You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Rome: Total War Discussion
Moderated by Terikel Grayhair, General Sajaru, Awesome Eagle

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.28 replies
Total War Heaven » Forums » Rome: Total War Discussion » Fighting style
Bottom
Topic Subject:Fighting style
srlj3721
Legionary
posted 20 May 2012 01:01 EDT (US)         
What is your fighting style?not on the battle map but on the campagin map
how do you lead yyour men to war do you steamroll,gather in a fortifed postion and tempt the enemy, lead an army strghit to the enemy capital?

me personaly i'm useless at building up i can do it and understand the cocept but i just get so bored in the end i usally send 2 full armys 1 full army or even a half army and take the fight to the enemy its reckless its daring it can succed massivly or fail miserbly but its the way i fight

so how do you fight?
AuthorReplies:
Terikel Grayhair
Imperator
(id: Terikel706)
posted 21 May 2012 02:00 EDT (US)     1 / 28       
I usually start out blitzing the nearby rebels while not building new units, then after my settlements grow, start carefully churning out units. I play exclusively on HUGE, so pumping out four spearbands will drain the settlement of a thousand men. So in the beginning it is expanding rapidly using only retraining and mercs until I can sack some rather large cities.

Once the initial blitz is past, I turtle up a bit to work on growth and infrastructure. I keep at least one family member in the field deflecting intruders, while I build up a second or third army.

Then I unleash the horde and stomp everything in sight.

Also, this is better suited to the Discussion forum, so I will move it there.

|||||||||||||||| A transplanted Viking, born a millennium too late. |||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||| Too many Awards to list in Signature, sorry lords...|||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||| Listed on my page for your convenience and envy.|||||||||||||||||
Somewhere over the EXCO Rainbow
Master Skald, Order of the Silver Quill, Guild of the Skalds
Champion of the Sepia Joust- Joust I, II, IV, VI, VII, VIII
Alex_the_Bold
Legionary
posted 21 May 2012 05:35 EDT (US)     2 / 28       
Well, my playing style is probably the definition of blitzing. I use my early armies to blitz every nearby settlement and construct only military buildings in my settlements. Usually, due to the extensive use of mercenaries, my economy is on the red. My solution to this problem is capturing more cities and exterminating them. I often send only a half stack to start an invasion and then send reinforcements every couple of turns.
The result of this policy is that I'm always fighting on to or more fronts, which is both hard and fun

Invincibility lies in defence, while the possibility of victory in the attack -Sun Tzu
Akouson me, pataxon de (hit me, but first listen to me)-Themistocles to Euribiadis prior to the battle of Salamis.
srlj3721
Legionary
posted 21 May 2012 05:45 EDT (US)     3 / 28       
as a anothor response of my question my play style is exacly like alexes fast deadly over extended with the possiblity of deafeat at every turn it's so much fun!

Rome 2 is coming
celebrate with this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZIPeGN7CPQ
Awesome Eagle
Spear of Mars
(id: awesomated88)
posted 21 May 2012 07:28 EDT (US)     4 / 28       
Slow and steady wins the race..
I take Rebel lands ASAP then consolidate, move on. Rinse,repeat...
I am a consolidator, not a war leader( but i am getting better)

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it- George Santayana
History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are- David C. McCullough
Wars not make one great- Yoda
Bloody_Sahara
Legionary
posted 22 May 2012 00:29 EDT (US)     5 / 28       
I naturally default to conservative on the campaign and battle, but after watching severous' AARs, I've tried to reform my style to be more like his.

It's true, though, that aggressive on the campaign is much more fun ... but after the first ~10 turns there's no reason to be aggressive and you have much more to lose.
General Sajaru
Tribunus Laticlavius
posted 22 May 2012 05:45 EDT (US)     6 / 28       
I tend to be fairly conservative, waiting to even take the settlements around my starting cities for a while (unless I'm playing a Roman- darn Senate). I build up all of my buildings (both military and economic), train as many troops as I can, then, when I start going in the red, gather up enough troops and take the closest settlements. As the game progresses, I have one "Main" army, with my best general that takes and sacks enemy cities, while I have 4-5 cities producing "Fill" armies; lesser troops to garrison the cities I take. I basically take new cities as fast as I can get my fill armies up to garrison the ones I've taken.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." - Ronald Reagan
"Judge them not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
"I like my enemies like James Bond likes his martinis- shaken, not stirred."
My first book, The King's Own
ShieldWall
Legionary
posted 22 May 2012 11:39 EDT (US)     7 / 28       
For the first few turns I attack anything nearby with whatever troops I happen to have, then I more or less hold fast until I can make top tier units. Blitzing has many positives to it. By acquiring additional cities you make your economy stronger and so you're much better placed to defend yourself, also you can knock a few competitors out completely before they become a problem and put others on the back foot. It's all about buying you time, so that when a faction does come along and put relentless pressure on you, you can deal with it.

I also play very close attention to the terrain, I won't capture cities just because I can, if it means I'll be in a poorly resourced region that will be difficult to defend against attack. I carve out my initial empire so that there are only a couple of directions that I can be attacked from. This is important because your troops are not great to begin with and you can't afford many of them. If you can only be attacked in a couple of places, you can make efficient use of your resources by piling all your troops in that area. A couple of strong armies to defend a couple of weak points, rather than lots of weak armies to defend many weak point.
MusCypricus
Legionary
posted 22 May 2012 12:49 EDT (US)     8 / 28       
I usually get a small, good quality army and send it to the enemies' center to "knock them out". On the way to the enemy, I train any mercenaries available so by the time the army gets to the target it is usually a full stack. (I use poor quality mercenaries as sword-fodder.)
Alex_the_Bold
Legionary
posted 22 May 2012 13:17 EDT (US)     9 / 28       
I do the same as Mus when I start a new invasion... It's proved very good so far...

Invincibility lies in defence, while the possibility of victory in the attack -Sun Tzu
Akouson me, pataxon de (hit me, but first listen to me)-Themistocles to Euribiadis prior to the battle of Salamis.
Punic Hebil
Centurion
(id: Punic Hoplite)
posted 22 May 2012 18:36 EDT (US)     10 / 28       
I always take one to two critical objectives before turtling. This lets me build up my cities, lets my enemies prepare themselves, and lets me build up some cash reserves for when I start pumping out armies I can't really afford in the long run. This generally results in a slow but unstoppable juggernaut, with armies that are always unbeatable and at full numbers. (Units with less than a full amount of soldiers really bugs me, so I must refill them before continuing. One of the reasons why I've grown so good at using elephants )

I am the Carthaginian who became an angel, and surrendered his wings for a life on the sea of battle.

My magic screen is constantly bombarded with nubile young things eager to please these old eyes. This truly is a wonderful period in which to exist! - Terikel the Deflowerer
Ecthelion
Legionary
(id: p90pro)
posted 22 May 2012 21:04 EDT (US)     11 / 28       
Assuming it's around mid-game and I have access to good soldiers and cavalry...

So long as I'm not fighting the Greeks or another phalanx heavy faction, I'll start the campaign to take enemy land with spies doing recon and an army or two of heavy cavalry that blitzes in and takes out any armies they have floating around. Slower field armies follow up and take the cities. Train a garrison and move those armies forward with the cavalry armies in the vanguard.

Sir, I have not yet begun to defile myself.
Swallow my pride? No thank you, Im too full of myself.
I bring you nothing but love and a shopping bag full of sexual depravity.
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
Tied with Meteora (****er) for Best Sig Award.
Awesome Eagle
Spear of Mars
(id: awesomated88)
posted 23 May 2012 01:08 EDT (US)     12 / 28       
So long as I'm not fighting the Greeks or another phalanx heavy faction, I'll start the campaign to take enemy land with spies doing recon and an army or two of heavy cavalry that blitzes in and takes out any armies they have floating around. Slower field armies follow up and take the cities. Train a garrison and move those armies forward with the cavalry armies in the vanguard.
That sounds like quite a good idea. What nation do u play as and what cavalry would be in the heavy cavalry mix?

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it- George Santayana
History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and why we are the way we are- David C. McCullough
Wars not make one great- Yoda
Alex_the_Bold
Legionary
posted 23 May 2012 02:01 EDT (US)     13 / 28       
I, on the other hand, find phalanx heavy factions suitable for blitzing, as they have an advantage in siege battles when fighting in th streets...

Invincibility lies in defence, while the possibility of victory in the attack -Sun Tzu
Akouson me, pataxon de (hit me, but first listen to me)-Themistocles to Euribiadis prior to the battle of Salamis.
Ecthelion
Legionary
(id: p90pro)
posted 23 May 2012 14:45 EDT (US)     14 / 28       
That sounds like quite a good idea. What nation do u play as and what cavalry would be in the heavy cavalry mix?
It works with any faction that has decent cavalry. But if you want a specific example I like to do it as the Germans and use armies of Gothic Cavalry and their other cav unit (can't remember what they're called, Noble?) The only trick is getting a barbarian economy strong enough to support that strategy. But it just looks so cool when you have the lot of them charge into a Roman army and sweep it away.

The Seleucids are a good faction as well for that with their selection of cavalry.

Also, I sometimes use the field/siege armies as bait while the cav army waits in ambush. It's an easy way to take out huge quantities of enemy soldiers.

Sir, I have not yet begun to defile myself.
Swallow my pride? No thank you, Im too full of myself.
I bring you nothing but love and a shopping bag full of sexual depravity.
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
Tied with Meteora (****er) for Best Sig Award.
Warlod Redvig
Legionary
posted 23 May 2012 15:38 EDT (US)     15 / 28       
I suppose I'm in the extremes of both :P I tend to blitz the first few turns but then sit tight for aages and get tonnes of dosh. Then when another nation is worthy of my attention, I blitz again

Although when I say blitz, it tends to be a small stack against hordes of the enemy and relying on my skill as a general to defeat the AI, which isn't the hardest thing in the world :P

It is pleasant, when the sea is high and the winds are dashing the waves about, to watch from the shores the struggles of another - Lucretius
Thompsoncs
Legionary
posted 23 May 2012 16:07 EDT (US)     16 / 28       
As you can see in my swapgames terms, I usually play aggressive, but always focussed on consolidating conquest before jumping in a new war. (though I do fight wars at multiple fronts).

It also depends a bit on which faction you play. Some need a good economy in the start, others (like the romans) can go straigth for military.

Economy is for me usually just important in the early stages. After you've conquered enough (especially the balkans) your monetary issues should be over. In the middle and late stage of the game, I dont even know what to do with all the money.
Alex_the_Bold
Legionary
posted 29 May 2012 08:10 EDT (US)     17 / 28       
The only campaign in which I focused on my economy was my Seleucid one. After I blitzed everyone in the East (which took me 100-115 years), I turtled for another 100 years before crossing the Aegean, but I hadn't built nearly any military building. I had about 250K denarii but I could only recruit tier three units (phalanx pikemen). So, these obsolete units faced elite Roman cohorts all the way to Tarentum in a massive blitz, but unfortunately I ran out of time. Anyway, I decided to change my style of play and I'd like some advice from you turtlers...

Invincibility lies in defence, while the possibility of victory in the attack -Sun Tzu
Akouson me, pataxon de (hit me, but first listen to me)-Themistocles to Euribiadis prior to the battle of Salamis.
General Sajaru
Tribunus Laticlavius
posted 29 May 2012 09:14 EDT (US)     18 / 28       
Well, one of the most important things for a turtler is to play the long campaign

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." - Ronald Reagan
"Judge them not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
"I like my enemies like James Bond likes his martinis- shaken, not stirred."
My first book, The King's Own
rb207
Legionary
posted 29 May 2012 14:17 EDT (US)     19 / 28       
I gather a group of elite units and head them towards key strategic points either economic key points or choke points. I send as many weaker units with them as possible to act as cannon fodder.

While I am attacking them my opponents are less likely to attack me and I leave enough units to provide for an adequate defence, including a lot of archers.

Once I have got a good group of men I roll them around taking town after town, looking to assault towns with weak garrisons. Early in the game I tend to take towns and cities but later when I have a strong economy I will gift them to allies/protectorates or sack them and leave them for rebels/nationalists.
Hannibal the Conqueror
Legionary
(id: HannibalBarcaXXI)
posted 09 June 2012 08:17 EDT (US)     20 / 28       
My playing style mainly involves building up, and trying not to make enemies very early on. I focus carefully on economic infrastructure, and later comes the military infrastructure.

It may be boring to many, as I tend to LOVE playing around with my enemy, applying various tactics. Conquering an Egyptian Antioch and Alexandria, then steamrolling through the rest of the Levant maybe boring at first, but it is very rewarding in the end.

Army Deployment? I usually keep one army near every major area of mine, and always select the best units to a major battle, depending on the situation. 3 units of Sacred Bands fighting across a Bridge on the Rhine can counter hundreds of German Chosen Axemen.


It might seem to be an uncertain method of gaining victory, but I have experimented long enough with this method, to know that Victory would be certain.


Finally, I always go for the most rewarding prize, and always have a back-up plan (just in case). Unlike several Respected Warlords here, I do not plunge in my entire army into a fight I cannot win. I take a paper (Yes, I do) and start drawing the formations of my army and my opponent's, and the possible maneuvers, strategies or tactics I may use.


And fortunately, this method always works.



"I long for Darkness."
- Cormac McCarthy, The Sunset Limited.

"We are a species that ravages, plunders, kills, destroys, rapes and enslaves in the name of progress."
srlj3721
Legionary
posted 10 June 2012 20:58 EDT (US)     21 / 28       
Hannibal there is no fight you cannot win!
it just takes lots of skill a sprinkle of brainpower and a little(or a lot) of luck

ive fought my way out of many "impossible" situations

5 units of hastati against 27 warbands and a general ive done that

8 units of warbands and a general 19 warbands and a chariot genral done that too

in hindsight that may be bragging but so what ive done and im and im proud of it

plus everything even more possible if you have an entire army in a fight

Rome 2 is coming
celebrate with this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZIPeGN7CPQ
Hannibal the Conqueror
Legionary
(id: HannibalBarcaXXI)
posted 12 June 2012 12:05 EDT (US)     22 / 28       
"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious"


- Sun Tzu

"I long for Darkness."
- Cormac McCarthy, The Sunset Limited.

"We are a species that ravages, plunders, kills, destroys, rapes and enslaves in the name of progress."
srlj3721
Legionary
posted 15 June 2012 04:23 EDT (US)     23 / 28       
If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.
-Sun Tzu

i know me
i know the ai

next question

Rome 2 is coming
celebrate with this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZIPeGN7CPQ
Hannibal the Conqueror
Legionary
(id: HannibalBarcaXXI)
posted 15 June 2012 05:49 EDT (US)     24 / 28       
That's exactly what Hannibal did at Cannae. He fought the Romans and won, because of his experience ( and a bit of luck ) and his outstanding tactics.


When the Romans lost the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 C.E., the cause was that the Romans knew not the ways of the Germans in battle. And thus, they paid the price.


And by the way, you forgot to complete the quote...

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
- Sun Tzu



I'd rather not jump in with a hundred Urban Cohorts against a half stack German Army which I do not know it's troop composition. This brings back the Battle of Thermopylae, and how Leonidas was to be Victorious in the end if it weren't for the treason of Ephialtes. This was because Leonidas knew his MEN, and not his enemy. Thus, the joy of the initial victory, and the horror of the eventual defeat.

"I long for Darkness."
- Cormac McCarthy, The Sunset Limited.

"We are a species that ravages, plunders, kills, destroys, rapes and enslaves in the name of progress."
Punic Hebil
Centurion
(id: Punic Hoplite)
posted 15 June 2012 12:23 EDT (US)     25 / 28       
He fought the Romans and won, because of his experience ( and a bit of luck ) and his outstanding tactics.
You forgot to mention his Numidian Cavalry The Romans only beat Hannibal when they themselves had Numidians on their side

I am the Carthaginian who became an angel, and surrendered his wings for a life on the sea of battle.

My magic screen is constantly bombarded with nubile young things eager to please these old eyes. This truly is a wonderful period in which to exist! - Terikel the Deflowerer
Hannibal the Conqueror
Legionary
(id: HannibalBarcaXXI)
posted 15 June 2012 14:29 EDT (US)     26 / 28       
Yes, I'm afraid I forgot to mention them


They were a great asset in keeping the Allied Roman Cavalry occupied, and later when the other Barbarian Cavalry rose victorious on the other flank, the Allied Cavalry just fled off the field. They were also of great use when they charged at the Romans' rear and completed Hannibal's encirclement of the Roman troops.


But, damn! How could I forget these guys! One of 'em was my pal and my great great grandfather must have told me the same story over 100 times!

"I long for Darkness."
- Cormac McCarthy, The Sunset Limited.

"We are a species that ravages, plunders, kills, destroys, rapes and enslaves in the name of progress."
srlj3721
Legionary
posted 15 June 2012 18:11 EDT (US)     27 / 28       
I find it fun to fight unknown or heavliy outnumbered battles it gives me a sense of acheivement and glory(oh how everyone loves glory)

but i admit in most other areas in totaal war i am lacking if i was a genral i would have 9 command stars and 3 managment(i know not how much influence)

i am usally losing money and i can't manage an empire well

Rome 2 is coming
celebrate with this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZIPeGN7CPQ
Great Cornholio
Legionary
posted 28 June 2012 20:10 EDT (US)     28 / 28       
I use a lot of archers. I agressively take cities by whatever means possible and then put archers behind or on top of walls and invite counter-attack. I will also take hot button cities that I know a faction will attack so that I have a nice pretext for war. Egypt will always attack Tarsus so if I can grab it from rebels, I know that Egypt will attack and brake a truce in a couple of turns. I also like specialize cities in my command. Some will just build ships and I improve the port first, some train cav some train infantry while another trains archers. The Capital trains generals and the Academy is always the first improved. The rest are built for the economy. Once a city gets to huge it is either training troops or adopts a smaller town and trains peasents to help grow the smaller town.

Uhhhh... look! I don't know what your problem is... but I simply cannot have students wandering the hallways during class, interrupting other classes and giving prophesies of a great plague. - Principle McVicker
Cornholio!
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Total War Heaven | HeavenGames