House rules

[born2dive67]

What house rules do you use?

Me, I do not build in any province that has no general in it.
Now I also will not attempt to conquer new provinces that I have no general for:: Cancel this one forgot it would limit end game to much

New one: Use spys, priests, and princecess as messengers before Generals and troops move to where I want them to either go or attack
Also will try to keep titles generals receive as hereditary as possible

what house rules does everyone else use?

[Giuliano Taverna]

Govern all provinces, (important port cities before the hinterland.) always have generals lead armies. Never destroy factions, always instead making them vassals or declaring peace and using them as buffers. Focus on agriculture first, military second, trade third, and public order and entertainment last, (the middle ages shouldn't be fun.)

[bleach]

Fight all battles with restricted general's camera. Closest thing to fog of war available, and about the only change which can make battles challenging.

Usually I try not to make any policy decisions that are very OOC for my faction leader. If he's a cowardly playboy then he sits in the capital , makes other generals fight for him and never starts a war. If he's Timur the lame, he's more willing to get his hands dirty.

Don't start wars without what I would consider a cassus belli, such as: an ally attacked; people of a different culture or religion squatting on land from my culture/religion; a major trade partner attacked; because my FL is a bloodthirsty conqueror. In that order.

I like the idea of hereditary titles. Usually I keep the FH in my capital city until the leader dies, so lordship of the capital will always stay with the King. I might try doing that with all generals, now.

[DaVinci]

Fight all battles with restricted general's camera

This is really brave, or may i say chivalrous. I did this at last years ago, and in mods with quite proper battle AI and difficulty, the result was sometimes a big mess ... .

And do you lead all your units also if you attack? Or do you put some of them into AI control?
Do you loose battles?

[bleach]

Here is why I started using the general's cam. When I used to play without it, there was no need to plan ahead when entering a battle. I could deploy my troops in any formation I pleased, march them towards the enemy and be totally confident that the enemy AI would make some mistake in its maneuvers or deployment which would allow me to pick it apart, no problem. There is no need for a plan when you can see every part of the battle, watch the entire thing develop in front of you and think--oh look here comes a charge on my right wing, better give them some support--ok now the enemy flank is exposed, let me curl my cavalry around there--and there is no threat whatsoever that my general will lose communication with his main battle line while he gets involved in a lengthy flanking maneuver--or no danger that he will get bogged down in melee defending the wing while attacks strike across the entire length of the line and there is not a way to ideally direct the defense--I could go anywhere, see everything, issue precise orders to every unit instantaneously. For a time when radio hadn't been invented yet, this was just too much. I should feel like a medieval general playing this game--yelling orders to people in earshot or sending orders to distant units with flags and musical instruments(you can of course still issue orders to anyone in general's cam, but if the the units are too far to see and you are relying on battle map to direct their movement then the precision will be bad and the results are going to be very dicey).

The new way I play, my approach is more thoughtful and my battlefield movements more deliberate. What kind of army am I facing? What is its strengths, weaknesses? Ok, I've got a tactic that might work, now let me figure out how I will execute it--pick my way across the terrain very carefully, get into an ideal position--everything must be just right, I'll only get one chance to execute. I can't see everything and be everywhere now. If my plan fails or something goes badly wrong, I will probably have to withdraw entirely, stage a fighting retreat, keep falling back and try to keep the enemy distracted with feints and support lines and try to save as many as I can. A successful attack take a good plan and good execution, not just a quick mouse hand. Luck plays a bigger part of it than usual, but it seems more authentic--Caesar didn't say 'the die is cast' for nothing--besides, it sustains my interest to know that everything won't work out like it should.

One tip if you're going to have your general leading charges: think like Alexander. When he led his heavy cavalry into the enemy's weak point, it was after they had already engaged him--on the other side of his lines, where a bunch of strong defensive units (parmenio's boys) sat in 'guard mode' and held out as long as they could while the center phalanx advanced and Alex rolled up the enemy lines. You don't have to see or manage as much when part of your army is essentially a stationary decoy. Don't forget about them, though!

Things are a bit easier on defense--then you can play a more reactive style, ranging your general behind the lines, looking for the weak points and wavering troops, shouting encouragement and orders to them when you get close--then rush back to the other side of the line, no time to waste, the next attack is coming in!

Then there are the messy battles, like you mentioned--frustrating sometimes but also thrilling, to see the lines breaking up into 10 or 12 separate melees and just scanning around your general thinking--now what??? Or better yet, what do I do first?? And then finding your bodyguard charged by heavy cavalry from a side you weren't even watching, and now your general is fighting for his own life along with everybody else.

Not sure what you mean about putting units under AI control, AFAIK you can only do that if they are in separate armies..? Yes I do lose battles--but always win the war of attrition, since I have an idea when to cut my loses and run before the army is annihilated--the AI doesn't. Oh well. It's still more fun than winning EVERY time.

[born2dive67]

Bleach

DO you do anything as might pertain to the unit leaders self initiative itself? SO ok a unit leader might not send it himself across the entire front line to hit an enemy in the side but he might find himself unengaged and decide to attack the flank of an enemy unit that is engaged with one of his friendly neighbors in the line

[bleach]

Bleach

DO you do anything as might pertain to the unit leaders self initiative itself? SO ok a unit leader might not send it himself across the entire front line to hit an enemy in the side but he might find himself unengaged and decide to attack the flank of an enemy unit that is engaged with one of his friendly neighbors in the line

yeah, if the situation demands it, I'm not going to leave my strongest cavalry out of play. you just have to remember everything else that is going on in the battle(if you can't see it). I won't chase routers with my general, though, unless the battle is all but over.

[Berak Eisenfaust]

Not sure what you mean about putting units under AI control, AFAIK you can only do that if they are in separate armies..? Yes I do lose battles--but always win the war of attrition, since I have an idea when to cut my loses and run before the army is annihilated--the AI doesn't. Oh well. It's still more fun than winning EVERY time.

There is the possibility of forming gruops of units and putting them under AI control. Just look on the group options.
With that u could simulate own-inspired commands by your unit commanders in regions where your general is not in direct command.


Interesting approach though, think i´m gonna try it in some campaigns. (I have some, which are going a bit too easy atm^^)

[bleach]

Ok, thanks. I actually had not realized that, but it may come in handy.