Share your Tricks, Strategies and Ideas

[Ender365]

[Merchant Trap]
In the early game the NPC Merchants are quite agressive as they go looking for prey.

If you are able to get a semi-decent Merchant then put them together with a crappy Merchant and use the crappy Merchant as bait.

Even poor NPC Merchants will come looking for your Merchant & hopefully your good Merchant can aquire them.

There are a couple of places (Only played as Engalnd so far) where it is possible to stop access to the bait totally but the Merchants still come (nr. Metz & Stockholm region) but if a NPC Merchant comes who you can't deal with then take your Merchant off the goods & they will stop being a target.

[Sieges]
Always have a couple of Cavalry units in your Town/Castle - they are always good at last ditch charges, however if a besieging army comes with no Cavalry you can sally forth & break up the siege.

Towers & Rams are the big danger so try & get those units - ladders are easier to counter on the walls.

Ladders also seem to be a bugged - If they are the only NPC option the enemy troops climb them 1 man at a time & take ages to get onto the walls.

[pravoslavnie]

this thread is awesome. keep 'em coming! thanks to all who have posted. i can't wait to try these out at home.

the only thing that i can think of that *might* help someone is to use large fleets when you need to move quickly instead of walking across land. i'm trying to defeat all of africa and the middle east now and walking across that dessert takes waaayy too long. i built a few fleets of carracks and gun holks and i can move my armies and merchants very quickly from place to place now.

[Feudal Knight]

I can think of something that has helped me. I often try and trick the AI. In campaign leave your border towns with a small garrison. Only do this if you have a town nearby with plenty of troops in. The AI will usually send a small army to try and capture the settlement and all you have to do is send the larger army to get rid of them. This way the enemy are basically just seeing the tip of the iceberg and they fall for it every time. Works like a charm to wear an enemy down.

Also in river battles if you both have artillery and they are holding position make sure you take out as many artillery pieces as possible. If you just go for troops with your artillery, when you send your men across the bridge they will be brutally massacred by the enemy artillery. You will still lose some men but the less artillery the enemy has the fewer you will lose.

[glevi]

It is an exploit without a doubt:
1) It was not intentially programmed into the game. It is like the swipe exploit in MTW1.
2) The computer cannot take advantage of it
3) Your merchants are immune to acquisition.
4) You are only supposed to have one merchant on a resource. What is the point of having scarce resources if whoever squats on it first can put unlimmited merchants on it.

1) Is this confirmed by CA? What is your source? And if so, why wasn't this fixed in 1.1?
2) The computer can not take advantage of a lot of things. Just read one of the threads about the battle AI.
3) Well...yeah. That's one of the two benefits =) And the merchants can be overtaken on their way TO the fort.
4) Nothing prevents the AI from taking over the region and destroying the fort. This would be very realistic, since wars over resources are second only to religious wars.

[El Hamburglo]

You'd have to be a meat head to not consider it an exploit.

But you'd have to be a real beef hat to get all hung up on people using exploits in a single player game.

[DarkKnight]

1) Is this confirmed by CA? What is your source? And if so, why wasn't this fixed in 1.1?

It's quite obvious. There is no documentation in the manual and no mention of this has been anywhere else. When swipe was accidently programmed into MTW half of the community tried to argue that it was a feature, but then of course CA found out about it and fixed it.

It is kind of hard for CA to fix something that they don't know about. And even so they were on a time crunch to get the fixes in 1.1 out. They didn't even get everything fixed that they knew about. Did CA intend to put the 2 handed animation bug in?

3) Well...yeah. That's one of the two benefits =) And the merchants can be overtaken on their way TO the fort.

1) Until you simply make another merchant (which costs nothing compared to the profit it will make)
2) You can easily avoid getting acquired. If it is a long distance away... travel by ship. Send a spy ahead to scout for enemy merchants and avoid them. If enemy merchants camp out by the resource... well you have plenty of high finance merchants sitting on the resource to acquire them.
3) Yes its a benefit... of an exploit. If this is not an exploit explain to me what one is?

4) Nothing prevents the AI from taking over the region and destroying the fort. This would be very realistic, since wars over resources are second only to religious wars.

Lets say there is a "feature" which makes it so your cities (and only your cities) make 10 times as much money as they should. Nothing stops the AI from invading and taking them from you.

[glevi]

[Merchant Trap]
[Sieges]
Always have a couple of Cavalry units in your Town/Castle - they are always good at last ditch charges, however if a besieging army comes with no Cavalry you can sally forth & break up the siege.

Towers & Rams are the big danger so try & get those units - ladders are easier to counter on the walls.

Ladders also seem to be a bugged - If they are the only NPC option the enemy troops climb them 1 man at a time & take ages to get onto the walls.

This reminds me. You can use a cavalry unit during a siege to attack the ballista/catapult unit and protect your walls from being breached. In most cases, one good charge will make the artillery troops rout and if you are lucky you can even bring most of your suicide cavalry unit back to the castle. The same works for ladder/siege tower units. If you make the unit carrying the siege weapon rout, the AI is too stupid to pick it up again with a different unit.

[glevi]

You'd have to be a meat head to not consider it an exploit.

But you'd have to be a real beef hat to get all hung up on people using exploits in a single player game.

An exploit is a software bug or a hack.
This is neither...just an undocumented feature that can make your life easier. This is what this thread is about - tips and tricks that are not documented in the manual, but make your life easier. If you are so hardcore, don't use the tricks in this thread and play only by the rules that are given in the manual.

Some people invent their own rules and restrictions on top of that. Like not taking advantage of AI stupidity in battles, not using blitzkrieg tactics in the campaign, etc.

[glevi]

It's quite obvious. There is no documentation in the manual and no mention of this has been anywhere else. When swipe was accidently programmed into MTW half of the community tried to argue that it was a feature, but then of course CA found out about it and fixed it.

So may be the fact that AI doesn't do this is the real bug?
Anyways, see above post about exploits. I think it is very subjective what is to be considered an exploit. If someone thinks one of these tricks is "immoral" it is up to them not to use it. I guess whatever helps you find the perfect balance in your gaming experience works.

[El Hamburglo]

An exploit is a software bug or a hack.
This is neither...just an undocumented feature that can make your life easier. This is what this thread is about - tips and tricks that are not documented in the manual, but make your life easier. If you are so hardcore, don't use the tricks in this thread and play only by the rules that are given in the manual.

Some people invent their own rules and restrictions on top of that. Like not taking advantage of AI stupidity in battles, not using blitzkrieg tactics in the campaign, etc.

Its a loophole in the rules. By using it, you're exploiting the fact that your agents become invulnerable and the AI doesn't know how to counter. Hence "exploit".

I'm not hardcore at all. I could care less if you do it or not, but lets call a horse a horse. Of course ;P

[Angmar_nite]

You can only build fort on your own territory. Which means that distance wise the resource won't generate as much money.

[glevi]

You can only build fort on your own territory. Which means that distance wise the resource won't generate as much money.

Well, this actually depends on where your capital is located. If it's far enough from the resource the profits will be pretty high.

[glevi]

Its a loophole in the rules. By using it, you're exploiting the fact that your agents become invulnerable and the AI doesn't know how to counter. Hence "exploit".

I'm not hardcore at all. I could care less if you do it or not, but lets call a horse a horse. Of course ;P

What rules are you referring to? I just think if something is realstic enough, it's ok. It's not like i'm giving myself unlimited money. I still have to invest into the infrustructure, to get the agent limit up.

So you can call it a horse or a pony, but I think it reflects the reality more, than having 1 merchant per resource, that can be "consumed" (wtf?) by another merchant. In medieval times if the foreign merchant didn't pay a tax or a bribe to the local lord, he would be hanged in no time.

[El Hamburglo]

Realistic my hinee, a military fort isn't exactly a sales hot spot for silk and spices. Its unrealistic to be able to market anything without being exposed to the market itself.

Unless its one of those iraq super bases with McDonalds and stuff...

[Petavian Belgae]

Stakes in def.
Line up your archers .
Push the stakes button.
Place you inf on the same place as your archers.
push battle .
Retreat you archers after the inf and you have a good Def position.

[danes]

glevi,

sorry but, as darknight said it is really an exploit.
1. Yes, it is undocumented. The developers did not know about it, they didnt document it.
2. The devs didnt program the AI to use it bec, they didnt come up with it. It is possible to do it bec the devs weren't aware that the feature of forts+merchants could create these benefits. So they didnt Disallow it.
3. Thus a player can perform this undocumented action which reaps undocumented benefits. You can call it a "trick" or a "hint" but formally (if u can call the gaming language formal) it is an exploit. I can all but guarantee that if CA sees it, they will list it as a bug to be fixed if they see it as serious enough. (but who knows, they might see it as a logical "feature" as you described. totally unexpected, but acceptable nonetheless)

...and for an "accepted definition" of tha slang "exploit" in gaming terms.. see wikipedia below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploit...line_gaming%29

"In the realm of online games, an exploit is usually a software bug, hack or bot that contributes to the user's prosperity in a manner not intended by the developers. In other words it is a form of cheating."

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Your are wasting valuable space on a important thread. It is a exploit or trick or whatever you like to call it but it belongs here on this thread. If you are not happy using it then don't. I don't.

Another exploit: When using ships to transport your crusading army, before shoving off make sure you have highlighted all the ships in the group. When you have finished your move you will magically see the same movement points appear again, effectively doubling your travel distance. This sometimes works for other ships too.

[Space Voyager]

The merchants in a fort is definitely an exploit. CA simply didn't predict this could happen.

Many merchants CAN NOT produce many times the profit from a limited resource. One can argue that the resources are unlimited, but it is clear the system is not meant like this.

I have nothing against people using this exploit but I won't do it. I try never to do anything what the AI is uncapable of doing (intelligence excluded). The game it too easy as it is.

[danes]

tip for sending Backups in Melee :

generally, if 2 units are fighting each other in melee, and if u want to send backup to one unit from behind.. simply right clicking on the enemy will order your backup units to attack, but theyll kind of mill about behind the first unit and wait for space to open up instead of pushing its way to the front. this happens for units of the same mass. because the front units need space for their animations. this will lead to the front units getting a lot of casualties and almost negates the concept of backup since the 2nd units wait for casualties so they can move forward.

If u want your backup to actually charge up and help, then order this 2nd unit to move by clicking on ground behind the enemy. this will order them to push and shove to the front of the fighting. then right click to attack only when they reach the enemy.

the enemy will immediately be faced with 2:1 odds and almost certainly youll see their status change from: "Forces evenly balanced" to "Defeat is a certainty". Less casualties for both of your units as a whole.

hope this helps

[vonKrysiak]

@glevi - ok if ytou dont think it is an explit then I ll call it a CHEAT. Guys no matter how you look at the merchant thingy it is a cheat. It helps you get profit while computer does not have the code to use this feature, furthermore - no computer cant just take over this province and destory the fort becasue this kind of action is not coded in the game.
I am not saying dont use it, but use your own consideration - you are doing something that no other nation will be bale to do - might as well use codes to add money lets be honest ;-)
Although I DO agree with above posters, it would make sense historically to build fort and keep enemy merchants away (bit too early for mercantilism but what the hell hehe) But as it is not been coded by CA that the AI can do it this feature is putting AI factions in a disadvantage...