Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

[Ibn-Khaldun]

In a player vs. AI game, I combine the two.

For instance, as England, I rush to unite the islands, then settle down to create a steady economy and a military infastructure. When it comes to attacking the continent, multiple large stacks, each containing a core of elite units, are more effecient than a gajillion massive stacks of peasants. If you ever get to the point where you can't continue without excommunication and rebellion, you can always go back into turtle mode and still defend yourself well until you get your initative back.

This is also the way I play..
At the start of the game I blitz and take all available rebel settlements cause don't want a war with any factions...
Then I turtle for a while ... Recruit and build and defend ...
After that it is time for blitzing again and so on ...

[Ferret]

we really have to get you in a hotseat game ATPG, Zim blitzed me very effectively during a crusades one, not that I'm a hard player to beat lol.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In a player vs. AI game, I combine the two.

For instance, as England, I rush to unite the islands, then settle down to create a steady economy and a military infastructure. When it comes to attacking the continent, multiple large stacks, each containing a core of elite units, are more effecient than a gajillion massive stacks of peasants. If you ever get to the point where you can't continue without excommunication and rebellion, you can always go back into turtle mode and still defend yourself well until you get your initative back.

I tend to agree.

By the time I need to slow down (if for some reason I do... mostly I don't) I tend to disband less useful soldiers and solidify my weakened stacks.

That's why I travel with two or three or four or five stacks at a time in a given assault. When the stacks are depleted I can reorganize them into unstoppable double stacks again and continue the assault unhindered. Unless I'm doing a kamikaze, which is loading up a worthless general with disposable troops and taking as many provinces and causing as much mischief and devastation as possible before he's defeated. Nice cheap distraction. Usually pays for itself and thensome.

I find that if I need to slow down I go from blitzer to berserker. I disband large portions of my armies and send off some kamikazes. I keep my main generals and my main army inside my border in a strategic position, and I "disband" the rest of my troops by using them as kamikaze assault troops. The objective is to disband them and destroy as much as possible in the process.

I'm a cruel and cunning leader, after all.

[Zim]

we really have to get you in a hotseat game ATPG, Zim blitzed me very effectively during a crusades one, not that I'm a hard player to beat lol.

The funny thing is that in SP I'm far more of a turtle. Keeping up a blitz gets tedious to me after a while if my only opponenent is the hapless AI.

ATPG would probably approve of that game. I used a Jihad to make up for the large distances I had to cross (and took advantage of the free upkeep to hire a much larger army than I could normally afford), managed to get myself a ton of generals, maneuvered my armies to make sure I had overwhelming numerical superiority in any battles I initiated. And I've never even blitzed before.

Overwhelming numbers doesn't always beat quality in autoresolve, though. In the Teutonic hotseat game in one of the battles where my force was much bigger, the TO's auto resolve superiority won them the day (with oddly few casualties for the losing side, though).

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The funny thing is that in SP I'm far more of a turtle. Keeping up a blitz gets tedious to me after a while if my only opponenent is the hapless AI.

ATPG would probably approve of that game. I used a Jihad to make up for the large distances I had to cross (and took advantage of the free upkeep to hire a much larger army than I could normally afford), managed to get myself a ton of generals, maneuvered my armies to make sure I had overwhelming numerical superiority in any battles I initiated. And I've never even blitzed before.

Overwhelming numbers doesn't always beat quality in autoresolve, though. In the Teutonic hotseat game in one of the battles where my force was much bigger, the TO's auto resolve superiority won them the day (with oddly few casualties for the losing side, though).

I approve of jihads as a means of troop recruitment and fast marching.

I approve of massively overwhelming the enemy and crushing them under the pure weight of numbers.

Blitzing can be boring if you're only attacking on a single front. Try blitzing against the entire map as soon as possible (and as soon as you've extracted whatever you can through diplomatic means from your enemy) and DO NOT STOP the blitz... ever. Not until every province is securely in your hands.

Tip: Save Rome for last.

Auto-resolving doesn't get you as many prisoners. If they can rout, they can escape. The computer seems to end the battle as quickly as possible...

Oh and by the way

The computer has a BIAS against your first few units. If you have a weakened peasant unit or two in front of a stack of useful troops, and you beseige someone who has serious defenders (but you should theoretically still win easily) guess what... the computer will make your whole army rout.

Pretend the computer is comparing them, one at a time, lead unit versus lead unit. Thats why you don't lead with cavalry. Thats why you don't lead with weakened infantry or peasant archers. Too easy to rout your army in auto resolve.

Test it for yourselves. I took Vilnius with a vastly superior force and I lost the battle every time on auto resolve because I had religious zealot peasants as my lead troops and mercs and crusader knights in the back of the stack.

Ummm bad idea. Lose every time to routing. But on a human-controlled battle, I won EASILY every time.

[Zim]

Well, it's a Crusades hotseat, so I have to autoresolve and there's no Rome. I'll have to remember that about autoresolve. It could very well have been the reason I lost. I had a general as the first unit, but number two was a kazak, whose crappy stats couldn't have helped any.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I approve of jihads as a means of troop recruitment and fast marching.

I approve of massively overwhelming the enemy and crushing them under the pure weight of numbers.

Blitzing can be boring if you're only attacking on a single front. Try blitzing against the entire map as soon as possible (and as soon as you've extracted whatever you can through diplomatic means from your enemy) and DO NOT STOP the blitz... ever. Not until every province is securely in your hands.

Tip: Save Rome for last.

Auto-resolving doesn't get you as many prisoners. If they can rout, they can escape. The computer seems to end the battle as quickly as possible...

Oh and by the way

The computer has a BIAS against your first few units. If you have a weakened peasant unit or two in front of a stack of useful troops, and you beseige someone who has serious defenders (but you should theoretically still win easily) guess what... the computer will make your whole army rout.

Pretend the computer is comparing them, one at a time, lead unit versus lead unit. Thats why you don't lead with cavalry. Thats why you don't lead with weakened infantry or peasant archers. Too easy to rout your army in auto resolve.

Test it for yourselves. I took Vilnius with a vastly superior force and I lost the battle every time on auto resolve because I had religious zealot peasants as my lead troops and mercs and crusader knights in the back of the stack.

Ummm bad idea. Lose every time to routing. But on a human-controlled battle, I won EASILY every time.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well, it's a Crusades hotseat, so I have to autoresolve and there's no Rome. I'll have to remember that about autoresolve. It could very well have been the reason I lost. I had a general as the first unit, but number two was a kazak, whose crappy stats couldn't have helped any.

Lead units should be your HEAVIEST and highest morale infantry, followed by your heaviest cavalry, and at the last should be your insta-rout units, such as peasants, militia, weakened units, and all your French mercenaries.

Alternatively, you can lead with a strong general and then your heavy infantry, or several generals and then heavy infantry.

Ugh... auto-resolving every time? That takes away from the most critical aspect of gameplay... using your jedi skills to win impossible battles.



If I had to auto-resolve every time I would go crazy and they would need to give me happy drugs until I began to see pink elephants and walk out in front of traffic and get hit by a semi.

_______________________________________
Insert relevant smiley face here.

[Zim]

It's a pain, especially when my horse archers that get slaughter in autoresolve could turn the Order infantry into pin cushions in a real battle, but I think it's worth it to play against human opponents. I can't really play SP anymore, it doesn't hold my interest.

[Alpedar]

How can i reorder units in stack?

[Askthepizzaguy]

How can i reorder units in stack?

It's simple really. Take the unit you want as your captain (if you dont have a general... if you have a general this is not something you can choose) and move it one space adjacent to your stack. This is now your lead unit in the new stack and the captain by default (unless you have a mounted unit... sometimes the computer chooses a captain for you as a mounted unit... I havent figured out why it doesnt happen every time).

This is advantageous if you've had lame captain units... peasants make bad captain's bodyguard units, but archers are by far the worst. Anything with a special ability (like knights who have formations, spear militia which have a formation, archers which have flaming ammo) means you can't use the rally troops function. Which is like having no captain at all.

If you have scouts (Denmark) they make great captains. they have no formation, they are light and mounted, and they can rally troops. Use them as your lead unit always. Except auto resolution battles where you want a lead unit of heavy infantry.

If not, go with infantry that can rally. Sometimes thats pathetic peasants... but if you have dismounted knights, and they have no special function, please by all means go with that. Or any mounted unit with no special function.

But like I said, if you have a general, this discussion is moot. Your general, no matter how bad he is, is always better than a captain due to the ability to rally, and his bodyguard unit is comprised of the toughest knights in the game.

A blundering idiot general (unless his morale penalty is for some reason negative 10) is always better than the most elite captain unit.

Next, select your toughest infantry. Hit shift (or control, I forget) and click on your toughest infantry unit and all the others of the same type will highlight. Now have them join your lone captain unit/general in the adjacent 'stack'.
Now select all your other mid level infantry, and do the same thing.
Now select all your light/bad infantry/achers, and do the same thing.
Now select all your mounted units, and do the same thing. This is how you practice effective stack management for auto resolutions.
Save the best for last. Your objective should be to burn infantry before you burn your elite cavalry, is it not?

Of course, if you're playing only on auto-resolve... why would you ever USE cavalry??? Cavalry are worthless, just like archers, on auto resolve. Elite infantry is always better. Pretend you're meeting in the middle of a bridge. That's how I imagine auto resolve battles. Which unit would you send in first? The best morale/stats infantry unit you have to force a rout. Archers and cavalry will run away.

If you can only auto-resolve... then simply use a full stack of armoured seargents/dismounted knights. Those are the best best best auto resolve unit. Have them under any general and you win the auto resolve battle.

Except in extreme tactical situations like... uh... hmm... hilltop/bridge battles.
And seiges where the enemy has exactly the same troops as you do.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to ever happen, because that would be just plain stupid (for many strategic and tactical reasons) If you have that many good troops, you need them on the field. Worthless militia are all you need as garrisons. Use elite troops as relief forces and have them sit on bridges, hilltops, or hidden in forests for ambushing. Remember, against smart humans ambushes will never ever work!

A single worthless scouting unit always rides ahead of the main force when I play versus AI or human. I NEVER get ambushed. Sorry. I wish the computer would simply allow you to choose whether or not to spring your trap on a lone worthless unit, and just reroute you if you choose to ride through it. The only way you should be able to spring a trap is by clicking directly on it and occupying the space, thus revealing an army lying in wait.

But I digress... and this is only vaguely related to auto-resolution stack management and that's only mildly related to human versus human battes and that's only tangentially related to turtle versus hare. So it's a bit of a stretch to say I'm on topic here.


This line of questioning could be the basis for a new thread.

[Jambo]

Other than perhaps ports and wharfs, the economic buildings aren't worth the money. Markets are a complete joke and farms are only marginally less poor. In essence, regular sacking will easily make you more money.

In short, the Hare will win. Blitzing has always been the most efficient way to play TW games. Maybe it's design intent, maybe it's not. To me it's just bad design. Civ 4's economic aspects are far superior.

[Alpedar]

I play my second camapign (as Milan, first was Venice). I was somehow medium agressive at first (rebel taking phase), then went to slower motion and developing cities. And even this way, its hard NOT to beat it too fast (I want to get to gunpowder units). And my feel is, that if I (noon in this game) could beat it much faster, if i did not restrict myself.
So I must agree, that full agressive approach is probubly much stronger than cautious.

[Old Geezer]

Well I'll be hornswaggled! I had no idea that the order in a stack made any difference! Was that on page 2 or 3 of the manual. Not that such information is important a player, of course. This is great information. Now I won't be forced to field battle all the time when I am in a hurry to finish and go to bed. I can't believe that in 11 months I never came across this info. Was it that way in MTW too?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well I'll be hornswaggled! I had no idea that the order in a stack made any difference! Was that on page 2 or 3 of the manual. Not that such information is important a player, of course. This is great information. Now I won't be forced to field battle all the time when I am in a hurry to finish and go to bed. I can't believe that in 11 months I never came across this info. Was it that way in MTW too?

Actually this is all my pet theory about auto-resolution battle mechanics, based upon oodles of experience auto-resolving and hitting bizarre snags when my lead units are weakened.

Sometimes all you have to do is solidify your troops by joining together weak units and all of a sudden the battle will auto-res better. I figured that out because it makes sense... you wouldn't send 20 units of depleted troops into battle, you would rather send 10 units at full strength to avoid routing.

But I really, really think I am on to something regarding auto-res calculations. You will get better results if you organize your stack properly. Much better.

In fact, I rarely if ever lose an auto-resolve battle ever since I've been subconsciously combining troops after every battle and purposefully managing stacks without generals.... and finally stacks with generals.

[_Tristan_]

I would have to agree on this... That's pretty much what I do in hotseat games (as all battles are auto-resolved)..

A few tries in SP games led me to believe that the way you order your troops can really make a difference...