Poll: Do you fortify the eastern provinces solely in anticipation of the Mongols?

Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Realistic Playing...

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Realistic Playing...

    Do you play Total War realistically? For instance, when the Mongols invade and you hold territory in the east. Do you unrealistically garrison high numbers of troops in those provinces? Or do you wait until they actually get there to try to save your territory, understanding that in real life, you wouldn't have known?

    I suppose this could be taken to the extreme, with you only leading armies personally when your king was leading them, but that would be boring.

    So what do you think? Realism and role-playing? Or slight powergaming?

  2. #2
    Villiage Idiot Member antisocialmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ゞ( ゚Д゚)ゞ
    Posts
    5,974

    Default Re: Realistic Playing...

    Total War? Realism? Bah!
    Fighting isn't about winning, it's about depriving your enemy of all options except to lose.



    "Hi, Billy Mays Here!" 1958-2009

  3. #3

    Default Re: Realistic Playing...

    Total War? Realism? Bah!
    I understand that Total War is not realistic (for instance, the fact that you could levy an infinite number of military units from one province with no population consequences; simply because population does not exist). But what I mean is the player, you, actively attempting to play as realistically as possible while still maintaining your level of entertainment at a reasonable level.

  4. #4
    Wojewoda Pruski Member Loucipher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Province of Prussia
    Posts
    159

    Default Re: Realistic Playing...

    I tend not to overdo the provinces which will be attacked by Mongols - even if it's my territory.
    Other than believing that no ruler would have known that they were coming at that date, I thoroughly enjoy the challenge of actually having them on board and dealing with them as a self-sufficient faction. With enough troops, you can just block the Horde as it arrives - kill as many as you like and put others to the sword. But where's a challenge in that?
    Loucipher
    Chancellor of the Void
    The Ninth Ring of Hell

    "Vexilla regis prodeunt inferni
    verso di noi; però dinanzi mira",
    disse 'l maestro mio "se tu 'l discerni".

    Dante Alighieri, La divina commedia, Canto XXXIV, 1-3

  5. #5

    Default Re: Realistic Playing...

    Yep, i agree with that bro.

    Horde is very interesting opponent, and their units are very good. So, it is challenge not a threat.

    I crushed them couple of times (mainly in Khazar), but recently, i pull back my armies, and defend only most provitable steppe provinces and rarely take the famous Khazar, where horde usualy arrives. Much fun in future, playing my favourite cavalry battles in very flat steppes!

    But history to AI is pure abstraction. Even when playing on GA goals, AI dont bother with them, and usualy heading to total domination. Some major changes in AI behaviour are definitely needed.
    "Only the dead have seen the end of war"

  6. #6
    Camel Lord Senior Member Capture The Flag Champion Martok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    In my own little world....but it's okay, they know me there.
    Posts
    8,257

    Default Re: Realistic Playing...

    It depends. I actually feel that keeping at least moderate garrisons in my eastern provinces is fairly realistic regardless of whether the Mongols' arrival is imminent or not.

    I say this because the Golden Horde were the not the only steppe peoples to attack out of the East. Ask the Byzantines, the people of Novgorod, the Kievans....they all dealt with barbarian tribes raiding and attacking throughout a lot of their history. Therefore it's not unreasonable that they would've maintained a certain military presence in order to discourage and/or drive off said invaders--long before the Mongols ever showed up on the scene. So in my opinion, I have a perfectly valid reason for stationing troops in my eastern lands.

    That said, I try very hard to not go overboard. I don't make a habit of always deploying 20,000 men in and around Khazar, or anything like that. It's true that I often have a good-sized army just over in Georgia, but that's just because it's a "chokepoint" province (and would therefore have a powerful army stationed there anyway). As for any steppe provinces under my control, I station modest garrisons of 300-500 men, depending on my needs and capabilities.
    "MTW is not a game, it's a way of life." -- drone

  7. #7
    imaginary Member Weebeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tranquility Lane
    Posts
    530

    Default Re: Realistic Playing...

    I thought the more troops you put in there the more Mongols will come?

    No, I don't build up for the Mongols. Well, I never get to invade Khazar before they arrive. The only eastern factions I've played are Poland, Lithuania and Teutonic Order. I don't necessarily need Khazar and its neighbors. I usually raze Lesser-Khazar once I beat Cuman but keep Levidia (I need some beaches). When I'm playing Egypt, Turk or Byzantine, I stop at Georgia. I don't know why, I just don't feel like climbing those mountains in the north.

    I usually have cold-wars with some kingdoms so there's always a major build-up in my kingdom. I like to stay cool in the beginning - getting to know those princesses of neighboring countries. However, my 'build-up' elsewhere usually goes to the east when they arrive. I'm just doing my part of being a europe citizen. They seem to have trouble honoring peace. It's quite fun actually to let them 'grow' in the beginning. It makes me feel more invaded more.
    Last edited by Weebeast; 02-28-2006 at 10:12.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO