Yuku free message boards

I've started a new thread coz I thought everyone wasn't busy enough. Heh.

While the MTW forums generally are slow moving due to the age of the game, new players do come by and ask questions. Your threads do help generate discussions, but there is point in which the number that you start to approach the level of spamming with the rate that you are going. Plus, sometimes the way you start your threads make it sound like you are exhibiting your knowledge as opposed to starting a discussion by posing a question and asking for view points. It gives the impression that you are offering information that no one has asked for.

Consider this to be a advisory for you to reconsider your posting style.

@sharpshooter

The main reason why you aren't seeing old posts on such stuff is that they are all gone. Prior to the shift to Yuku (which was a year or so ago? someone remind me please...), we were using the Ezboard and its limit of 20 pages worth of threads meant that old threads were constantly falling off the 20th page abyss. Since the game was released in 2002, that means that a few years worth of discussions by the old veterans are all gone. Gone as in the old threads and the old vets. Even when I signed up here in 2004 (Jan?), I was probably the last batch who came before the release of RTW, though I recall lurking for some time prior to signing up.

Another thing is that the strategic map is relatively non-transparent and some of them seem so random that few bother to figure them out. Instead, many of us focus on the hard numbers available via the files that can be edited within the game or via the Brady guide(?), something that one of our former gurus (Motorhead) used. Related is the fact that many of us started with STW, where the focus is primarily on the battlefield (which again many consider as the main achievement of the series) and thus the unit stats, effects, etc, are looked into and is heavily covered in the Numerology thread. On the other hand, strategic map interactions have problems of reproducibility, ability to conduct controlled experiments and hard figures such that things can be quantified and verified. Thus, many of the threads saved as stickies primarily deal with numbers. As for experiences on the strategic map, some of us have our own experiences and "feel" of things, but as I have said, verification is difficult and we tend to give them as opinions rather than as facts, as we can do with stats.

Personally, the strategic map is not the original heart of the game, if you look at STW and to date, it is still the crowning achievement of CA to get a few thousand men on the field and go about killing one another). That is not to say that the strategic map is not important, but it does not overshadow the tactical map. And it is true that CA is has been putting a lot of effort into it for the series since STW (where it was primarily a medium to get battles going). Of course, one can play totally a campaign without ever touching the tactical battlefield but you are missing out half the fun. Honestly, the strategic map still cannot compare with dedicated ones like Civ and Paradox game releases.

Finally, I like to see the TW series as 2 games in 1: a strategic map and a tactical battlefield. Only taken as a whole can the game be truly enjoyed.

This series of discussions is the best thing on the forum in years. I actually signed up so I could post and figured out how to take screenshots to make my posts clearer. Up till Sharpshooter started posting I saw very little that was not in Frogbeastegg's Guides for someone who took the time to read them. I would say that Sharpshooter has been very polite and that some of those responding have not been, but I was willing to write that off as language barrier. Not that my opinion counts for anything since I am not an Administrator. Judging by the number of people reading the threads I would say that I am not the only one that thinks them worthwhile.

FBE has 2 guides and as far as I know, the most referenced one is the unit guide, which covers primarily the useful stats of units and some description on them. Those are enough for beginners, who tend to be the ones who come in and ask questions. As a veteran, I agree with most of it but not all and that is the point. It is used as a starting point for beginners to get their footing in the game and then explore it further. With continued exploration, they will form their own opinions, be it that those opinions agree or contradict with what they have read in some guide on the internet. Everyone has their own opinions on different aspects on the game and it is nearly impossible to note them all of them down and feed them to a newcomer as a bible for them. The only thing that can be provided as irrefutable facts are the stats. When it comes to strategies and tactics, we used to have people debating on them and some can probably found in the faq thread, but these are meant to be taken with a grain of salt and personal experiments are still best.

For guides, there are quite a few in the Org's forum, as well as its download section, with loads of useful stuff. They are rarely brought up because a) some don't know that they exist and those that visit both sites are no longer post here (or even there), b) no one asked questions that are relevant to them.

Finally, members of the staff, our purpose is not merely to enforce rules and ban people. Ours is also to help guide discussions and the mood of the forum. The reason why I asked sharpshooter to slow down and review is posting style is to a) not to burn out after a initial burst of posting frenzy and b) not to have people get wrong ideas when what that is not necessarily a proven fact be mistaken as one. We, except for those with CA tags, are members of the community chosen to help manage the boards. We have our particular styles and our decisions may not necessarily seem correct to some, but we act based on our experience and we feel as best in continuing the spirit of the forum.

Addition, we are not always around (most of us are either studying or working) and cannot monitor all threads at the same time. Sometimes, we don't even get to read all threads in detail, but skim through for obvious trouble. Things do slip past us, so if there are problems, we should be informed.

Now, back to the original topic.

It seems true, however, that fleets are regarded as hostile, especially by certain factions in particular waters, which does present a problem if you want to have free trade and move troops around. The best way I know to deal with it is (eventually) to be superior in numbers at sea. In the meantime, don't leave a single ship (or fleet, however you want to look at it) in a sea zone. Always try to have at least two: this lowers the probability of sneak attacks.

The AI has a habit of attacking lone player ships, something that has been heard since the beginning. Thats why the usual advice everyone gives is to plant 2 ships in each sea region. The second being, as Dani said, prevent the breaking of the chain when a storm hits. Finally, it helps alliances or even neutrality being broken at an inopportunate time. Outside of these pairs used to guard my coastline and/or trade, I usually have hunter/killer stacks of ships with a high ranking commander which are often placed at choke points prior to the outbreak of war.

So right now I am really pissing off the Almohads with my fleets, or maybe they were just false faced allies from the beginning. How do you trade without everyone thinking you are setting up for an invasion? How do I know when another faction wants to trade or if they are just trying to cut my king off from the rest of my provinces so that I will have rebellions to quash?

Do you share borders with them? Are they at war or at peace with others?

This does not relate to fleets but observations of mine on the AI in general:
The aggression of factions is related to its its AI settings on thresholds, troop levels on the borders and the state of its treasury etc. The AI is constantly spending cash right from the start, which gives rise to peasant/archer/spearmen/urbies/ballista armies right from the beginning. Due to the building/training rates, the initial starting treasury is easily depleted and the tax rates cannot maintain that kind of support (let alone) spending forever. Plus, those princely bodyguards that pop out has support costs. With a negative, the AI can do nothing except start fighting. If you happen to be bordering one cash strapped AI and have weak borders, chances are that you are going to get hit. Being allies help, but that only increases the threshold in its calculations. If the AI faction is currently at war with someone else, the lower the tendency for it to start other fights, especially on the defensive. Of course, a non cash strapped faction can pick fights on their own, if your border forces are almost non-existent, but there is always a certain amount of randomness involved.