What kind of EB2 player are you?

**Cohors_Evocata** · August 03, 2015, 05:47 AM

Didn't know we already had established categories of EB players, but I guess I'll join the fun as well.

My playstyle is quite variable, based both on the starting position of a faction and my mood at the start of the game. When starting as a one-region faction, I tend to begin somewhat of a blitzkrieg campaign to the point where I can afford to pay for (what remains of) my starting armies and have enough spare money to begin developing my infrastructure. At that point, I usually start turtling, favouring substantial investment in my territories, before beginning a slow, but steady expansion outward. This strategy may he considered gamey by others, but I personally found this to be the most enjoyable way to start a campaign. When starting as a faction with a larger territory I usually skip directly to the building phase.

One thing I did like to do in longer campaigns in EB I, but haven't really gotten to yet in EB II was raiding the settlements of hostile factions. Get an army and lead a blitz campaign into enemy lands, capturing and sacking one or two settlements, then destroying every building I could, before leaving the settlement to rebel or be taken back. That way, I could both make a quick buck and weaken a hostile faction without the hassle of having to administer and integrate these newly conquered settlements.

**Giuliano Taverna** · August 03, 2015, 04:42 PM

First I decide what I want my empire to look like, I ensure there are roads to connect it, ports to manage ships, watch towers and garrisons to mitigate rebels, and armies in the field to defend key regions. As soon as I can support a military campaign I attack the most developed and strategically useful settlements I can, maneuvering to ensure the most favorable battle conditions and then I proceed to turn all neighboring factions into weakened buffer states either allied for long term border security or hostile for later conquest. If there is no external threat or my forces are beaten up and need to be replenished I focus on economics and infrastructure again. I usually try to keep one elite army at full strength with other supporting forces behind it for quick replenishment and levies for garrisons.

My favorite faction are the selucides so I usually take over southern asia minor, the levant, and the nile basin first, then lybia, the rest of asia minor, and India followed by armenia and arabia, and greece. In my current game I have the Ptolemies and the nabateans reduced to two province vassal states at the southern edge of my empire. I'm hoping they'll conquer some of the rebel settlements and rebel but I don't think the AI will do that. More likely they'll just stay like that forever, which is ok since I'm not interested in those provinces.

**Hummer** · August 03, 2015, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Giuliano Taverna

First I decide what I want my empire to look like, I ensure there are roads to connect it, ports to manage ships, watch towers and garrisons to mitigate rebels, and armies in the field to defend key regions. As soon as I can support a military campaign I attack the most developed and strategically useful settlements I can, maneuvering to ensure the most favorable battle conditions and then I proceed to turn all neighboring factions into weakened buffer states either allied for long term border security or hostile for later conquest. If there is no external threat or my forces are beaten up and need to be replenished I focus on economics and infrastructure again. I usually try to keep one elite army at full strength with other supporting forces behind it for quick replenishment and levies for garrisons.

My favorite faction are the selucides so I usually take over southern asia minor, the levant, and the nile basin first, then lybia, the rest of asia minor, and India followed by armenia and arabia, and greece. In my current game I have the Ptolemies and the nabateans reduced to two province vassal states at the southern edge of my empire. I'm hoping they'll conquer some of the rebel settlements and rebel but I don't think the AI will do that. More likely they'll just stay like that forever, which is ok since I'm not interested in those provinces.

That is a very large area...

**Architect of Doom** · August 03, 2015, 06:31 PM

I'm a turtle builder. I like to expand very slowly, so that I can consolidate my conquests with ease. I also consider role-playing and immersion as extremely important, even more important than gameplay, so sometimes I would make decisions that would be terrible gameplay wise, but that are important for role-playing. One classical example would be to peacefully occupy a city, even when exterminating its people would have been better, simply because it goes against my ideals to massacre the innocent civilians of a conquered city. And yes, I know it is only a game and I shouldn't care about that, but where is the fun in playing a historical game without thinking of how your actions would affect the world? I like to play games as if they were the ultimate make-believe. I like to use quality troops in my armies an no levies. For a Greek army, that would mean that the majority of it would be made of hoplites, with some elite units, with some 4 skirmishers and 2 or 4 cavalry, besides the general.

And I also use money cheats sometimes (ok, most times

) so I will be building things non-stop. I know this gives me an unfair advantage... but I simply don't care.

**Pherion** · August 04, 2015, 10:11 PM

I am The Conqueror. The World is my board and everything else are pieces. I will not stop until the whole world has been united under my banner! I do this with every mod I play, and it's how I have fun. Playing the role of an Emperor is something I'll never get tired of.

My favorite faction of the Classic Era is Rome, but right now it's lacking in troops so I use others for the job.

**Dhaniel_Kraito** · August 05, 2015, 10:22 AM

I don't know why i'm feel more comfortable for playing as Romans, maybe because they're more civilized? Well, i have good strategy in economy so, what i'm doing in the first turn are make as much allies & trade routes as possible, so i'm spreading my diplomats as far as India in the east, Saka to the north, Lusotana to the West, and Saba to the south. Then, going on defensive stance until my treasury got 40.000-50.000 gold, build an army and kick Epoiros from Tarentum, blitzing to Rhegium and take Messana(I got a warning that this wil start first Punic War, but i don't care, at least Messana will be my point for Sicily conquest later)
Then disbanding some of my troops, so my economy will grow again, once the treasury got to 100.000 , i will make two full stack army and start blitzing, taking All Cisalpine Gaul (Man, that area full of Half stack Rebels), Massilia, Corsica & Sardinia, and Sicily.

And stop there for civilized them and make them bow to the Greatness of Romans...Well, so maybe i'm the type of Builder and Blitzer

**Jervaj** · August 05, 2015, 01:32 PM

At least you are the saver.

I think I never went over 30k in my treasury xD

**Dhaniel_Kraito** · August 05, 2015, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Jervaj

At least you are the saver.

I think I never went over 30k in my treasury xD

Woah man...it's because the army cost are expensive here in EB2, i just don't comfortable if my treasury are less than 20k , because sometimes i'm need to spam an army just to defend my cities

**nvm** · August 07, 2015, 02:07 AM

I love conquering lots of stuff. The main appeal of EB to me is the ability to create a standing army of varied/elite/exotic units, regardless of their actual performance in battle as long as it wasn't horrifyingly subpar for their cost. And that's exactly the thing that conquering exotic places gives you.

**DanTheMan97** · August 11, 2015, 04:12 AM

I'm the sort of guy who loves watching his empire grow, one of the most satisfying things i enjoy in total war is watching a city grow from a small town to a large city and alongside this growth, the growth of my borders as well. Rome II fails when it comes to bringing life to the campaign map like Medieval II and Rome do, the roads played a big part in the feeling of a growing and developing empire. Once the next update hits and we get all these fixes and polybian units i'll jump back into EBII

**Samariten** · August 12, 2015, 02:40 AM

I would call myself turtle-planner. Expanding is slow and focus is on economy, stability and logistics. Each military campign is planned ahead by gathering information about routes, terrain, cities and potential enemy armies. Where from to strike, and if necessary to retreat and how long it take for reinforcements to arrive etc. When borders are expanded i scout ahead and make contact with my new neighbours. Deciding where to build a fort with a garrison and slowly build up and stabilize the new conquered area. I also try to play historical with Rome as far as possible but sometimes that can get to easy and repetative.

**Rad** · August 23, 2015, 12:16 PM

I'd rather develop a good economy and fight limited wars (next to impossible, thanks to SEGA's views on diplomacy) than fight total wars... wait lol... total wars... total war... that's how the game is called. Makes sense now.

For units I rely on masses of cheap, low to medium tier units. I'd rather have a huge campaign presence than have a single strong punch, although I do use elites where and when needed. There's no way in heck that I am ever going to recruit elephants!
I win battles by routing the enemy, rather than outfighting him with brute force.