Blitzing = Casual

[TheDruid]

Sure there are many ways to play this game :) But since i see this " a historical " game. i tend to realisticly build up countries. Now correct me if i'm wrong : I only know 1 person who ever blitzt in history ; that would be Alexander The great. all the rest kept armies home to keep peace so...
Even though i already quit many games because i get bored, blitzing would ultimately bore me.
why? there is "no realism" in it. like most games if you know what to do and what the enemy will do its no more game.
Since i'm "hardcore" gamer in an MMO i know a game always has problems dont know how to explain in English though.
its just that there are always ways to make a game easier. I find blitzing one of those. I see cheating just beyond.
this is not an attack on the ones who do ( i usually try cheats, i just get tired of them so quick :) ) Its just taking advantage of something you know that the game is incapable of anticipate on.
I like the historical or role playing campaigns much more.

[Proserpine]

Sure there are many ways to play this game :) But since i see this " a historical " game. i tend to realisticly build up countries. Now correct me if i'm wrong : I only know 1 person who ever blitzt in history ; that would be Alexander The great. all the rest kept armies home to keep peace so...
Even though i already quit many games because i get bored, blitzing would ultimately bore me.
why? there is "no realism" in it. like most games if you know what to do and what the enemy will do its no more game.
Since i'm "hardcore" gamer in an MMO i know a game always has problems dont know how to explain in English though.
its just that there are always ways to make a game easier. I find blitzing one of those. I see cheating just beyond.
this is not an attack on the ones who do ( i usually try cheats, i just get tired of them so quick :) ) Its just taking advantage of something you know that the game is incapable of anticipate on.
I like the historical or role playing campaigns much more.

Other famous historical "blitzers" would in my opinion include: Genghis/Chingis Khan; Timur/Timurlane, and Hannibal, just for starters. Oh, and maybe Clive of India

[TheDruid]

Other famous historical "blitzers" would in my opinion include: Genghis/Chingis Khan; Timur/Timurlane, and Hannibal, just for starters. Oh, and maybe Clive of India

2 of those 4 i dont even know :(
Hannibal and Genghis Khan did great things yes. but they did not conquer the by that time known world. as that is what i meant.
Hitler's generals did a good blitz as well, but they didnt even conquer a quarter of the world.
you understand what i'm trying to say?
off course blitzing as you name could be quite interesting if you are not that experienced in it.
But my experience in every game i have played is that you may come at a point when gaming isn't gaming anymore, but beating the game by using its limits.
Lets say in game milanese seem to conquer a lot and become very strong : with that knowing before it will happen you can anticipate it. just like going to the limits of the AI. I really cannot explain well in English.
btw I do seem wanting to know how you can conquer 106 provinces in less than 30 turns. how do you mobilize?
Perhaps that would be the greatest challenge (for me)

[SirRethcir]

Hm, I think there a two meanings for blitzing used in discussion.
1. overrun the AI
2. do 1. in the least amount of turns

I admit 1. is easy an can be very boring and I don't recommend it.
But 2. is hard and a challenge.
So, if I'm talking of 'blitzing', I mean 2.

Correction:
I'm not a green, nor am I a casual player.
I play TW since the Shogun-Demo.

And, yes, it is hard to play M2TW in a historical manner, cause it has very very few in common with the 'real' history and historical conditions.

[TheDruid]

Hm, I think there a two meanings for blitzing used in discussion.
1. overrun the AI
2. do 1. in the least amount of turns

I admit 1. is easy an can be very boring and I don't recommend it.
But 2. is hard and a challenge.
So, if I'm talking of 'blitzing', I mean 2.

Correction:
I'm not a green, nor am I a casual player.
I play TW since the Shogun-Demo.

And, yes, it is hard to play M2TW in a historical manner, cause it has very very few in common with the 'real' history and historical conditions.

That is nicely said what i was trying to say.
now for your point 2 i mean that if you go so quick, the AI always does the same moves (in my opinion in the beginning ) so you can counteract and perfect the game.
As said i am interested in how you do that, i probably will try it to seek it out.
But once you are perfecting your gameplay thats when it gets so boring.
Or is there someone who finds if you do 2 the exactly same campaign, the AI will not react 2 the same?

[Proserpine]

2 of those 4 i dont even know :(
Hannibal and Genghis Khan did great things yes. but they did not conquer the by that time known world. as that is what i meant.
Hitler's generals did a good blitz as well, but they didnt even conquer a quarter of the world.
you understand what i'm trying to say?
off course blitzing as you name could be quite interesting if you are not that experienced in it.
But my experience in every game i have played is that you may come at a point when gaming isn't gaming anymore, but beating the game by using its limits.
Lets say in game milanese seem to conquer a lot and become very strong : with that knowing before it will happen you can anticipate it. just like going to the limits of the AI. I really cannot explain well in English.
btw I do seem wanting to know how you can conquer 106 provinces in less than 30 turns. how do you mobilize?
Perhaps that would be the greatest challenge (for me)

Well Alex conquered most of what he knew, but he also knew that the "known world" was not the same as "the world that can be known". Timur is in MTW2 (founder of the Timurids), in reality he spent most of his life fighting, he won the battles but could not establish a stable empire. Genghis would have conquered more for sure if he had lived longer - his empire was considerably larger than Alexander's I think. Clive of India was a British soldier who won the battle of Plassey (1757, I think) that resulted - ultimately - in the conquest by Britain of India.

[TheDruid]

so : Alexander made the " known" world bigger.
Timur : failed & unstable lands
Genghis : died as you said, so he didnt conquer all.
Clive of India : This is the first time i heard of him.... (says enough i think)

And as for timur and Genghis Khan : Steppe armies fight alot other in woods.
As TW player you should know ;) lol
Genghis was great yes. But what would the horse archers do in the forests lets say against Brute Danish men (my favourites :) ), or against the European spearmen....

Back on topic ; AOW is right when he says there are blitzers here who say turtling is "green"
cannot remember name of post however but i read that one as well.
I do remember it was not the Pizzaguy who wrote it though.

And if find this topic is quite the same as the : how to get the best kingdom in 22 turns turtle challenge
===> both over the same topic , both as stupid.

You ever played : who becomes multimillionaire on console?
if you have an answer wrong, next time you get the same questions , so you know the right answer and go on.
That is the way i find blitzing.. still cant find the right words