Saul's City-Kingdom of Tharbad Let's Play

[Saul Tyre]

This is the link to my Playlist for my FATW: Dominion of Men 3.2 Let's Play as The City Kingdom of Tharbad www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIrICDXQfKAVUHMOfV5zsffNzWAO75Cl0 thanks to Webba84 & Wambat for their campaign ideas and the terrific write up by Count MRVHS which has given me an insight into the faction.

Part #1: Threeways to begin the road to glory...Part #2: Sarnford is captured...Part #3: Adunabar seek to retake Threeways...

[webba84]

Wow, you wasted no time getting this started, looking forward to it!

[Dáin II]

One thing I noticed in my last campaign was Adunabar producing an army of rogues in Fornost devastating my whole territory. They had high chances of hitting me even with agents in the cities. Most efficient seemed to have a combination of all agent types in all settlements. Not sure if the emissaries had big effects, but spies seemed to help preventing, while rogues in addition seemed to increase the chance of also killing enemy agents. Tharbad's own rogues are very bad, never saw one getting a chance above 10% to kill enemies actively. The damage was very high in my case because I only had some agents in my border cities. Building up your own secret service and acting very aggressive towards Adunabar early to prevent such damage seemed to be the best strategy to me.

[gasas]

I do some test campaign with Tharbad yesterday, after taking threeways wait a little bit. When Adunabar conquer Bree put your all power in rush for them. Be careful with berserkers, take them down with archers because that single unit can kill your 3-4 units in zerk mode. After taking Lastbridge watch out for Beornings, they attacked me with 3 full stacks, the best place to defend there is bridge just before Lastbridge, use flame arrows and u will see they routing like a pesants.

[Dáin II]

Just noticed, your governor still sucked in Lond Daer, so you paid too much for the building there.

[Saul Tyre]

@Dain II & gasas thanks, all info taken on board

[Wambat]

For protecting against enemy rogues: your own scout in settlement < good governor in settlement < good governor + scout in settlement < surround settlement with military units (rogues can't get in).


Once you capture Lastbridge, if High Pass is held by Adunabar, or IP, besiege it indefinitely until you are ready for a war with the Beornings. If the Beornings already hold it, set up a camp at the border with lots of archers and ballista; Beornings are very squishy vs arrows.

[Saul Tyre]

@Wambat: Aye thanks, I already have that ploy against rogues stored in the old grey matter, also Emissaries to prevent bribes? works with Diplo's in rtw I assume ditto here. I will note the Lastbridge tip for if/when the time comes.

[Dáin II]

For protecting against enemy rogues: your own scout in settlement < good governor in settlement < good governor + scout in settlement < surround settlement with military units (rogues can't get in).

Surrounding settlements is a great idea in general. Just, in my campaign they sent rogues everywhere except Lond Daer, even places like Vorn Hollen were affected, which I had not anticipated at all. That would have required quite some extra upkeep to surround them all.

With regards to the passive effect of rogues, this was rather speculative. As I wrote, "it seemed like" they increased the chance of killing agents, not sure if they did in reality.

[Wambat]

Emissaries will not prevent bribes altogether, just increase the cost of a bribe. Dwarves and Elves, and sometimes others, can get astronomical bank balances, so they might be able to bribe a unit even if it is protected by an emissary. I think there are circumstances where bribery can be made impossible. The King and Heir are immune, of course, I don't think bribery is possible where two generals are in the same stack. Two emissaries in the same stack might have the same effect, I don't know. Still, I have yet to have any of my units blocking access to my settlements bribed, even though they are very cheap units, not protected by emissaries. I think the AI mostly looks to bribe units that seem to be threatening it's own settlements. As such I think it is most important to protect small stacks travelling through friendly territory that might be interpreted by the AI as threatening.

[Saul Tyre]

@ Wambat: I was thinking more about having Emissaries in my settlements than units. I did that with Diplomats in other mods and as I far as I remember never had a settlement bribed on foreign soil. Home ground or large cities were not problematic so they were not required in those. I used assassins and/or spies to protect vulnerable FM's & Governors too.

[Wambat]

I am not aware that assassins/rogues offer any defense against other assassins/rogues. I think assassins/rogues are only useful in an offensive capacity. It is definitely a good idea to have emissaries in settlements adjacent to Elven or Dwarven lands.

[Wambat]

I am not aware that assassins/rogues offer any defense against other assassins/rogues. I think assassins/rogues are only useful in an offensive capacity.

Upon reflection, I don't know that I can support this statement. I have done some google searches. They idea that assassins will offer protection from enemy assassins seems pretty pervasive. There is even a wiki for the RTW assassin that describes them as offering this protection, but I have no reason to think the wiki authoritative. It may be the case that assassins do serve this function in other TW games. My position is just based on my observation that I have never seen an enemy assassin in an enemy settlement have an effect on my agent's chances of success. But, searching my memory, I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw any AI faction keeping its own spy or assassin in one of its own settlements.

Can anyone think of a test that could resolve this issue?

[Saul Tyre]

@Wambat: Can anyone think of a test that could resolve this issue?[/QUOTE]

I don't think there is a test per se (other than to follow my Campaign) My recollection is that I rarely had settlements infiltrated without the enemy spy being killed when I had my own spy or assassin in there, I also noticed enemy assassins being ejected when an attempt on the residing FM/Governor or sabotage had failed. I cannot remember a settlement being bribed at any time when I had a diplomat installed either. My memory is not clear on any of this information but I think it only took effect if there was a Governor in the settlement. Also surely using the "surrounding settlements" technique will only keep out foreign Emissaries bartering trade, ceasefire and alliance treaties too??? anyway IMO it's a waste of resources, I pay my men to fight in battles

[CountMRVHS]

I've had the Dwarves, and maybe Dale/Adunabar, bribe away my single-unit armies when playing as Rhovanion. Very frustrating when trying to assemble an army in the wide open plains. I remember using Emissaries to escort military units that I was trying to assemble in this way, to discourage bribery.

[webba84]

I've not tried, but if it's possible to move ai agents around (and into) settlements with console commands, then we can do a test to see if moving an ai agent into their own settlement decreases the chances of successfully completing a mission there.

Anecdotally, I also have always thought that it does. If I have enemy agents sabotaging or lowering public order in a settlement I've always found that a spy there will greatly increases the chance of the enemy agent dying on one of their next few attempts.

[Saul Tyre]

@ Webba84: Anecdotally, I also have always thought that it does. If I have enemy agents sabotaging or lowering public order in a settlement I've always found that a spy there will greatly increases the chance of the enemy agent dying on one of their next few attempts.[/QUOTE]

Agreed I will deploying that tactic throughout my Let's Play so I will be paying attention to the outcome

[Wambat]

I've not tried, but if it's possible to move ai agents around (and into) settlements with console commands, then we can do a test to see if moving an ai agent into their own settlement decreases the chances of successfully completing a mission there.

The problem I have had with moving units by console command is that the game does not seem to recognize the unit's position until a turn has passed. That isn't very clear, and I am not sure how to make it clear; a unit "artificially" moved into position will not act quite right until that unit has moved normally, or, I think, a turn has passed. So, we might move an enemy assassin into an enemy settlement thus, but it may not register as protecting that settlement, as it might if it moved into that settlement under it's own power.

Here is a thought. This could be done with Rohan and RK. Have one create a wall of troops around the settlement of the other enclosing two tiles: the settlement and one adjacent tile. Move the rogue belonging to the same faction as the settlement into the adjacent tile. Have the player faction's spy in the settlement (or perhaps next to). Wait for the agent to move into the settlement. You could try walking a military unit unto the rogue to force him to move, but I do not recall if the agent would just be destroyed if he cannot move through the settlement into another adjacent tile. Check the chances of success for both sabotage and assassination with and without the agent in the settlement. That just might work.

[webba84]

That's as good an idea as any, Wambat. Don't suppose you have the time to try it? (Or anyone else?)

[Wambat]

That's as good an idea as any, Wambat. Don't suppose you have the time to try it? (Or anyone else?)

I am going to need the document which gives the starting positions for enemy agents in an RK campaign. Any idea which that is?