How do you get anywhere in this game?

[Didz]

I hardly bother with assassin's unless I intend to launch a mass terror bombing campaign on an enemy city, but spies are vital.

I keep at least one in every city to fend off enemy spies and use one with every merchant travelling abroad to spot potential take-overs. They are also useful scouts for my armies letting me know in advance what opposition and benefits I am likely to face. Though, to be honest I rarely expliot the 'open gate' option as its usually too expensive to try and force troops through.

[dismal]

I hardly bother with assassin's unless I intend to launch a mass terror bombing campaign on an enemy city, but spies are vital.

I keep at least one in every city to fend off enemy spies and use one with every merchant travelling abroad to spot potential take-overs. They are also useful scouts for my armies letting me know in advance what opposition and benefits I am likely to face. Though, to be honest I rarely expliot the 'open gate' option as its usually too expensive to try and force troops through.

I tried hard not to say "agents are useles".

If spies help you take cities, and you are acting consistent with the muster armies, take cities strategy you should be fine in terms of winning the game before time runs out.

I don't tend to bother with spies to find out what enemy troops strengths are. I just go to the neareast city expecting to beat whatever the enemy has. Maybe I could do better if I micromanaged my agents, but I don't and win relatively easily.

If someone is doing a great job micromanaging agents and having trouble winning, they are probably being distracted too much from the basics. Place more emphasis on raising armies and attacking cities with them.

This is not to say you should ignore the other aspects of the game.

[Captain Pugwash]

My problems playing the English thus far is,
1. Assassins that could knock a bottle over never mind a real target. Totally useless. How do you improve them when they cannot even knock anything over.

2. Merchants that seem to be taken over by inferior one (ie a 8* by a 4* or lose when you try to take them over.

3. Crusading armies that suffer desertation whilst on the move. The HRE actually managed to attack one of my cities. I wasnt excomed and not at war beforehand.

4 other factions seem to be able to attack you but when you strike back you get a message from the pope to stop fighting? I could nt help it I was under seige and under attack?

5. The biggest gripe is with the inquisistors who seem to go after the King and heirs. I mean what king would allow himself to thrown on a fire short of a wholescale civil rebellion. Then there is the compulsary crusade which always happens to pass one of these guys by.

6. Ancillaries? How do you aquire such pagan guys in a area totally committed to the Christian cause. What is the purpose of priests and churches if you cannot accrue any good guys. You cannot even palm them off onto someone else like on the other games.

7. How do you get piety? Noone seems to be able to get past a rating of 2 then its off to the bonfire.

The graphic and sales pitch of this game really lead me to believe it would be a worthwhile play but i am going of it very quickly and reverting back to MTW1 which i think was a better game.

[_Tristan_]

I do not agree with dismal ...

While the main idea behind the TW series is tactical combat and the way to get there, having agents at your disposition is a way to engage in the most favorable position...

To further your 3 points :

1 Muster army (I'd say Muster the army towards a precise objective) : to do this effective use of agents is necessary in that it permits you to muster only the troops necessary to your objective (gain of cash, of time...)

2 Attack enemy city : Can't fault you on that... But having spies can further change the type of army you will have to field, ie less artillery and less rams or towers, doors having a chance of being already open... thus further economy both in time and cash and thus the possibility of choosing a new objective faster...

3 Repeat : Exactly but with agents you should be ableto do it more often and with less cash spent

So, IMO, even in your style of play and even w/o micromanagement of agents, use of agents is a means of achiving your goals much more rapidly...

[Didz]

Personally, I get rather bored with the muster armies, take cities strategy which is one reason I prefer the short campaigns which have more focussed goals.

Thats always been true even with STW and I've always sought to find more imaginative solutions. I think its actually one of the weaknesses of the TW series that for the most part that strategy continues to be the easiest way to win. In MTW2 the Pope does add a slight speed bump in the process but as people have pointed out he is little more than a hinderance in the long term.

[TevashSzat]

Agents are more useful if you don't do blitzing games where you normally dont have the time to train agents up. My basically blitzing strategy is to get a diplomat to Rome asap while building as many units and capturing as many rebel provinces as possible. Once I bribe Rome, I call a crusade and will usually have about 4 or 5 full stack crusade armies requiring no upkeep and will just attack in every direction at once and sacking everything. When desertion becomes a big problem, I abandon crusade and keep on using mercs until the blitz runs out of steam after which I have around 30 provinces at turn 25 or so.