To build or not to build...that is the question!

[bentlemp]

I was just wondering about everyone's expansion style. Do you build an army to a great size, thus tipping the odds in your favor hoping to ensure victory before venturing forth to conquer the next region?

Or do you build what you feel is simply adequate, relying more on speed in your conquest than overall dominance?

[OfficerJohn]

Let the AI build, secure your economy.
Then fight untill one of you dies!

[Bela]

Depends on: in safe towns (I mean, no enemy terrritories are around) only farms, trade and public health increasing buildings(more population, more income, more money for troops) with minimum garrison (mainly lowest level units for free upkeep), in the borderlands mostly military buildings. When capturing new settlements, sack them (if they have no use) sell all possible buildings and sell the town for my allies, or (if I want to keep it) just occupy and build culture increasing buildings and so on.
But basicly roads mines and farms everywhere (gain more income from harvesting than from trade)

IMO rush tactics do not work in TATW (thanks to the garrison scripts). On the other hand as you always have at least two enemies, one of them will always attack your weakened back if conquer the other too quickly.

[Skeleton Of The West]

I use most of the money in the start to build, it is the best I think to establish a good base and economy, only then I start recruiting armies.

[jinjo]

Depends on: in safe towns (I mean, no enemy terrritories are around) only farms, trade and public health increasing buildings(more population, more income, more money for troops) with minimum garrison (mainly lowest level units for free upkeep), in the borderlands mostly military buildings. When capturing new settlements, sack them (if they have no use) sell all possible buildings and sell the town for my allies, or (if I want to keep it) just occupy and build culture increasing buildings and so on.
But basicly roads mines and farms everywhere (gain more income from harvesting than from trade)

IMO rush tactics do not work in TATW (thanks to the garrison scripts). On the other hand as you always have at least two enemies, one of them will always attack your weakened back if conquer the other too quickly.

i agree with u
i do the same as u

[axnsan]

not to build!

[Steve Holt]

I generally build all buildings in all regions, but when I go on a campaign all my provinces garrisons are minimal, only if im pressured by revolts or bordering enemy nations then I increase the garrisons. If u are high elves this is very easy to do if you go down the coast.

[Æsir]

Human player just dont have enough money to build a large army.

[axnsan]

says who?
by turn 60 you'll have enough money that you'll end up using them as toilet paper

[OfficerJohn]

says who?
by turn 60 you'll have enough money that you'll end up using them as toilet paper

I use money as toilet paper.
I even made a youtube video of it, I can link you, just have to find it.

(PS: "They're taking the hobbits to Isengard", I'm at the second movie, extended, I lol'd...)

[P|A|ntZ]

I always go for an infrastructure-heavy building strategy at first to increase income. Farms, markets, roads - and establish as many trade agreements as possible. I keep two small-ish mobile armies at first, and use spare cash to put free upkeep garrisons in most towns.

The first mobile army is for defense while I build up infrastructure. The second is used to capture any nearby rebel settlements that can make for quick expansion.

As a good player, I don't go on the offensive until I've withstood the initial crusades that Sauron calls.

As an evil player, I go on the offensive at about turn 50 after I've built up some decent military buildings and income.

[Skeleton Of The West]

As an evil player, I go on the offensive at about turn 50 after I've built up some decent military buildings and income.

What are you doing until you attack, just building an army? I would go crazy if I will spend 50 turns just building.

[P|A|ntZ]

Pretty much focusing on building up income, as well as maxing out a handful of military buildings. That way when my initial stacks are sent out, I usually have a troop quality advantage as well as numerical.

[DeliCious.vP]

build 3 groups 3-4 groups of archers per group + some cannon fodder and never stop expanding and all money goes to infrastructure Putting money at making money. Computer cant micro hes unit for . and archers are so extremly overpowered in the hands of the master. even snagas.

Edit: then not everyone has it easy with the archers.
but CC3 Rank 1 Computer/Xbox
BFME2 Rank 1 Xbox
220 apm Starcraft player. <-- Brag

[Kawee]

build 3 groups 3-4 groups of archers per group + some cannon fodder and never stop expanding and all money goes to infrastructure Putting money at making money. Computer cant micro hes unit for . and archers are so extremly overpowered in the hands of the master. even snagas.

Edit: then not everyone has it easy with the archers.
but CC3 Rank 1 Computer/Xbox
BFME2 Rank 1 Xbox
220 apm Starcraft player. <-- Brag

I don't think you'll impress too many people here with that achievement

[Steve Holt]

He impressed me

[bentlemp]

The reason I asked this question is because TA:TW has a unique element that I can't quite put my finger on. It differs from ME2:TW in that, possibly because of the scope of the map, maybe because of the balance of the alliances, etc...but just blitzing nearby bandits early thins out the troops too quickly IMO. This mod almost demands measured expansion which is also why I am so thoroughly enjoying it. Because there are only two sides instead of 10 difference alliances going on, you know they are coming for you and every step must be calculated.

[Momus]

just blitzing nearby bandits early thins out the troops too quickly IMO

you can expand rapidly you just have to do it intelligently (unlike my spelling i suspect ) and just use natural border choke points and allies as barriers - as dwarves you can push to kuv.....something and then just sit on the river crossings and also take lunelaith and numial.....(the two rebel bases in the west) as every time eriador and HE have sent me diplomat asking for alliance even b4 good/evil mod

to claim the settlements just starve them then charge in when they sally simples

[Mythre]

I do not get some people's confusion. (Not to be mean.)
Merely identify the best course of action. Divide your enemies into major fronts. Prioritize them and go after them with appropriate force. I have had no problems building a economic powerhouse along with steady and juggernaut-like military progress along two to three fronts. In my High Elf campaigns it was divided like this: Misty Mountains (From Imladris), The Coasts: (From Mithlond), and then both converged to squeeze Isenguard from two sides, linking the two separate parts of my empire. I have 0 battles lost as the High Elves at turn 70. The highest battle casualties i have taken was I believe 200.... even that I think was around a 5-1 kill ratio. Archers are amazing at force multiplying.

Cash was a minor issue at the start but quickly fell away as I conquered the Misty Mountains and got the ports up around Mithlond. I have never had need to sack a settlement for money

[lunch]

First i build farms, roads and things like that, to secure my economy. Then I start building millitary, and build huge armies. While I secure my economy, I take rebel settlments around me. If I hava a sure enemy (Mordor with Gondor, for example), I make one settlement (Minas Tirith, in my example) to a millitary settlement, and build an army there.