Strategically, HOW do you play the slow game

[Razor1952]

"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]

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]

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.

[danfda]

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.)

I do this if I am fighting against a partiularly powerful opponent. Since Milan often becomes such an opponent, in both my Scottish and Sicilian camps I made a nice border of sacked, building-less cities for the Milanese to take. It certainly hampers the enemy and makes life easier. And its not really an exploit, since that sort of thing actually happened back in the day.

[Aelwyn]

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]

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.

[Razor1952]

I agree Zeniticus, a slow torure policy for the ai satisifies my sadistic impulses, slowly garrotting each ai prolongs the game and increases enjoyment........

Having the money to pursue this course is the key.

[katank]

Then again, having sufficient force for effective deterrence is often too much for your economy to bear. Not to mention the fact that if an AI faction is at peace for too long, they are hard coded to attack the human. Thus, to avoid war, you need to do some serious diplomatic intrigue.

It's better just to keep enough troops to be able to beat them back. Consider this constant training. This also strains the economy less.

[dopp]

The AI actually doesn't seem hardcoded to attack the human, I thought. That line in the AI file is commented out.