Golden Horde!

[Deus ret.]

EDITED: if I understand the term, it is a victory for which you had many LESS (that's the edit) casualties than your foe .

A Pyrrhic victory has its name after king Pyrrhus of Epirus who fought against the Romans in Southern Italy at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. He managed to inflict several defeats on the already renowned Roman army, but his own losses were so catastrophic that he allegedly remarked himself: "One more such victory, and we are done for." Thus, a Pyrrhic victory is one in which the enemy has been beaten, yes, but at a horrible and strategically significant cost.

[Caerfanan]

A Pyrrhic victory has its name after king Pyrrhus of Epirus who fought against the Romans in Southern Italy at the beginning of the 3rd century BC. He managed to inflict several defeats on the already renowned Roman army, but his own losses were so catastrophic that he allegedly remarked himself: "One more such victory, and we are done for." Thus, a Pyrrhic victory is one in which the enemy has been beaten, yes, but at a horrible and strategically significant cost.

Thanks Deus Ret! Now, I Know!!!

[EatYerGreens]

In general conversation, the terms "Pyrrhic victory" and "hollow victory" are taken to be equivalent - summed up as "winning the battle but losing the war".

In politics, for instance, it could be that group A wins a particular battle of rhetoric against group B but this does nothing to change their overall standing in the greater scheme of things. Such as where group B are the currently elected people in power and group A are the opposition. If the rhetorical argument itself does not succeed in swaying the electorate at the next election, then winning it achieved little.

This aspect of actually being set back by the victory itself is new to me (so I'm glad Deus Ret answered before I did, his knowledge of the history being more thourough than mine) and, when people use the phrase "Pyrrhic victory", they probably don't intend this part of the meaning. Just the part about a victory which had no long-term significance.

[EatYerGreens]

First, great to have you back EYG. Your opinion was and is very respected around here.

Hi Phill. Glad to be back, thanks.


Actually, I must admit that I'm just as much of a turtle-er and equally as protective of my holdings as yourself. I'm still kicking myself for letting go of Burgundy without a fight, a few sessions ago and it now has 8 stacks of HRE in it, pinning me in four, understaffed, provinces. That'll teach me. <g> (This isn't even a mod, either!)

The thing is, I'm even more cautious of the fact that, if I fall back AND have lost a big chunk of what was defending the lost province, then I'm at immediate risk of losing the next one in line as well, not to mention more time and expense in recruiting replacements and the take-back force. Perhaps I'm forgetting that the whole point of the sieges is to stop excessively rapid expansions of this kind?

The truth is, my footsoldiers will never hear me say those words as they are just made up of 1's and 0's. MTW is a game and so is supposed to be fun (not a responsibility of some sort). IMO, a challenge and successfully dealing with this challenge is the biggest source of this fun.

I find that a certain level of 'role-play' actually adds to the immersion factor. I still realise that it's only a game and still have fun but I'm probably more of a fantasist than most and the 'responsibility' is part and parcel of that.

There may even have been some double meaning in what I was saying in that post. I probably had the TV on in the background while I was typing and one ear was subconsciously taking in news about Iraq...

[General Dazza]

If I know I'm going to lose a battle, most of the time I'll retreat to the stronghold so I can attack next turn in greater numbers and not lose any improvements. But if I'm on the back foot against an enemy and need every man, I might 'fall back' to pool my forces in a province further back.

Last night I had a tricky scenario while fighting the Spanish as the HRE. I attacked them in Anjou where their main force was. Their strength suprised me though and I got walloped . That turn they created a crusade in Brittany (iirc) - I pulled all my troops out of Normandy to avoid them getting rounded up, so they then strolled in and my 200 leftovers retreated to the castle.

The next turn I've attacked Anjou and imposed a Pyrrhic victory on them - they held on but lost 880 against my 80. With those losses and with the men they've lost to their own crusade, I should now be able to take back Normandy and take Anjou too... The only sad thing is that I might lose those sacrificial lambs in the Normandy castle if I can't get there this turn due to crusade evasion

[caravel]

I think that what EYG was getting at here, was that a pyrrhic victory, that is a victorious battle when you're losing the war is often not worth it. Retreating to the castle or even abandoning the province can be a better move, allowing your forces to regroup, come back and hit the enemy hard another day. This all depends on the situation of course and a desperate slast stand is not always a matter of choice, it is more so a matter of necessity.

A tactical victory, that is a victory whereby you lose the battle but seriously damage the enemy in the process inflicting many more losses on them than they inflict on your forces, can be a very viable strategy, but the MTW game engine doesn't allow for it.

For me, I don't observe Sun Tzu's art of war, when playing Medieval battles. When playing Shogun I do try to stick to it. With Medieval (engaging in a bit of role play here!) I try to put myself in the position of a King, Sultan, Khalifa, Khan or Emperor. These people are not often totally in touch with the man on the ground. They make decisions based on things such as wealth, religion, precieved slights or grievances. So both on the campaign map and within battles I observe this type of strategy. As a Catholic faction, I tend to be much more rash and "chivalrous", often taking risks. I will fight out many last stands, and take on those risky attacks. As the Muslims and Orthodox I opt for a much more methodical approach, only attacking when ready and not overstretching too much.

[Noir]

Originally posted by Caravel
A tactical victory, that is a victory whereby you lose the battle but seriously damage the enemy in the process inflicting many more losses on them than they inflict on your forces, can be a very viable strategy, but the MTW game engine doesn't allow for it.

I think that part of the problem is found on the way the logistic/financial model of the game works in the vanilla version as well as in various mods.

To explain my self, it is far too easy to:

1.Conquer a province without creating too much contempt in the people for the change in leadership (low rebelliousness)
2.Conquer a province without creating contempt in the people for the change in religion (as religion change rates are very high IMO)
3.The absence of home provinces (even in the mods that this is provided they are generally more than 10 provinces per faction, be it empires like HRE or Byzantium or smaller kingdoms)
4.The very high margin of profits that can be made of naval trade. I made some experiments on that, and my results show that even with boat maintenance set to 4droupled almost all factions that have access to naval trade routes can still make decent profits.
5.The fact that the main trade routes are not separated by deep sea regions. Thus if someone starts dominatingthe seas and the trade its nigh to impossible to alter the situation.
6.The heavy maintenance cost of bodyguard units that the Ai factions cannot balance since they cannot disband and they get them without their will.

All these lead to the very first 30-40 challenging turns and subsequently, once you conquer your local opponent the game is blown out of proportion: rich factions get much richer and poor factions get eliminated. To keep up, the player is forced to expand as much as he/she can in order to avoid fighting with a superempire forming somewhere ie he tries to be himself superempire (20 provinces +).

This has a detrimental effect on battle gameplay as you are either forced to fight against superior troops and numbers or with superior troops and numbers. Conversely you either win or lose on the logistics past the early stage as much (if not more) that you win or lose on the battlefield.

Tactical victories like the one described in Caravel's post matter little if the opponents or yourself can top up losses in no time or if they cannot top up at all.

The Horde however is an exceptional case as it packs a huge punch till it is exausted and later on its not even half as dangerous as that.

There are ways to balance out the game in those terms by fiddling with certain values, but i am not sure how popular these will be among players who wish to conquer half the map eventually.

The limiting number of provinces also contributes to reducing tactical victories of this sort - Conquering Denmark amounts to taking a single province out that can be done very quickly as the vanilla game and most mods currently stand.

[Deus ret.]

You mentioned some good points, although I don't quite agree with all of them.

This has a detrimental effect on battle gameplay as you are either forced to fight against superior troops and numbers or with superior troops and numbers. Conversely you either win or lose on the logistics past the early stage as much (if not more) that you win or lose on the battlefield.

Of course the situation doesn't stay like in the early stages for most of the game - that's because it evolves. As empires grow, other factors have to be taken in, you already mentioned logistics as one of the most important. Well - why not? The action on the battlefield remains pretty decisive as well. Besides, shifting the focus away from the pivotal battles in the early stages of a campaign (where almost every battle is such a pivotal one) may add more value to the game for players who usually aren't that great on the tactical map - like myself - and instead are more skilled in marshalling other than the immediate military aspects of the game.

In addition, the later stages of a campaign most often are exactly the ones where you can decide most freely what kind of battle you'd like to fight - whether you want to overpower your opponent as you described or you don't bring everything you have in order to make the battle more tantalizing. Of course, provided your position is more or less secure, but that's something I definitely like about MTW: Its ability to initiate a compete wrap-around on the strategic map even far into the game. In RTW (and most other strat games), empires never collapse on their own, instead they have to be ground into the dust stack by stack, city by city. MTW has civil wars and reappearances which may cause serious trouble to an already more than well-established empire, turning the time back if you want. The Horde also is such a device in its essence, "rejuvenating" and shaking up part of the map upon its arrival.

Edit: Oh my, I suppose this was completely off-topic....sorry!

[Noir]

To start with, thanks for disagreeing, i can only wonder how boring everything would be if we'd all agree on everything. In any case this is the way i enjoy the game better and it doesn't have to please everyone else as well.

Originally posted by Deus ret.

Of course the situation doesn't stay like in the early stages for most of the game - that's because it evolves. As empires grow, other factors have to be taken in, you already mentioned logistics as one of the most important. Well - why not? The action on the battlefield remains pretty decisive as well.

In addition, the later stages of a campaign most often are exactly the ones where you can decide most freely what kind of battle you'd like to fight - whether you want to overpower your opponent as you described or you don't bring everything you have in order to make the battle more tantalizing.

Because as you say you can choose your fights, this actually means that you are in a position of strength and thus you can do so. Loss is a very unlikely option once that stage is reached. You are stable as a rock and sooner or later bound to deny anyone. At that point the game loses interest for me which is why i play a personal - let's say alteration - of MedMod IV which incorporates the features i mention above.

This came as a result of campaigns i played some time ago now in which i've let the AI to control all builds and taxes and i was just managing troops and agents i was given and getting on the battlefield. I had the chance to observe first hand how and why the AI is "digging his grave" if you like, and what can be done to provide a more competitive course of development for him, without turning him into a superempire that gulps down the remains of everyone else.

The result was a situation that reaches the middle game - that is you can get well established (about 10 provinces) but much slower than in every other version of the game i've played, but you can just as easily slide down from that point resulting to lost battles, much like in the early game.

The late phase is almost denied as the other factions fill up their resources almost always at a reasonable pace remaining competive and dangerous at almost all times resulting in a constant war making of forces of equal magnitude over vital trade routes and provinces. Establishing survival is counted as success and most factions either stay to the end or reappear repeatedly.

Strict home provinces and relaying of the trade routes also help with that.

Reappearances, rebelions and civil wars happen much more often as i've incresed the rebelliousness and decreased loyalties and the conversion rates: it now takes about 30 turns to get an ex Muslim province to 60% catholic with a bunch of priests, in my alteration. In those you are bound to get a religious saracen army or two at your door.

I have quit playing RTW after almost a year and a half of playing various mods and i don't plan to play it again - for me the MTW/STW map/engine is more than satisfactory.

Please accept my apologies too as this is as OT as the above i guess

[General Dazza]

All these lead to the very first 30-40 challenging turns and subsequently, once you conquer your local opponent the game is blown out of proportion: rich factions get much richer and poor factions get eliminated.

This for me is what makes the difference between a strategy game and a great strategy game - how it handles this inherent challenge.

I'm not sure if everyone here remembers the 80s and the first computer games well, but I remember playing this game that, at the time, blew my mind. It was 20 white dots on a black screen with numbers next to them. The numbers were the number of troops you had, and one of the dots was your planet. The goal was to take over the universe (the other 19 dots). It was brilliant because I hadn't seen anything like that before.

But it had the same challenge as every other strategy game I've seen since - how does it maintain gameplay once the human gets to the point Noir described above.

IMO MTW does this better than anything I've played. Reappearances, rebellions, civil wars and the likelihood of another superpower maintain the gameplay for quite a while. Also, there's enough value in the diplomacy side to make it more than just pushing numbers around the screen.

And this IMO is what makes it the best strategy I've played - there's enough flexibility for you to be able to play a wide range of game styles depending on your idea of gameplay. And by and large it's comparitively very well balanced. Most problems I've seen in MTW can be overcome by self-imposed rules. Now I'll also apologise for my part in taking this further OT.

[Caerfanan]

Not even mentioning the thril of a battle when you face an army of better troops and now that it's possible, with very god tactics, to win this batle and change the issue of the campaign, by provocating a civil war or something similar: I'm not sure, but loosing a battle when you had the numbers, the iron and the quality costs you a lot. I did throw a great enemy into civil war thanks to two battles only, and on the campaign map, I could've been seen as the looser (less money, less troops, but approximately the same quality)

[caravel]

6.The heavy maintenance cost of bodyguard units that the Ai factions cannot balance since they cannot disband and they get them without their will.

A crippler for the small and poor income factions. There is nothing worse than struggling to boost your income only to see an heir come of age the next year and wipe it all out again. For the player it's an annoyance at best, for the AI it's a killer. This is why you see bankrupted Danes and Aragonese.

The solution would be to have very low support costs for bodyguard units. This would work well for the Catholic and Muslim factions but would soup up the Byzantines and Russians/Novgorod somewhat. The answer to this would be to make "Royal" Boyars, "Royal" Sipahi of the Porte and "Royal" Kataphraktoi in smaller 20 man units (possibly scalable to improve game balance and survivability on the larger units size settings) also with the low support costs. These would be non retrainable, raising extra units or retraining them would be impossible. The AI doesn't retrain it's bodyguard units, so the player shouldn't be able to either.

Not even mentioning the thril of a battle when you face an army of better troops and now that it's possible, with very god tactics, to win this batle and change the issue of the campaign, by provocating a civil war or something similar: I'm not sure, but loosing a battle when you had the numbers, the iron and the quality costs you a lot. I did throw a great enemy into civil war thanks to two battles only, and on the campaign map, I could've been seen as the looser (less money, less troops, but approximately the same quality)

Troop losses effect loyalty within the army (generals). If you win a battle but lose thousands more men than the AI, and your faction leader is not the most influential of men, then civil war is possible.

[Caerfanan]

Troop losses effect loyalty within the army (generals). If you win a battle but lose thousands more men than the AI, and your faction leader is not the most influential of men, then civil war is possible.

Interesting. Do you know if it only affects the general, or the unit leaders (generals to be) as well? does it affect all your generals, or only the ones involved (or all but the ones involved)... I'll try to look at this closely when I start my next campaign!!! (I'm piling 125 things to look after...)

[Deus ret.]

Troop losses effect loyalty within the army (generals). If you win a battle but lose thousands more men than the AI, and your faction leader is not the most influential of men, then civil war is possible.

Are you sure? I thought what counted was the outcome of the battle - i.e. who wins and who loses, and not the margins involved therein.

If it is as you stated, the game would actually allow for indirect 'tactical victories': by killing off large amounts of enemy troops before retreating, the antagonist faction would plunge into civil war sooner or later despite winning almost all battles....would be quite weird but that's the way it would be!

Thinking about it, the gain in influence for all those territories acquired through this series of battles would probably outweigh the loss inflicted by Pyrrhic victories.

[Voivode of Romania]

The Golden Horde usually attack the provinces of Khazar, Volga-Bulgaria, and Georgia (when they first appear). Once, I was playing with the Russians (MTW1 on high period). I had built up armies of boyars, halbrediers, and steppe cavalry. When the GH first attacked, I sent an army about 4500 strong to Volg-Bulgaria.

Then, I sent an army of about 9000 cavalry (mostly boyars and steppe cavalry) to Khazar. Since they only had about 5000 Mongol cavalry in Khazar, it was fairly easy to win it.

That year they also attacked Georgia, but only a few thousand strong. It only took about 2500 infantry to win Georgia.

In about 2-3 years I had killed the Khan.

[General Dazza]

The Golden Horde usually attack the provinces of Khazar, Volga-Bulgaria, and Georgia (when they first appear). Once, I was playing with the Russians (MTW1 on high period). I had built up armies of boyars, halbrediers, and steppe cavalry. When the GH first attacked, I sent an army about 4500 strong to Volg-Bulgaria.

Then, I sent an army of about 9000 cavalry (mostly boyars and steppe cavalry) to Khazar. Since they only had about 5000 Mongol cavalry in Khazar, it was fairly easy to win it.

That year they also attacked Georgia, but only a few thousand strong. It only took about 2500 infantry to win Georgia.

In about 2-3 years I had killed the Khan.

My experience playing Russia and facing the Horde was a happy one too. I held the provinces in which they appeared, and when they did I consolidated the majority of my troops in, iirc, Georgia. I expected them to attack my less-defended provinces, but to my surprise/delight, they attacked Georgia. Not only that, but it was a bridge battle and I had archers/catapults to spare. Not only that - but they sent their king on a raid and he was surrounded and killed.

1 year - horde turned to rebels.

Next year they attacked as rebels. But this battle was not a bridge battle, and although heavily outnumbered I managed to wipe out most of their army. I used HA/steppe cav/boyar combos to good effect in drawing individual units out of the line and then destroying them.

[caravel]

The Golden Horde usually attack the provinces of Khazar, Volga-Bulgaria, and Georgia (when they first appear).

They can also appear in Armenia. In fact it can be a good thing to have them appear in Armenia and Khazar but not Georgia. If you can win the defence of Georgia outright to prevent them linking up with the main force in Khazar, the army will be cut off and offered in it's entirety for ransom. It is important to hold Georgia though because if that goes under siege, their armies can push onward to link up with the Armenian Horde and then spread out into your central provinces such as Rum and Syria, causing a lot of damage.

My experience playing Russia and facing the Horde was a happy one too. I held the provinces in which they appeared, and when they did I consolidated the majority of my troops in, iirc, Georgia. I expected them to attack my less-defended provinces, but to my surprise/delight, they attacked Georgia. Not only that, but it was a bridge battle and I had archers/catapults to spare. Not only that - but they sent their king on a raid and he was surrounded and killed.

1 year - horde turned to rebels.

Next year they attacked as rebels. But this battle was not a bridge battle, and although heavily outnumbered I managed to wipe out most of their army. I used HA/steppe cav/boyar combos to good effect in drawing individual units out of the line and then destroying them.

I'd say you're either mistaken about the province being Georgia or the battle being a bridge battle. There are no waterways between Georgia/Trebizond, Georgia/Armenia or Georgia/Khazar (where I assume the battle took place?).

Georgia is probably the best province to defend against the Khanate of the Golden Horde particularly when you're playing Byzantine, Egyptians or Turks and haven't yet expanded into the Steppes. The Horde will quite often go for Georgia regardless of the defensive garrison you have in place there.

[EatYerGreens]

I am curious about the effect that having custom MP maps (like "mappack3") installed on your system might have on the game.

The thing is, I can't find anything in the SetBorderInfo: entries which defines the "armies meeting here" message (as opposed to border-crossing), on the province info parchment, comes from.

Could it be that the game selects a map at random, on these occasions?

[caravel]

I am curious about the effect that having custom MP maps (like "mappack3") installed on your system might have on the game.

The thing is, I can't find anything in the SetBorderInfo: entries which defines the "armies meeting here" message (as opposed to border-crossing), on the province info parchment, comes from.

Could it be that the game selects a map at random, on these occasions?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'll have a shot at answering?

SetBorderInfo:: ID_AFRICA ID_TUNISIA 0 0 0 ROCK_DESERT AT_ISLAMIC INLAND HILLY NO_RIVER
SetBorderInfo:: ID_TUNISIA ID_AFRICA 0 0 0 SAND_DESERT AT_ISLAMIC INLAND FLAT NO_RIVER

This sets the type of terrain and the presence of any waterways for the border crossing. Armies attacking from the Sahara into Tunisia will encounter hills, armies attacking from the other direction will not.

To get your custom maps used they have to be named correctly. It is the naming of the map that gives it a chance of being selected by the game engine. I can't remember the exact naming convention for the maps, but the name generally signifies the type of terrain. Specific maps for provinces tend to be the castle maps only IIRC. You can't set a specific map for a particular border crossing.

[caravel]

Are you sure? I thought what counted was the outcome of the battle - i.e. who wins and who loses, and not the margins involved therein.

If it is as you stated, the game would actually allow for indirect 'tactical victories': by killing off large amounts of enemy troops before retreating, the antagonist faction would plunge into civil war sooner or later despite winning almost all battles....would be quite weird but that's the way it would be!

Thinking about it, the gain in influence for all those territories acquired through this series of battles would probably outweigh the loss inflicted by Pyrrhic victories.

Pretty much 99% certain. I've actually won battles a few times in the past where I've taken far more casualties than the enemy, as soon as the battle finished I was taken straight to the civil war parchment. The win usually counterbalances the effects. Also the provinces get upset by many troop losses. Happiness can plummet in such cases. It doesn't allow for a tactical victory of any kind, it allows for a kind of a pyrrhic victory whereby you lose but cause the enemy all kinds of problems.

[EatYerGreens]

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I'll have a shot at answering?

What I was getting at is that, in addition to the terrain being determined by which border you cross, there is also a terrain report when you hover your cursor over the centre of a province. It says "armies meeting here can expect to find the following terrain: ".

I take this to be the determining factor for battles caused by rebellions, re-emergences and civil wars.

I just can't work out where this property is set.


Similarly, there's nothing editable to set deep-sea regions. I've vague recollections that this was done by a colour-change on the LukMap.LBMs or something like that.

It would be interesting to learn that the land colours were also controlling aspects of land terrain (eg lush/arid/desert/steppe, hills, river etc.) but that's probably not the case.

[General Dazza]

I'd say you're either mistaken about the province being Georgia or the battle being a bridge battle. There are no waterways between Georgia/Trebizond, Georgia/Armenia or Georgia/Khazar (where I assume the battle took place?).

Probably am Caravel - I remember it was a bridge battle but am hazy on the exact whereabouts. I'm pretty sure it was next to where a province they appeared in, just not sure which one exactly.

[caravel]

What I was getting at is that, in addition to the terrain being determined by which border you cross, there is also a terrain report when you hover your cursor over the centre of a province. It says "armies meeting here can expect to find the following terrain: ".

I take this to be the determining factor for battles caused by rebellions, re-emergences and civil wars.

I just can't work out where this property is set.

It would be interesting to learn that the land colours were also controlling aspects of land terrain (eg lush/arid/desert/steppe, hills, river etc.) but that's probably not the case.

In the startpos file, set region attriubutes. It's like you say, the terrain for battles fought within the province, such as revolts.

Similarly, there's nothing editable to set deep-sea regions. I've vague recollections that this was done by a colour-change on the LukMap.LBMs or something like that.

I can't remember about this, I'll look into it later.

[Deus ret.]

I remember it was a bridge battle but am hazy on the exact whereabouts. I'm pretty sure it was next to where a province they appeared in, just not sure which one exactly.

Most likely it was the crossing from Khazar into Levidia...sorry Kiev (in vanilla MTW) where there is a bridge. Excellent spot for stopping the horde

[EatYerGreens]

In the startpos file, set region attriubutes. It's like you say, the terrain for battles fought within the province, such as revolts.

Gah! Staring me in the face, it was. As usual...

I can't remember about this, I'll look into it later.

I did download the LukMap editor, many moons ago but I don't think I've ever got around to using it. Not much cause to either (yet). Anyway, if I stopped to check the ReadMe, that was probably where I got this from.

There is also a very substantial forum thread about this program, so I might have seen it in there. I can find it again, if I ever need it, so only go chasing after it if it would be useful to you, personally.

Someone had the bright idea of locking off the Med by making the straits of Gibraltar deep sea (I forget which mod). That deprives the Med factions of two ports and access to the "escape zone" of Atlantic Coast (where you can park your fleets, in order to bring naval-only wars to an end).

For that reason, I'd rather switch Gulf of Cadiz to deep-sea mode, since there's no port there.

[General Dazza]

Most likely it was the crossing from Khazar into Levidia...sorry Kiev (in vanilla MTW) where there is a bridge. Excellent spot for stopping the horde

Just checked a map I have and I'm pretty sure it was Kiev (was a vanilla game). I couldn't believe my luck - they could have attacked me in a number of provinces but they chose that one!

Thanks Deus ret. - and yes it is an excellent spot. Always makes it easier when they try to send their tens of thousands of rampaging horde through the eye of a needle and into a wall of spears and arrows.

[Caliburn]

About the Horde appearing in Khazar and Armenia.

As the Turks and the Egyptians, I usually have Armenia as my main cavalry producing region because of the +1 valour. So, when the Horde appears, they often have their cavalry upgraded to the gold level, not to mention churches giving morale bonuses, which makes things more interesting. Of course a lot of the troops facing are the same quality as yours, but probably not too many anyway.

I used to do the same with Khazar (with Byzantines) for the Steppe and Steppe Heavy Cavalry.

There are two sides to this:

1.) the initial battles tend to be much more interesting, if you don't have Arbalests - Golden Golden Horde Horse Archers aren't too easily countered with missiles.

2.) It's always painful to lose a well developed province, especially if it's a money-churning one like Khazar.

So, it can be a great thing if you want a bit more challenge, but it also might turn monotonous. Breaking the HA with +3 (from the churches) and +5 (or something like it? from VH difficulty) morale bonuses for the fifth time on the sixth battle might start to feel like work - not as annoying as doing the same to peasants, though. Using bridges will of course stop all this pretty quickly.

I guess this is quice a common way to give the Golden Horde an edge.

[Glyndwr in the Soke]

Just playing a campaign as Egypt, and it is 1229, so the balloon is about to go up. I have the Turks sitting in Khazar, Volga-Bulgaria and Georgia, but am a bit worried about Armenia, which I grabbed for the AHC. My main provinces outside Asia Minor are Kiev, the Crimea, and everything beyond that, plus Irkutsk, which I took to teach a Christian neighbour a lesson, and to fool around with Jihads.

Since I am not too familiar with the details: What would happen if the GH took the Crimea and then went for Kiev? Or is the AI not able to execute such a side-step?

Now, the GH battles are battles where I guess the timer could play a role, since I have had them come on and on at me in Khazar before. But IMO even when it timed out, I felt like a deserving winner, since I had withstood wave after wave after wave of attacks, with not only the aforementioned units, but also SHC (will have to check that in my current campaign). After having butchered the entire first wave of GHHC and the complete second of assorted heavy hitters, and weathered the arrow storm from the foot soldiers in the 3rd (I basically had formed a battle line in a large patch of forest with four units of "enforcers" doing the killing under the trees), and this whole business lasting for more than an hour in real time, it just had to be enough. Think about it: If you were a horde, and half of your guys just got slaughtered in a battle with the enemy still very much ensconced in his position, would you not call it a day?
And I am also married, so it is good to keep the peace.

[caravel]

Just playing a campaign as Egypt, and it is 1229, so the balloon is about to go up. I have the Turks sitting in Khazar, Volga-Bulgaria and Georgia, but am a bit worried about Armenia, which I grabbed for the AHC. My main provinces outside Asia Minor are Kiev, the Crimea, and everything beyond that, plus Irkutsk, which I took to teach a Christian neighbour a lesson, and to fool around with Jihads.

Since I am not too familiar with the details: What would happen if the GH took the Crimea and then went for Kiev? Or is the AI not able to execute such a side-step?

I'm not sure if you're playing the modded or vanilla game, but if a province borders another province is can be invaded directly, otherwise not unless it is a coastal province, in which case a seaborne invasion may be possible.

Now, the GH battles are battles where I guess the timer could play a role, since I have had them come on and on at me in Khazar before. But IMO even when it timed out, I felt like a deserving winner, since I had withstood wave after wave after wave of attacks, with not only the aforementioned units, but also SHC (will have to check that in my current campaign). After having butchered the entire first wave of GHHC and the complete second of assorted heavy hitters, and weathered the arrow storm from the foot soldiers in the 3rd (I basically had formed a battle line in a large patch of forest with four units of "enforcers" doing the killing under the trees), and this whole business lasting for more than an hour in real time, it just had to be enough. Think about it: If you were a horde, and half of your guys just got slaughtered in a battle with the enemy still very much ensconced in his position, would you not call it a day?
And I am also married, so it is good to keep the peace.

I can see your point with the timer, but even with the timer I sometimes find the battles to be either too long or not long enough. Too long when my men have been holding out for ages are completely exhausted but have slaughtered many of the enemy, yet cannot hope to hold on for any longer. Not long enough, when my forces are massacring the enemy and hunting them off the field in droves, yet the time has run out robbing me of extra kills and prisoners. So all in all I just keep it disabled and if I don't have the time to play a battle I save the game and come back to it later or if it's getting late and I've won one or more big battles but been presented with yet another, I will save it, autocalc it, and save it again from the menu and exit just to be sure. In the past I once won 3 consecutive "epic" battles against the horde then quicksaved before the 4th battle and exited the game. The next day I was faced with a corrupted save and those 3 battles and a lot of progress wasted.

[Glyndwr in the Soke]

I'm not sure if you're playing the modded or vanilla game, but if a province borders another province is can be invaded directly, otherwise not unless it is a coastal province, in which case a seaborne invasion may be possible.

The next day I was faced with a corrupted save and those 3 battles and a lot of progress wasted.

a) Standard MTW/VI, no mod. My Question was: What are the experiences of ppl in the know? Does the GH actually go sideways into Kiev or attack directly? Seaborne? The Horde? You kiddin' me? I have seen a Horde ship before, I believe, but maybe it is just a figment of my imagination. But anyway, I am ruling from sea to shining sea, as far as navies are concerned, even though those new-fangled cogs of the Frenchies and Germans are giving me a bit of grief, now and then.

b) I have had several corrupted saves with the Quicksave function, so I do not bother any more.