What kind of EB2 player are you?

[Hummer]

I am a builder. I like building nations to the point I believe my nation is self sustaining, I can easily defend myself and I can be a player in international affairs. This is completely subjective to my whims. I build every building everywhere and try to maximize my culture in my conquered territories. I start by building my economy. Then I build an army and navy as I can afford them later. During my building I recruit certain elite troops and stash them in minor settlements for free upkeep while I stockpile the troops I want. I do try for balanced armies but with quality, I don't like levies. I try to consolidate my borders to be easily defensible. I war a little but not a lot and usually accept peace offers. Sometime I inject myself in AI wars but not a lot, usually I let things happen around me. Sometimes I follow historical happenings, like consolidating rebel cities of my culture. I never blitz (in my opinion), I like to take my time and see what happens with the AI. I usually gain the status of being a top 5 nation but usually am not the largest or have the strongest military. Although I often end up with the largest treasury.

What kind of player are you?

The historical?
The turtle?
The blitzer?
The conqueror?
The diplomat?

[Jervaj]

I think Im very similar to you due to the following aspect.

I like development. I should have as soon as possible something being built in every settlement I have. So I dont really blitz. I somewhat did before but I dont like having much cities without governors so in the last months I can say I dont blitz at all, but when is absolutely need (first turns).
Also my armies tend to be like yours, too much quality to be realistic. Its not like I go all elites, just that with some factions I only use medium and high tier troops, rarely using levies with a few exceptions.
Is a bit faction related (it happened in vanilla too as with some factions I used 0 militia and with others a lot) as in factions where I feel levies are somewhat decent I do use them for their low price. But I just prefer quality over quantity so I cant really field troops I consider really weak.

For expansion targets, I look for specific zones, ussually trying to form somewhat cores centered empires, but also based in some historical real developments, or just what I feel it would make sense to eb the zone of influence or objective of that faction.

After a bunch of turns Im ussually very high in productions and households but not so in military. But that has to do too with how AI works. I ussually acept peace offers even when Im winning a war unless I really want a certain settlement the enemy still controls. I dont mind having lengthy peace periods.

About my armies, I consider me an infantry commander. Dont get my wrong, I use cavalry and actually enjoy it, even cavalry based factions, but my first choice always goes towards melee infantry and I ussually end playing, first and more often ,with factions that are based arround line infatry. I love line heavy infantry and medium versatile one. I even used to field too unbalanced armies (for my own good) at the start, though I have learnt to use and enjoy (a lot) cavalry, speccially medium-heavy.
I like to have ranged support and always field some units of this kind but its always my last preference. If they can have melee capability aside their ranged one I use them more though.

[adun12345]

I'm definitely an historical/turtle type of player. I like trying to build a decent-sized faction along historical lines, and expand slowly. I try to fight limited wars for bits of territory and then negotiate peace with the AI, even if it means paying them some tribute (indemnity, gift, etc.). I try to follow the campaign season cycle, and return my armies/family members to their appripriate cities for winter. I also try to disband large portions of my armies when wars are over. Once my kingdom hits a certain size, I usually lose interest and move on to something else - there are so many fascinating factions to try! Once 2.1 comes out, I'll probably try a longer Roman campaign to conquer the world.

As for tactics, I'm a cavalry player through and through. My favorite factions are generally those with kick-ass cavalry bodyguards, and I often fight whole wars with little more than my family members, supported by mounted archers and skirmishers. The auto-regen on family member bodyguards makes it much easier to fight long campaigns without having too much difficulty with attrition, while the non-bodyguard units stay out of the fighting for the most part. It's pretty cheesy, but it can lead to some epic cavalry battles (worthy of Eukratides).

[delra]

I am Ribbentrop vs Molotov Yalta Teheran kind of player. I decide where the borders are going to be, and god have mercy over those who step over them. :-D

[IGdood]

The turtle who enjoys the immersion and sounds of the mod but doesn't totally go full historical. I just like to sit around ending turns while building up my cities and watching the world go by.

[QuintusSertorius]

I naturally tend towards historical-turtling, unless I can justify something faster, like playing Epeiros while Pyrrhos is still alive.

I also love the "shadow war" of spies and assassins when your faction is stable and secure enough not to need to expand any further. Along with launching punitive expeditions to intervene in other peoples wars, to ensure no one faction emerges triumphant in nearby regions.

[Boogie Knight]

Throughout playing vanilla M2TW in general I've usually been something of a turtler. This had bled through to my way of playing EB2 but I've found this mod has turned me more aggressive than I used to be. I try to stick to history as much as possible, but this is isn't always possible and sometimes, especially in this mod's era which I am far less familiar with in comparison with the Middle Ages, I just don't know what happened historically well enough to shape my campaign around it.

I'm definitely more of a barbarian player than a civilised one. When the mod's further developed I'd naturally love to try a Roman campaign and some of the Hellenistic states (especially Ptolemaic Egypt) but being an Englishman one is made acutely aware by other people of the combination of savage stock one is spawned of. I get a real thrill from embracing that, and so for me it's Celts and Germans all the way. In particular I enjoy exploring their culture and religion, so as I say I tend to turtle a bit, building temples and markets and all manner of infrastructure to develop what is, in my mind, a deeply rich and rewarding spiritual, social and economic world. Expansion comes chiefly at the expense of small neighbouring 'Eleutheroi' tribes, particularly when I decide on a goal for my faction such as gaining access to the coast, but their assimilation into the larger confederation is usually gentle. When the larger factions come knocking, such as other tribes or cities or empires, I particularly love to turn the forests against them and lay ambushes. Sometimes it's fun to use authentic methods of small-scale skirmish and larger-scale horde assaults in battle (i.e. piling in the infantry) but in general it's more fun to develop proper military administration over time in response to lessons learned from the enemy. This is possible because I'm still learning so much about the game and its setting, but eventually I'll probably learn what to do from turn one. When that happens I'll move on to factions who did things differently and learn anew from there but for now I'm very happy with my barbarians.

[Hummer]

Sounds like the turtle's here aren't too different to me. I always build watchtowers. I feel like I am bringing civilization to the land as I brighten it up. Sometimes I 'rescue' a city from another faction if they are predominantly my culture and are ruled by a different culture nation.

Only one merciless conqueror so far....

[delra]

Watchtowers cost s of upkeep money.

[Walleyeking]

Depends one the faction a bit... for a civilized faction i can often be a turtle builder, but with scandinavian heritage, there is a tendency for some pillaging and sacking once a barbaric faction gets going... but nothing as bad as my WotN campaign

[Slaytaninc]

I'm more on the Turtling side since I take too many casualties in battle to blitz effectively but if I'm playing a faction in an active war I prosecute it as much as I can.

[HaHawk]

Watchtowers cost s of upkeep money.

Is this true? If so, is there a way to destroy watchtowers?

[Sylon]

They do? I haven't encountered anything like that, and I spammed watchtowers all over the Northern Sahara in my Massylii game.

[Wulfburk]

Hm yeah i thought watchtowers only had their initial cost of 200 or so. I always spam them so all my territory is completely visible.

[Golo_1]

I'm a small nation fast-conqueror, I like to pick the one city nation and expand it in every direction even taking risky campaigns at sea not being able to afford a good defense of my homeland, since you battle the AI being defensive is actually taking advantage of the AI, taking almost-dying risks is the only way I can enjoy single-player games, many heirs and generals die in wrong picked battles and there is no shame, its a lesson, I used to save the game before battling at odd possibilities "just in case" I don't do that anymore, if I make a mistake that costs me my heir or king its meant to be. And conquering cities by just settling not killing people so the full culture shock is actually an issue, the harder the campaign the better and more realistic. If this game was an online multiplayer being defensive is a death sentence from start.

[QuintusSertorius]

I'm a small nation fast-conqueror, I like to pick the one city nation and expand it in every direction even taking risky campaigns at sea not being able to afford a good defense of my homeland, since you battle the AI being defensive is actually taking advantage of the AI, taking almost-dying risks is the only way I can enjoy single-player games, many heirs and generals die in wrong picked battles and there is no shame, its a lesson, I used to save the game before battling at odd possibilities "just in case" I don't do that anymore, if I make a mistake that costs me my heir or king its meant to be. And conquering cities by just settling not killing people so the full culture shock is actually an issue, the harder the campaign the better and more realistic. If this game was an online multiplayer being defensive is a death sentence from start.

Uh, fast expansion is taking advantage of the AI, which is unable to effectively respond to being blitzed.

[Golo_1]

Uh, fast expansion is taking advantage of the AI, which is unable to effectively respond to being blitzed.

Well that might be truth being a big starting faction, as Pergamon I start with one city, I have been at war against the Seleucids for 140 turns and of course they send multiple stacks at the same time, with luck I have been able to hold syria, barbarians and the greeks took advantage of my situation attacking me by the west, and since I risky all my money and men in the east it has been really fun to play defensive, the only enemy that has not been able to send full stacks are the Getai so I just made a punitive expedition on them, my neighbors have better cities by far. I use all my money to train the available troops so years pass and my enemies have time to improve their armies. When I said that I try fast expansion that's up to my small faction capabilities, I made some mistakes against the big seleucids and it cost me years to recover. I try not to hoard one good pro stack because that would be unfair against the AI, the most fun is to use the native available troops and squeeze them to the best. This is by far the best TW mod I have ever played, really hard.

I try to avoid turtling because I am afraid the AI will just crush each other instead of attaching me, I have been trying to play in every front I have but even that the Greeks destroyed the Makedonians and the Roman subjugated the whole balkans.

[Jervaj]

I'm a small nation fast-conqueror, I like to pick the one city nation and expand it in every direction even taking risky campaigns at sea not being able to afford a good defense of my homeland, since you battle the AI being defensive is actually taking advantage of the AI, taking almost-dying risks is the only way I can enjoy single-player games, many heirs and generals die in wrong picked battles and there is no shame, its a lesson, I used to save the game before battling at odd possibilities "just in case" I don't do that anymore, if I make a mistake that costs me my heir or king its meant to be. And conquering cities by just settling not killing people so the full culture shock is actually an issue, the harder the campaign the better and more realistic. If this game was an online multiplayer being defensive is a death sentence from start.

What QS said. Blitzing makes the game a lot easier, not difficult. At least most part of the time. You can literally destroy the AI before it can pose any challenge to you. Sometimes you can even destroy them without facing their big stacks.
Going slow and realistic gives it time to grow and poses more challenge.

Of course if we were palying multiplayer we will have to be fully agressive as taking a lot of settlements fast is the best way to cripple another player.

[delra]

But AI is blitzing faster than the player, when it finally gets to war... :-(

[QuintusSertorius]

But AI is blitzing faster than the player, when it finally gets to war... :-(

Just because the AI blitzes on the offensive, doesn't mean it is capable of responding to being blitzed itself.