush?

Not a MP feature... In my few SP games, I don't.

9 How many different tactical masterplans do you have in battles (like flanking with cav ...)

Kind of depends on the army I am playing. MP, with the additional dimension of teamplay increase quite a lot the variety of plans you can use.

10 How much do you respond to the enemies starting position?

Very much so.

11 How much do you take the terrain into account? (Not only rivers)

Quite a lot, see above.

I think quite a lot is missing in terms of skill, as far as battle awareness goes for example... Good players don't need to see their units to move them around; they know where they are.
How often do you get good match up/ bad matchup?
If you have missile/ missile superiority, can you actually use it or do you let AI rush you? (how much kills out of it without harm for you)

And so on...

Louis,