Strategically, HOW do you play the slow game

**katank** · 01-01-2007, 22:04

You know that you can choose to play on after victory, right? That means you don't have let the faction just sit there while you take territories that are further off just to play longer.

**Tristrem** · 01-01-2007, 22:15

no ! didn't know that, thanks for telling me. You learn something new every day.

**Razor1952** · 01-02-2007, 00:01

Napoleon said an army marches on its belly, some greek said the sinews of war are infinite money. So below tips generally are aimed at maximizing money so cities and armies can be made most efficient.

So building a bullet proof economy is paramount and goal #1, concentrate on merchants wharfs and highways in particular.

Paying for troops which sit aound and do nothing is probably the most expansive mistake you can make. So gaol #2 is not training too many troops.

#3 Sacking cities is the most profitable.

#4. If everyone attacks you , Loose a province you have sacked and which has too many borders(ie strategically difficult to defend), you'll find the ai much less aggressive then. Conversely try to mould an empire with few borders.

#5.Bribe the Pope( usually 500x10 will give excellent results) or if excommed send your king on a suicide mission to get reconciled , easier than assasination

#6 Most generals produce less money in a city and hence are generally better used only for fighting, if they die they are usually easily replaced ( you get offers)and make great front line troops. So keep them out of your cities unless desperate to control.

#7 Moove your capitol to produce best income(look at financial details, use auto-tax and try several cities near the middle of your empire)

#8 Send those merchants to timbucktoo!

**The Stranger** · 01-02-2007, 01:02

why should you move your capitol to the best income-based city? you don't get a bonus at your capitol... do you?

**katank** · 01-02-2007, 01:22

I think he means experiment with capitol location so that corruption is minimized across your empire, meaning higher total income.

Hence, geographically central capitals are great. Note: you get a public order bonus for your capital. Thus, if several cities are close in terms of minimizing corruption etc., make your capital the largest city among those (where the public order bonus is likely to help the most -> more taxes).

**The Stranger** · 01-02-2007, 01:24

yeah... i know that they should be centralized for loyalty and such... didnt know it mattered for corruption...

**katank** · 01-02-2007, 01:28

It does. If you conquered 1/2 of Europe as England and yet never moved your capital from London for example, you could be missing out on a healthy chunk of income.

**dopp** · 01-02-2007, 05:55

Originally Posted by Razor1952

So gaol #2 is not training too many troops.

No. The AI makes invasion decisions based on:

1. Strength of your 'frontline' troops (those manning the border).
2. Strength of your 'reserve' troops (those sitting further back ready to respond to any incursion.
3. Production capacity of your empire compared to theirs (how many units you crank out in a turn).

Having a weak frontline invites those 1-2 unit stack sieges on your cities. Weak reserves invites an invasion. Having a 'weak' production rate invites a massive buildup of AI troops, followed by an invasion. This last factor is tricky because apparently your production rating is based on how many units you produce a turn. I hardly produce anything once my garrisons and field armies are at full strength, so the AI usually thinks I'm weak.

So if you only have minimal garrisons and skimp on the troops, expect more raids and outright invasions by the AI. Being peaceable doesn't pay. Parking a full stack or two of elite troops right on each border with another stack in reserve can sometimes deter the AI from rash decisions. It also allows YOU to grab some new real estate across the border should the opportunity present itself.

**Razor1952** · 01-02-2007, 06:37

"So gaol #2 is not training too many troops."

I guess I should have qualified this, but I stated it rather from an economic point of view, particularly so you don't leave expensive to maintain troops in other than frontline positions. I also use a lot of spies and basically know how much defense I'll need, not only does that hurt order in the ai cities it allows me to sa ve considerable $'s. But I take your points regarding ai's and their inclination to attack.

On the flip side of that i like the desperate defense scenario with a few troops. I 'taunt' the ai if you like to attack and get whipped.

eg. I defended with a few spears and crossbows against an attack of one dismounted knight stack/several feudal knights/general and was able to delay the ram's attack long enough for it to be destroyed by a suicide foray of spears, so the attack failed.

" So goal #2 is training just enough troops to do the job required" would I guess be better put.

**katank** · 01-02-2007, 16:24

Deterrence is too expensive. Maintain a "weak" front and then smash and grab when they strike. Then again, that's not exactly the slow game.

Playing slow is essentially handicapping yourself.

**Flavius Gonzo** · 01-02-2007, 17:31

My turkish campaign is on turn 100 or so, and I was having a hard time controlling the pace of the game, until I developed my "DMZ" strategy.

What I've done to slow the game down is determine early in the game which provinces I intend to hold long term (these are regions I intend to keep as part of my 45 occupied settlements.) For these settlements, I proceed in a calculated manner and heavily favor occupying unless my economy is totally strained. But, if I am attacked by a faction owning provinces other than the 45 I intend to hold, I fend of the attack and counter attack -- except instead of occupying, I exterminate or sack, and then destroy all of the settlements buildings.

After this, I either let the settlement revolt and attack again to get extra sacking income, or I gift it to an ally. I've found Russia to be a particularily good ally for this, they don't seem to be that aggressive, have no other allies and have been embrolied in a long struggle with the Poles anyway.

The DMZ strategy has some good advantages:

1) After launching a full-stack invasion, the AI is generally pretty weakly garrisonned, but will rebuild quickly if you don't counter attack quickly.

2) Taking and holding their provinces will spread out your garrisons and make you weak, and if you up your production to compensate, it will weaken your economy.

3) Destroying their buildings cripples troop-producing capabilities in cities on your borders, so even if your ally loses control of a border city, the faction that wins it isn't usually left with much. (Pre-gunpowder, I'll often flip castles to towns just to further hamper troop production.)

4) Sending border cities through the sack/revolt/sack cycle more than pays for the army that does the heavy lifting, and is a good cash infusion.

**Aelwyn** · 01-02-2007, 17:58

I don't mind the AI attacking, as they'll just provide me with higher experience troops in the end. I agree though, just maintain the amount of troops you need. I also try to delay producing troops for invasions as long as possible. The recruit in as many provinces near the invasion as possible, and attack asap.

**Zenicetus** · 01-02-2007, 21:11

Originally Posted by katank

Deterrence is too expensive. Maintain a "weak" front and then smash and grab when they strike. Then again, that's not exactly the slow game.

Playing slow is essentially handicapping yourself.

Well, yes, in the sense that the quickest way to beat the game is a continual blitz. But it's not the only way to enjoy the game.

In my last Spanish campaign I really enjoyed keeping France at bay (after taking two of their provinces).... just holding them in position for a long time, while I expanded in North Africa and took the British Isles. I was using France as a buffer against Milan, who was very powerful, and also as a barrier between me and the British. France couldn't make any progress against my heavily fortified border, so they bled themselves out against Milan (who I was bleeding on the sly with sabotage and spies, to prolong the conflict). And Britain had no direct access to my territory, once I started the back door attack via Scotland.

I could have taken out France in 10 turns or less, but they were more useful as a buffer. Playing this way is more interesting to me, long-term, than a steamroller approach. Yes, it is expensive to keep all those extra armies to hold static borders, but this gets less important as the game progresses.