Which nations require the least micromanagement?
 

After reading the thread linked below, I have been wondering again which nations require less micromanagement as the game progresses. Apparently, MA TC is not one of them. Opinions?

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...o=&fpart=1

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagement?
 

The bless nations with small forces of super elite units spring to mind. Niefelheim, Vanheim, etc.

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

Each nation need micromanagement if you are a careful player. However, I think that nations with less magic, troop and strategy diversity need less micro. Straightforward nations, I'd say.

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

Nations which have fewer magic paths but stronger power in those paths require less MM. Because you dont need have scripts which boost your paths or rely on gems. Think of the scripts for Arco vs the scripts for Caelum. For Arco you need like 6 scripts because you have all these wacko path combos. But for caelum you have like 2 general scripts for your big mages and you are good to go.

Defintitely don't play blood nations if you are worried about Micromanagement!!

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

I'd go the other way. The bless nations with expensive elite troops need micromanagement on the battlefield to keep their capital-only sacreds blessed and alive. (Bless nations like EA Agartha and Mictlan with recruitable-anywheres are different.) With EA C'tis, on the other hand, if you lose some Elite Warriors you just order another shipment from the nearest castle. That means you worry a little bit less about casualties during battles and you can better afford to just plop warriors down on the battlefield and let them do their thing.

I think you need micromanagement when you're relying on spells to give you the edge in battle. This means (simplistically) that nobody needs tactical micromanagement who is already winning the economic war and can afford to throw units away.

-Max

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

Except there comes a point where, unless you're relying on spells and/or SCs, the guy who is can destroy all the units you're throwing away without taking damage.

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

Yeah, I was speaking simplistically. At a certain point "the economic war" becomes about gems, mages, and overland spells as well as national units. He destroys your army (which you can afford to lose) and you Mind Hunt his SC strike force into oblivion (which he can't afford to lose) before he can move it away. It's still about economy but in a different way.

-Max

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

I'd say the nations with less variability in their casters- like Pythium or LA C'tis. A few scripts can cover nearly your whole army. In contrast TC, for instance, has to have each mage inspected individually.

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

Hmm, following this logic, then freespawn nations like LA Ermor, and maybe LA R'yleh or Pangea might require less micro. Since your troops are free, you can afford to take risks and take large casualties without thinking too much about the details... right?

Then again, LA Ermor's freespawns are also rather messy and it takes a while to get them sorted out if you like to organized groups of infantry (like putting shield users up in front). Quite a dilemma.

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

I think some some nations, ie, LA Ermor are worse than the others, but all the rest are merely bad.

The time spent forging, distributing forged items, ritual casting, recuiting, adjusting battle spells with research advances, repositioning armies, reading messages and moving every commander via the "N" button, is the vast majority of my turn time. The difference in time spent between adjusting the various armies of national recruitables is the smallest portion of the turn.

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

Seriously.. in MP, talking to my neighbours, checking if they've replied etc etc is way more time intensive than doing my turns

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

Thugs nations are for me the easier to manage. Ok you have to forge items, and give them to your thugs, but then you script them one time (often a very short script like quicken self, BoW, attack rear or mistform, bless, attack), then you just have to move them. Finally you just script one unit (or two if the thug need a buffer) to take 10+ provinces. And you rarely have to change you script.

On the other extreme nations whose main strength are mages (especially mages needing communions or gems to be effective) are the most micro heavy. You script dozen of units, with script changing often when your research advance or you have to adapt to your ennemy or the number of gems available (and you have to organize gem supply if you use gems spells) or mage order for communions (a nighmare when you merge armies). I wonder how I can love this kind of nations.

Giving orders for one mid-late game turn with a nation like Arco, Pythium etc = 2 hours minimum if I'm at war, same situation with Jotunheim, Utgard, etc... = 30 mn maximum (except if I hesitate 3 hours, paralyzed by the fear of losing some well geared champions).

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

Yeah I agree with Aezeal. Once you become familiar with the game, the actual turns themselves dont take very long. I spend perhaps an hour or so on an endgame turn in an MP game. But the majority of this time is all spent in thinking about strategy, sending diplomatic messages, researching tactics, etc. Actually playing the turn only takes like 10-15mins unless I have some monstrous pitched battle or something.

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

Likely the worst micro involves bloodhunting nations, followed closely by players that take misfortune scales.

Nations with terrible pd require more micro than nations whose pd can handle all but thugs.

So, taking those factors into account, play MA Eriu with strong income scales, luck, and rely on thugs for offense and high pd for defense.

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

This is so true, 'specially if Xeitor is in the game http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

ermor on the actual battle field needs the least micromanagement, because all of your armies will be either massive hoards of chaff, or massive hoards of chaff with some special troops and priest, but the real time consumer is making sure that you don't fight a war where it's everyone versus you

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

What is it about misfortune that creates the excessive micro? Being raided by barbarians is somewhat annoying, but are there other random events to consider that create more workload for the player?

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

There's also the messing with tax scales. The automatic taxes do not go
under 50%, which is a waste if your unrest is about 60%, which is quite
common with Misfortune 3.

But I recently finished a game with Misfortune 3, and 260 provinces on the map.
I do not think my micromanagement would have been any less with better luck
scales. When you have 20 teleport battles, 5 castle defenses involving 50-100
casters, and more raids/probes you can count, scales hardly matter.

Barbarians? Two mind hunts and a scout.
Unrest? Autotaxes will eventually handle it.
Twenty Fomorian thugs raiding your empire? Now that takes effort to deal with.

Re: Which nations require the least micromanagemen
 

Barbarians were my thought, but occasionally temples burn down, etc. I typically play with Misfortune-3 and hunting down a barbarian infestation every couple of turns is just a facet of life. I could avoid it with more PD, but letting flying thugs beat on barbarians for free experience is kind of fun.

-Max