A set of simple rules to get a challenging game

[Cheetah]

Here is a set of rules to get a challenging SP campaign. The basic idea is based on the observation that the tactical AI is as dumb as it can be. So the core proposal is to autoresolve all battles.
I know some might object that it defeats the very idea of the game that you can play out both the strategic and the tactical parts of the campaign. Unfortunately the tactical AI is so weak that it gives no challenge at all, moreover, it is not just weak but it seriously handicaps the strategic AI. Any decent human player can defeat the tactical AI on open ground assuming roughly equal troops with a 10:1 kill:loss ratio or close to it; can defend any town with a half stack of militia and win a heroic victory against full stacks; can slaughter full stacks at bridge battles; can even win an attacking siege with a 2:1, or 3:1 or better kill:loss ratio depending on the artillery the human has. Given the close to 10:1 kill:loss ratio of open battles this means that the strategic AI should have to produce ten times the troops of the human player to have any chance! This is a huge, huge handicap and the strategic AI can rarely over come it. All in all, autoresolve is a must as it gives a level battlefield for the human and the AI.
Also, autoresolve favours turtling as high tier troops reliably defeat low tier ones. So quality actually matters and especially the quality of the heavy infantry.

I also add a few standard rules and one not so standard but optional one. So here it is:

1, Autoresolve all battles.
2, Play a high reputation, chivalry game, that is: (i) always occupy and never sack or exterminate cities; always release and never ransom or execute troops.
3, Never use assasins.
4, Always do as the Pope says.
5, Never ally with the Pope (that is just too easy IMO).
6, Never use the crusading exploits (i.e. taking all the settlements on your way to the holly land, or leaving rejoining crusades)
7, Do not use merchant forts.

optional but highly suggeted rule:
8, Always build a fort at the end of the roads that leave your territory and garrison it with at least two castle troops above peasant level (after all would you trust peasants to defend such important fortifications?).

One obvious reason for this last rule that it increases upkeep and forts cost florins to build. There is an other reason though which I do not want to reveal atm.

[ReiseReise]

Very interesting, the first points are standard 'how to play a hard game' rules, but the last one is very unique and I like it very much.

[Ramses II CP]

Autoresolve is just as subject to manipulation as real tactical battles, and it has the advantage of almost never killing your general. Oh, and autoresolving isn't much fun.

I still think migration games are a decent challenge through the first 80-100 turns. Make yourself Portugal and do an overland migration to Sarkel or Baghdad. You'll arrive just in time to see the Mongols enter the map.

My thing, however, is that I want to challenge myself, not handicap myself. I hate the idea of not doing something as essential and fun as fighting battles just because it makes the game easy.

[Ethelred Unread]

I hate autoresolve especially as I've just upgraded my PC so I can finally see the game with decent graphics.

I prefer to use the general cam instead as it limits you field of view. In large battles you more or less have to use the AI captain to help you out and as they rarely do the right thing this makes battles a little more interesting. Or you might want to throw your computer out of the window when the AI decides to charge the enemy with your archers (thankfully this happens rarely). This makes seiges especially challenging.

If you wanted to be especially hardcore you could even turn the radar off.

I always think to myself that in "real life" orders would be mis-interpreted and individual captains would vary in ability, hence the AI's blunders. Plus it adds a new level to multi-tasking - remembering where everything is and ensuring that your general has a good view of events.

[Daveybaby]

For a few more ideas have a lookie in this thread.

[Grog]

1 I'd dump the autoresolve and instead have a houserule of 50% of stacks are peasant/militia class troops, or pilgrims when on crusade. The comedy battles that ensue make this style fun

2-4 I have done in my last two long campaigns (france/HRE)

5 I usually ally with pope, and pay him indecent levels of tribute/land

6 limit one stack crusade, and train pilgrims! other things I have done to add spice is let pope/another faction call the target, and only join on last turn. Can make it a bit of a race

7 never bother, I like a bit of mercantile aquisition


The one thing that blows this style is that, unless you are turtling in a fairly severe manner you will have far more florins than you know what to do with.
ie: occup generates far less initial revenue that sacking.
However, an occupied city will more that pay for itself by growing a lot faster and generating florins quicker/hitting wall upgrades sooner etc. Do this across an empire an its hard not to have an economic powerhouse.

Also, with high rep chivalry and multiple alliances, you can maintain extremely sparse armies and just buy everyone off with diplomats.

As Ramses II CP said, I'd also prefer the game to be a bit more 'challenging' without having to impose houserules, but nevertheless I enjoyed my last 2 long games playing to houserules.

[Slug For A Butt]

I hate autoresolve especially as I've just upgraded my PC so I can finally see the game with decent graphics.

I prefer to use the general cam instead as it limits you field of view. In large battles you more or less have to use the AI captain to help you out and as they rarely do the right thing this makes battles a little more interesting. Or you might want to throw your computer out of the window when the AI decides to charge the enemy with your archers (thankfully this happens rarely). This makes seiges especially challenging.

If you wanted to be especially hardcore you could even turn the radar off.

I always think to myself that in "real life" orders would be mis-interpreted and individual captains would vary in ability, hence the AI's blunders. Plus it adds a new level to multi-tasking - remembering where everything is and ensuring that your general has a good view of events.

Wow! I think that would sort the men from the boys. I think that's a great example of challenge not handicap. Just giving yourself the tools that the Generals had back then.
Unfortunately, I'm not good enough to even attempt this. But I guess that is what made the likes of Hannibal and Caesar a teensy weensy bit better than me.
Tell me, do you actually turn the radar off or was that just an idea?

[TinCow]

For anyone looking to increase the challenge of the game, I highly recommend downloading and experimenting with various mods. LTC, Stainless Steel, and Ultimate AI all succeed in increasing the challenge significantly. Plus, you can still layer your personal house rules on top of them.

[DVX BELLORVM]

Cheetah, I agree with everything you said, except #1. Not fighting the battles myself would pretty much kill the game.

I think TinCow gave the best advice. Downloading SS......7%

[zaher]

Well, with half of above i dont agree and another half i never used before ( merchant forts or crusading exploits ). I played all factions long campaigns in vanilla, some of them til turn 220. And here is how: first of all - forget about victory settings. You dont need 45 settlements with those alien cultures! 10 - 15 settlements are more than enought to establish your own Kingdom with your own culture, and you will never get migraine , managing 30-40 settlements. also, you give to other factions possibilities to establish strong power in THEIR borders. My main objective in game is to get those, other factions to walk arround with stacks of experienced units , like mongols or timurids, and then fight them, not autoresolve ! I accept victory conditions like hold Granada or Jerusalem tho.

Another thing - try to manipulate other factions and play yours to get some factions destroyed, so AI get to concentrate on less things.

Also, try to invest all money you get into buildings, dont build lots of troops - you will have to FIGHT with them ( mostly attacking others ) or PAY for them upkeep. My rule is to build units only if they are better than i have atm or, better, upgrade existing units. Keep them , get experience with them, gold shied armour upgraded spear militia with gold schevron can kill noobish chiv knight.

Try not to use save/load too much.


Why not assassins? Why always listen pope? i listen, if i can, othervise - i dont join crusade or blocking port. Some ppl like to be dread kings and assasinate others too.

I playing interesting games with this settings and beleve, others can too.

I can send some saves from turn 180-200, which are still interesting to play.

[Ethelred Unread]

Tell me, do you actually turn the radar off or was that just an idea?

To be honest I only found out recently that you could turn the radar off after faffing with the function keys (i think it's F8 or F9) t'other day so I'll start doing it in my next campaign. In fact I found that you can even turn off the Unit cards so you'd need line of sight to give orders by clicking on the units you could see. That would be hardcore, infact you'd probably need to be pretty l33t to fight battles then. Sorry.

I think that most TW players don't change the inteface settings to make the game harder for them, like gen cam and turning off the radar, but use house rules instead, whereas I try to do a combination.

For example I roleplay generals where if they are more than 3 chiv then I never pursue routers, always release prisoners and always occupy, but if they're more than 3 dread then I do the reverse.

The best part of this game is when you are in the middle of a battle, don't know what the hell is going on and the plan you had at the beginning has all gone to and you've got to somehow turn it all around.

It's the feeling of not quite being in control that I like.

Now if there was some way that the strategic AI could really hurt you then that would make the game even better, though the LTC AI has caned me a few times!

[Cheetah]

As Ramses II CP said, I'd also prefer the game to be a bit more 'challenging' without having to impose houserules, but nevertheless I enjoyed my last 2 long games playing to houserules.

Yes, but how can you get a challenging game without house rules? The AI is just not good enough.

[Cheetah]

Cheetah, I agree with everything you said, except #1. Not fighting the battles myself would pretty much kill the game.

Unfortunately it is fighting the tactical battles which kills the game. We got to the point where the tactical AI is one of the weakest link in the game and it is a serious handicap for the strategic AI. Just think of that you are the strategic AI producing all the nice troops (full stacks of catapults and such ) and handing it over to your trusted brother the tactical AI. Your trusted brother gets defeated time after time, and not just gets defeated but losing 10 time the troops than he can kill. What would you say in this situation? I probably would say and and ... and would call it a day.

Btw, of course even I cannot resist the temptation to play out interesting battles here and there that offer a challenge (though this is not very frequent) but the level battleground is autoresolve.

[Cheetah]

For anyone looking to increase the challenge of the game, I highly recommend downloading and experimenting with various mods. LTC, Stainless Steel, and Ultimate AI all succeed in increasing the challenge significantly. Plus, you can still layer your personal house rules on top of them.

Well there are two problems with the mods.

1, First there are just too many and it is not clear what kind of advantages do they have over the 1.2 patch. It would be nice if there would be a pinned intro thread about the major mods.

2, I am not sure that the tactical AI is that much better. I just downloaded the Stanless Steel and started a hungarion campaign on H/H. The byz AI (i) kept throwing all spearmen armies against me, (ii) which were defeated just as easily as the same armies in the vanilla game. I like the other changes (more provinces, more factions, etc) but I am not sold as yet on the improved startegic/tactical AI. I played 3 major battles, won all three with ease (despite the fact that archers seem to be much weaker) and I know for sure that would have lost all three on autoresolve.

[TinCow]

I agree with you on both counts. It took me a long time to find a mod I liked, which I why I've been spouting off about Stainless Steel recently in several threads. A guide to the various mods would be very useful.

Also, I'm pretty sure that SS 4.1 doesn't change either the campaign or battle AI. I think the improved AI are only bundled in with versions 5.0 and higher (which require Kingdoms). I personally downloaded just the AI parts of the Ultimate AI mod and installed them onto my SS 4.1 mod. I have noticed a decent improvement in both the campaign and battle AI as a result. There are still major problems, but many of the blatantly ridiculous aspects have been eliminated. I find that AI siege defense in particular is now relatively decent.

[RoadKill]

Yah. I have kingdoms and downloaded the newest SS been playing it for a while now. And wow, it actually gets hard. The AI gets extremly challenging. They smash you in two fronts. Though the problem about have a whole stack of spear militia still exsists but I dont think that can be fixed. What I like to do to make it challenging, is

1) DON'T retrain troops, thats stupid. There already dead how could you bring them back to life. The experience should dissapear if half of them died.
Not retraining makes things very complicated as your armies die out very quickly after a few battles.

2) Add 40,000 florins to enemy AI every turn. Giving them a hell load of money gives you the hardest ass time ever. I gave portugal 40,000 x10 florins once as Spain, next few turns, Portugal sent 8 stacks of professional troops at me. I lost over 10 settlements and almost lost my very first campagin. I never gave the AI that much money ever again.

[Grog]

Yes, but how can you get a challenging game without house rules? The AI is just not good enough.

As mentioned above, some of these problems with the Ai have been partially fixed in Kingdoms (well, at least the britannia campaign I am playing atm) where you get rebellions and more 'scripted' events ie: emergence of barons alliance/william wallace/extra 'rebellion' troop spawn when you take a settlement etc which basically gives more free stuff for the AI to throw at you, and all within a fairly compact time frame.

However, in the long M2TW vanilla campaign I dont think the Ai is the biggest problem. If you buffer your borders with strategic allies it prevents most of the 'stupid' strategic AI moves, especially if you keep your allies hale and hearty. The biggest problem is once you have 10-15 geared up territories you are basically invincible, no matter what you do or the AI does. Any 'cunning' Ai move can easily be neutralised with a 2-stack autoresolve if you are that way inclined. Even the hordes you can fly into the teeth of and fight open field for <20-30k a turn, and by the time the timurids arrive you probably have all the territory you want, a sizeable warchest and multiple fully-teched citadels ready for a subtle cannon-up

So yes, houserules are needed for a more challenging game, agreed!

[Plaidwarrior]

i thought about not letting any factions die. You can kill them down to one settlement,but you cannot kill all family members or let anyone else take that tow even if you fight for them. not sencicle i know, but hard

[knoddy]

Auto resolve everything is silly, on the harder difficulty levels auto resolving just leads to losing every battle unless u have overwhelming odds in your favor. at least that is my experience.

[phonicsmonkey]

Auto resolve everything is silly, on the harder difficulty levels auto resolving just leads to losing every battle unless u have overwhelming odds in your favor. at least that is my experience.

which would make the campaign that much more challenging, no?

personally I was drawn to this series of games by the combination of strategy map and tactical battles, but I agree with cheetah that the current battle map AI is so tactically poor as to render the strategic AI (however good), utterly toothless

[Slaists]

well, nice ideas, but autoresolving battles takes away like 80% of the fun of playing MTW series. there are better games out for SP strategic campaign (CIV IV for example).

cheers,
s.

[s_tabikha]

well uhm thats whack


---------------------------------------------------
FRANK?
FRANK WHO?
FRANK YO CAUSIN NEGRO!