Medieval Total War: Early - Danes Part 21

We're being attacked on all sides!

[@foret-to3cm]

Hey Khan, glad you are back! Anyway i wanted to give you an tip, or rather say to encourage you to play more aggressive camping. Of course you can finish this one with your play style, which we all enjoy btw, but trust me this game is much more fun to play when you set your goals to conquer 60% and then 100% of the map. This campaign, for example, you got like 10 provinces and you upgraded your economy so much that you could easily take out most of the map. If not, because u built too many troops, rest of this would be just you trying to keep your economy alive for another 170 turns (which is completely fine), but its kinda one way street and you miss a lot of fun(and stress) that this game offers you. Cheers man and wish you all the best🍺

[@khanofsteppe1667]

Hey there! I get the feeling that playing this game on the early period is a bit like playing on easy mode whether the game is being played on GA mode or conquest. It's almost as if the only part of the early campaign that is challenging is the early period itself (unless you're playing an eastern faction who will have to deal with the horde). With this in mind I get the feeling that the late game portion of an early campaign will end up feeling like a slog whether played for conquest or GA. With this in mind I've tried my best to aim for a playstyle that is both somewhat engaging (by keeping other factions on the map) while also being able to breeze through and burn through certain sections in an effort to get through the campaign a bit quicker. This is of course a balancing act. If I truly wanted to get through a campaign as quickly as possible I could blitz the map, though I worry at how quickly that sort of victory could be achieved. Part of the appeal of a game like this - one that spans such a large time span, is the evolution of armies throughout the length of the campaign. And I fear that a blitzing style of play will have me missing out on a chance to build proper late game armies with pikes and guns. I also fear that by playing too aggressively I will be denying the A.I. a chance to build appropriately awesome armies themselves. With that all being said, I must remind myself that I am still learning so much about this game. And a part of this learning process is about discovering how to get the most out of this experience while also not letting these campaigns become too dull. I haven't always succeeded at this. The Byzantine campaign was a dud and I was shocked at how barebones the GA objectives for the freaking medieval Romans were!! Now I have a better idea of how I want to play them when I get around the them in the High campaign. As I look forward to the English, French, German and Italian campaigns I feel like these all could have the potential to be some really compelling experiences. They all have very unique GA objectives in addition to the crusade objectives and they all have to deal with the pope. Once I get to the Hungarians though I reckon I might play them as a conquest campaign, because unfortunately, like the Byzantines, they have bland objectives. tl,dr I'm taking the early campaigns in as a learning experience but I imagine that the real meat and potatoes of this game will come in the High and Late periods. Or the central/western European factions in the Early period might really blow my socks off!

[@benkirimlidis]

As much as I hate to give the later 3D campaign map games any credit....this is something that Rome total war improves on with the short campaigns. I *think* barbarian invasion improves on it again with every campaign being less Rome centric but I confess I never really played the expo. The swing from making crazy amounts of money to making huge losses is crazy though 😅 Not sure if it is a part of medieval but in Rome if your cash stockpile gets over a certain figure (50k I think) your governers start picking up corruption traits, the more money you have the quicker they develop. If that mechanic was here I think you'd have a lot more trouble being financially stable

[@khanofsteppe1667]

@@benkirimlidis It's interesting that the corruption traits in Medieval are tied to the number of provinces owned (i think it's 25) and in Rome its the treasury. I guess they both make sense. Also I think in barbarian invasion the treasury minimum before corruption traits occur is lowered i think. (i could be wrong or thinking of something else) Also I don't think trade in Rome is as easily disrupted. You pretty much just need the buildings built and that's it. So overall the economy in Rome seems more stable. But I need a lot more time in game to be sure of this.

[@benkirimlidis]

@@khanofsteppe1667 who you have trad rights with also has an impact, if you try to grow a city's population via grain trade but the city with excess grain is trading with many other cities, you run the risk of losing a trade route/reducing the benefit for your city. Important for some strategies of getting the Marian reforms for Roman factions

[@khanofsteppe1667]

@@benkirimlidis ahh got it, i appreciate the tip! There's a few Rome economy articles that were written on the forums way back that I have my eye on. I'll have to dig into them when I get the chance.