Medieval II: Kingdoms

[Dillon]

Or that they aren't deserting? Some of my Apache War Leaders did that when I left them idle with a full stack army for too long. Nearly fucked up my big attack on three fronts on the Spanish, but I managed to pull it off anyway.

Also, am I the only who's resolve against Antioch was strengthened when I realized they were a bunch of Frenchmen? They put up a hell of a fight, but they now lay dead. Now on to Egypt, who are proving to be far more formidable then I thought they would be.

You should have chased the Venetians into Antioch territory and let them do the work for you.

I felt it was safer to dispose of the Venetians before I had yet another looming threat on the horizon.

So I finished off Egypt. I had a reserve of about 250'000 florins, so I bought every settlement from Jerusalem that I coud, which was all of them save one, which left me with about 5000 florins. I then siege their last settlement, and boom, map completely purple.

Did anyone else notice that the Mongols never really become a threat in this map? I took Baghdad from them fairly early in the game. Then they remained a people on the flight for a really long time until they took Cairo. Then, and I'm not quite sure if this is what happened, but I think Cairo rebelled, and then the Mongols were completely wiped out. I barely even got the chance to fight them.

I think I shall take all of Britannia in the name of Ireland next.

[Gaidin]

If you were using Mamluk Archers, I'm pretty sure the reason they won is because their melee weapon is a mace with the armor piercing characteristic. It isn't listed anywhere in the statistics of the unit, but it is a huge boon and allows them to do pretty surprising work against knights. Throw in the fact that it was late in the battle and your enemy was probably fatigued and suffering from morale issues due to the death of all the generals in the field (Mamluk Archers have good stamina and are highly disciplined--meaning they don't lose heart from generals dying or other things that normally hurt a lot) and it's not that unreasonable. What difficulty were you playing on?

It's on medium-medium right now. And I didn't know about that tidbit about the mace. Nifty.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

If you were using Mamluk Archers, I'm pretty sure the reason they won is because their melee weapon is a mace with the armor piercing characteristic. It isn't listed anywhere in the statistics of the unit, but it is a huge boon and allows them to do pretty surprising work against knights. Throw in the fact that it was late in the battle and your enemy was probably fatigued and suffering from morale issues due to the death of all the generals in the field (Mamluk Archers have good stamina and are highly disciplined--meaning they don't lose heart from generals dying or other things that normally hurt a lot) and it's not that unreasonable. What difficulty were you playing on?

It's on medium-medium right now. And I didn't know about that tidbit about the mace. Nifty.

There's a reason why by the late Medieval age, they switched completely over from short swords to long swords and heavier and maces and axes. The armor became too thick for stabbing.

[Enigma]

Or that they aren't deserting? Some of my Apache War Leaders did that when I left them idle with a full stack army for too long. Nearly fucked up my big attack on three fronts on the Spanish, but I managed to pull it off anyway.

Also, am I the only who's resolve against Antioch was strengthened when I realized they were a bunch of Frenchmen? They put up a hell of a fight, but they now lay dead. Now on to Egypt, who are proving to be far more formidable then I thought they would be.

You should have chased the Venetians into Antioch territory and let them do the work for you.

I felt it was safer to dispose of the Venetians before I had yet another looming threat on the horizon.

Well, they way I did it enabled me to take Antioch and Alexandria without declaring war. I still retained my alliance with the PoA and I didn't have to go to war with the Egyptians.

In fact the Venetians saved me a boat load if turns and helped me win the campaign a lot faster.

[Vympel]

Goddammit, I should've had the good sense to check what timescale they implemented in the campaign before starting. Why they chose anything other than 1 turn = 1/2 year is beyond me, especially when the big feature of the Crusades campaign is the "hero" generals

Firstly, they start it in 1174 - yet the Turkish "hero" general is Nur ad-Din - who died in 1174. Worse, Manuel I Komnenos, who was born in 1118, is somehow only 46 in 1174. Can someone explain that to me? Now he's 60 and I'm into the second decade of the 13th century.

[Vympel]

One thing the Greeks are lacking just as much in the Crusades campaign as they are in the Grand Campaign is a military infrastructure - because Constantinople is the designated Greek "power base", your initial campaigns are fought entirely with Skythikon and Byzantine Cavalry backing up your Byzantine Infantry/ Pronoia Infantry / Varangian Guard from Constantinople - and there's no built up fortress or citadel to take from the Turks when you get Western Asia Minor back from them.

The only castle you have worth a damn is Trebizond, which is too far away to have an immediate effect on the strength of your armies, so you're better of using it to expand East and South from Trebizond.

Anyway, ~30 turns in, I finally got my first full strength stack assembled (all previous armies had been scratch forces thrown together as opportunity arose to just keep momentum going after the big victory outside of Doryleum) and crossed down from Trebizond, through the mountains, and took Mosul - which is a big ass Turkish Citadel (that's what brought up my observation above that the Byzantines lack an equivalent).

My full stack's march from Trebizond virtually straight south to Mosul, through the mountains, made me think that while that sort of thing is alright for now, in Empire, they really need to think about implementing lines of communication and supply. You can't just have stacks of musketeers and artillery trains marching about willy nilly like they're Roman legions.

Anyway, I wonder how playing as the PoA you could possibly lose when you have the Krak de Chevaliers.

EDIT: Cool, I'm allied with both PoA and KoJ, and the PoA attacked two Turkish stacks whilst next to Mosul, drawing out my garrison to assist - we jointly kicked their asses royally. That's my first battle with an allied army, ever.

EDIT 2: And now the Mongols have showed up, Baghdad is virtually undefended (the PoA and Turks are fighting outside Kirkuk) - looks like a repeat of 1258 (that's not the game year, though ... )

[Darth Wong]

I finally completed my Americas campaign. I tend to get a little whimsical near the end of a campaign, so I built an all-cavalry army: one general and 19 units of mounted conquistadores. I met the enemy in the open field and crushed him beneath my thundering hooves. It was awesome.

[Vympel]

I met the enemy in the open field and crushed him beneath my thundering hooves. It was awesome.

When I was destroying the Aztec in my Greek Grand Campaign, the lack of open fields was a source of frustration for me because my tactics depend so much on my Vardariotai - they're not very effective in forest, like all cavalry, but doubly so since they're primarily horse archers.

I'm tempted to try the Americas campaign because I want to see Conquistadors on the open American plains, but then again, I really want to replay Braveheart - as Longshanks, that is.

"Archers."

"Excuse me your Majesty, won't we hit our own troops?"

"Oh yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. And we have reserves. Attack."

Anyway, I'm not even halfway through my Crusades campaign yet, so I'm getting a bit ahead of myself - the Mongols just sacked Baghdad and appear to be moving on, I'm of two minds whether to sit tight and check to see if they attack me (just Mosul, really, all my other territories are in Asia Minor, plus Alexandria which I took by sea), or not bother to be cautious and simply cancel my alliance with Antioch and take them over, as they're too big for my liking and are holding all sorts of rightful Greek territory.

Oh yes, that reminds me - does anyone else get the shits at how the pathfinding is so dumb that your armies will walk smack bang into an opposition "zone of control" - like around a city - and you'll lose a good chunk of a turn of movement? I hate that shit. That's what made me load the game and made me discover that whether the Mongols (or I assume any other horde) choose to sack or occupy a city they attack is largely random - before I had an army lose a turn because of that zone of control thing, the Mongols took over Baghdad, yet when I loaded it, they simply sacked it. Weird.

[Vympel]

Just a warning for those playing the Greeks in the Crusades campaign - Osman (ie seperated from the Seljuk Turks and founded the Ottoman Empire) shows up at around the historically appointed time in Anatolia, with an army that consists of nothing but Janissary Archers, Janissary Heavy Infantry, and Ottoman Infantry.

Luckily, I had a newly assembled full stack that had made the journey from Trebizond in preparation for a potential attack on Antioch by sea, and I dealt with it quite handily - when you've got a Bodyguard, Latinkon, Kataphraktoi, Byzantine Lancers, Armenian Cavalry and 4x Vardariotai, all-infantry armies, even with lots of archers like the one above, just isn't that scary.

My single Greek Firethrower unit alone went from nothing to silver chevron in that one battle, as the idiot AI didn't notice until it was too late that he was systematically immolating unit after unit of Janissary Heavy Infantry (I suppose it was too busy trying to ward off my consistent mass cavalry charges).

I also just got in Trebizond the stables required to build the Archontopoulai - what an awesome unit idea. Looks little different from a Kataphraktoi, of course (sword instead of mace) but nice stats and I like the look of Greek heavy cavalry.

I'm also at a loss to understand how the Turks can still muster the strength to field two Jihad stacks to try and take Constantinople - they don't stand a chance in hell since Constantinople is full of troops and always will be, but they've lost both Baghdad and Mosul (as well as various other smaller territories to both myself and the PoA) - I would've thought that'd be enough to break their back financially and militarily.

[Dartzap]

Oh yes: For those who likes fire works.....well, just fire really.

5 units of Flamethrowers, 5 units of Gunners, five units of Magonogals, and five units of infantry for basic defence, and just leave everything on "Fire At Will"

I tried it against an army of Antioch yesterday. I can't stop giggling.

[RazorOutlaw]

Oh yes, that reminds me - does anyone else get the shits at how the pathfinding is so dumb that your armies will walk smack bang into an opposition "zone of control" - like around a city - and you'll lose a good chunk of a turn of movement? I hate that shit. That's what made me load the game and made me discover that whether the Mongols (or I assume any other horde) choose to sack or occupy a city they attack is largely random - before I had an army lose a turn because of that zone of control thing, the Mongols took over Baghdad, yet when I loaded it, they simply sacked it. Weird.

I always was a bit pissed off that you couldn't undo army and agent moves in RTW and MTW2. In the original Medieval you could move a unit from, say, a coastal territory in France to England or even the Middle East if you had ports and allies in the right places. Then you could change your mind before you ended your turn and move him back to his starting territory. Why, when they switched into the close up and personal movement method, did they not find a way to undo movement? There have been times when I'd accidentally click a location too soon and my army would try to go up and around to reach their target simply because a zone was blocked off. I don't think there's a way to even mod it out...

[Darth Wong]

Do I suck at this game, or is it impossible to play the Britannia campaign as England without losing at least one settlement? I played the WRE in Barbarian Invasion without losing a single settlement, but as Britannia I just couldn't hold onto them all. I've already lost three, although I think I can hold firm now.

[Gaidin]

Well one of the big setups for that campaign is that while the King is trying to solidify his hold on Ireland/etc a bunch of the regions are getting unruly. Does the citizen happiness start out low for any of them?

[Stravo]

Do I suck at this game, or is it impossible to play the Britannia campaign as England without losing at least one settlement? I played the WRE in Barbarian Invasion without losing a single settlement, but as Britannia I just couldn't hold onto them all. I've already lost three, although I think I can hold firm now.

If you can take the settlements back after reorganizing and regrouping it just might be the cost of playing Britannia in that campaign. I have yet to try it out but I'm sure that's part of the challenge of playing England. Holding onto what you can initially then building up a power base to counter attack with.

But I can understand your frustration. When playing I have this almost irrational hatred of losing any settlement no matter how small or on the fringe. It must always be me moving forward like an irresistable steamroller.

[wautd]

I don't think you can prevent the formation of the Baron alliance as well. When I was playing as Wales, 3 Englisch border settlements suddenly turned to the Baron. (and therefore becoming a very comfortable meatshield for me)

[PeZook]

But I can understand your frustration. When playing I have this almost irrational hatred of losing any settlement no matter how small or on the fringe. It must always be me moving forward like an irresistable steamroller.

I noticed several such states that I switch between. And it's extremely harmful - even Sun Tzu wrote that sometimes it is preferrable to lose something in order to secure greater gains.

For example, in my current MTW2 campaign (I Haven't gotten kingdoms yet) I'm wagin war on four separate fronts. I've recently lost a settlement (Prague) to the Germans, deliberately, so that I could consolidate my forces better at nearby castles. This means I can now hold the line, draw up reinforcements as the Turks and Byzantines are crushed, and take back the settlement. Had I tried to defend it adequately, I would have lost the city, the castles and my capital. A fair trade, overall.

[Darth Wong]

Well one of the big setups for that campaign is that while the King is trying to solidify his hold on Ireland/etc a bunch of the regions are getting unruly. Does the citizen happiness start out low for any of them?

Yes, but I was able to manage that successfully. The real problem is that I have some weak settlements which are fairly isolated, particularly in Ireland. Money is always a problem at the start of a TW campaign, so I made a decision to marshall my limited forces in order to stop Wales. As a result, I had no choice but to let the Irish make some significant gains; I simply couldn't afford the manpower to hold them back.

I've now destroyed the Wales faction and Scotland is busy fighting Norway, so it may be time to exact some revenge upon the Irish.

If you can take the settlements back after reorganizing and regrouping it just might be the cost of playing Britannia in that campaign. I have yet to try it out but I'm sure that's part of the challenge of playing England. Holding onto what you can initially then building up a power base to counter attack with.

Yeah, the problem is that both Wales and Ireland attack you almost immediately. At first you can hold them both off, but you're faced with a choice of either barely holding the line against both of them or building enough force against just one of them to completely destroy it (Wales is the logical choice here), knowing that you won't be able to hold the line against the other one. Maybe I could have done better; I don't know. The Irish kind of took me by surprise when they started putting a lot more heavy infantry into their armies.

But at least I've crushed Wales now, and I have a battle-hardened army that's ready to cross over to Ireland for some ass-kicking.

But I can understand your frustration. When playing I have this almost irrational hatred of losing any settlement no matter how small or on the fringe. It must always be me moving forward like an irresistable steamroller.

On the plus side, I will enjoy crushing the Irish that much more now

[Vympel]

... Irish ... conscripts.

I just got back from my most costly victorious battle ever in TW (when the Timurids wiped out a full stack in that tiny shitty little motte and bailey in my Grand Campaign, that was obviously my most costly defeat) - the Kingdom of Jerusalem got caught trying to assassinate one of my men, resulting in an instant state of war between us.

I already had a full, but low quality (it was assembled solely from the fortresses of Caesarea and Iconium, so no high-end Citadel troops) stack with two trebuchets (I'm always late to deploy seige weapons and tend to wait for gunpowder, as I find they slow me down) in a fleet near Cyprus on its way to nowhere in particular (I hadn't thought about where it was going), so I attacked the KoJ fortress of Limassol.

(Limassol is on Cyprus, Nicosia is a rebel settlement that I took, while I believe the KoJ took Limassol themselves earlier in the game, or maybe they started with it - it's turn 62 - anyway!)

It was a bad idea to attack that fortress with my standard build stack when it was only made up of second class units - I had three Byzantine spearmen in the stack to face off against virtually nothing but heavy cavalry, including Marshall of Templars.

My Greek Firethrower unit was totally wiped out because I was careless, my Trebizond Archers took horrific casualties, as did my Dismounted Byzantine Lancers, I only had one Latinkon (the only high end unit in the stack) left - literally one guy on a horse, and hardly any Byzantine Lancers survived.

The only guys who did well were the Spearmen, who hunkered down in schiltrom and killed all comers with few casualties (only one went below 100 men) and the ever reliable Vardariotai, who were fast enough to simply run from any KoJ knights who went after them - their arrows took a pretty bad toll.

The Trebuchet crews came out alright too, surprisingly. It was painful throwing infantry into a hopeless fight with Knights on a pretty much flat plain, but I had no choice. The Alamonoi did alright too.

But yeah, I suffered 50% casualties in that fight. Luckily I won, completely, resulting in the total annihilation of the stack outside Limassol and the few units inside the fortress, so I took the actual fortress without a siege.

Which brings me to a complaint - as the Greeks, you can hire mercenary Greek Firethrowers - but guess what - despite having identical stats - they're not the same as the Greek Firethrowers you get from fortresses! That's right, if you've got a double silver chevron Greek Firethrower who's taken casualties and desperately needs to be retrained, if it was hired as a mercenary unit and you're in a territory that doesn't have them, you're SOL.

[Companion Cube]

Since I generally play at Medium/Medium difficulty, the game took me by surprise in my Welsh H/VH campaign: English stacks coming on constantly and massing outside my borders. It's a good thing some of the crossings are guarded by forts, as I'd have had the English starving my cities out otherwise.

Fortunately, the shitty siege AI threw away thousands of good-quality troops attacking my moated forts, and I managed to break out with King what's-his-face. Made it all the way to London with my conquering half-stack. From there it was no challenge at all, and now at turn 90 I've wiped out the English, discounting one city in Ireland.

Unfortunately, my prisoner-executing policy has resulted in Wales having a "Despicable" reputation, which is a new low for me.

One neat thing I've noticed is that I can train troops belonging to a different faction once I've captured one of their cities. For example, after taking London I was able to train "English Billmen" there. They wear the same brown as mercenaries. Can you do this in the other campaigns?

[Darth Wong]

One neat thing I've noticed is that I can train troops belonging to a different faction once I've captured one of their cities. For example, after taking London I was able to train "English Billmen" there. They wear the same brown as mercenaries. Can you do this in the other campaigns?

That's due to the settlement culture still being primarily of the conquered faction. When the culture becomes mostly that of your own faction, you lose the ability to train these regional units and you gain the ability to train some of your own higher-end units.

[Vympel]

I generally execute all prisoners by default - I'm just too lazy to fight the same army again after I've defeated them - indeed, the more prisoners I take, the more likely I am to put them all to the sword.

Every time I start a new game I tell myself I'm going to be extremely chivalrous, but I always cave without releasing or even ransoming one set of prisoners.

And of course, you've got to at least sack the cities you occupy (if they're of a different religion) or else the population will be unmanageable.

[GuppyShark]

One neat thing I've noticed is that I can train troops belonging to a different faction once I've captured one of their cities. For example, after taking London I was able to train "English Billmen" there. They wear the same brown as mercenaries. Can you do this in the other campaigns?

That's due to the settlement culture still being primarily of the conquered faction. When the culture becomes mostly that of your own faction, you lose the ability to train these regional units and you gain the ability to train some of your own higher-end units.

Did they add this to the Grand Campaign as well or is that specific to the Britannia Campaign?

(I picked the expansion up last week but I've been too busy to play it )

[RazorOutlaw]

Of course sometimes it's so much easier to execute prisoners, gain the loyalty that you need and the florins you want than to just go easy on them. The game isn't quite as generous as Rome: Total War, but it is a different era and all.

Edit: I was thinking of towns when I wrote this, you couldn't take prisoners in RTW, although it would have been nice.

[Vympel]

What is it with the AI stacking it's armies full of various seige weaponry? I'm sick to death of engaging a big stack which in reality is nothing but some infantry and 18 mangonels. It also creates shitloads of unnecessary casualties if you play the battle on the map (I hardly ever skip a battle) from lucky hits from so many of them - even though you're guaranteed a victory because your cavalry can just kill them all by flanking.

*sigh*

I just had an even more costly battle - a full stack of mine was seiging a PoA (I declared war on them) city (Dikabir or something) when one of their ridiculous seige weapon stacks came into the rear, so I pressed the issue by attacking the city - I dealt with the reinforcements with cavalry and my archers (they had no spearmen and only general's bodyguard for cavalry) while my heavy infantry entered the city.

I won totally and they lost four generals, but I copped 53% casualties. I immediately recruited four mercenary infantry units (Frankish ones) to reinforce my stack as there's another PoA stack nearby and they might attack the city.

I don't understand why the KoJ get's 120-men cavalry units (if playing on huge) and I get 60.

[GuppyShark]

Heh, Creative Assembly's installer refused to update the game when I ran it - complained that I'd already patched it.

Ended up having to delete it and manually purge MTW from the registry as the uninstaller wouldn't work either.

Worked in the end, but Christ, lrn2installer.