The Cheapest Trick in the Book! - Page 3

Executor · #21 April 5th, 2009, 08:35 AM

I think unrest can go up to only 500.
And you need an army to kill and pillage a province, and if you have an army you can maybe defeat the enemy, and if you can defeat the enemy than no need to pillage your own lands.
But yes if you know there's apsolutly no chance of victory and want to do as much damage as possible cause it's a tricky game, cause you can go from 40 lands to just your capital, and again to owning 40 lands, and so on.

vfb · #22 April 5th, 2009, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meglobob

Spiteful? How about bane venom charms on black servants sneaking about your opponents lands.

That's not spiteful! That's just good business practice, a friendly boost to the health sector of your neighbor's economy. Keep the doctors and nurses busy and whatnot.

Quitti · #23 April 5th, 2009, 09:47 AM

Ah, vfb, that armageddon comment on the first page cracked me up. Who knows why

Also, unrest is max 500. I know, my capitol has it in Discharge.

But what really annoys people up is a huge van army sitting in their lands, grabbing 15-ish provinces in one turn, then moving out with taxes at 200 to siege all the castles they can horde to. Add in a friendly neighbor of Helheim who's doing the same at exactly the same time to the same target, and you've got a nice economic crumble in one turn.

Dragar · #24 April 6th, 2009, 10:50 PM

There is a strategic purpose to being spiteful - you will very likely play against your opponents again. Who would you attack, all else being equal? A player who goes AI as soon as they are losing, or someone who fights tooth and nail to the end and sows his fields with salt as the enemy army invades?

vfb · #25 April 6th, 2009, 11:09 PM

You're not going to improve your game much by always fighting the guy who goes AI.

I really think it's best to ignore which player is playing which nation, and just base your decisions on the individual circumstances of each game.

Illuminated One · #26 April 7th, 2009, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

There is a strategic purpose to being spiteful - you will very likely play against your opponents again. Who would you attack, all else being equal? A player who goes AI as soon as they are losing, or someone who fights tooth and nail to the end and sows his fields with salt as the enemy army invades?

That's a bit the same as I will never trust that guy that backstabbed me once.

Dragar · #27 April 7th, 2009, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vfb

You're not going to improve your game much by always fighting the guy who goes AI.

I really think it's best to ignore which player is playing which nation, and just base your decisions on the individual circumstances of each game.

In a multiplayer game do you try and take out an (in your estimation) easy target first to grow, or fight an equally sized and skilled opponent such that you both fall behind?

Absolutely you have to look at a lot besides the player, but it is almost never irrelevant. I've got a couple of games now where I'm on the way out, but I never want people to think I'm a pushover..

vfb · #28 April 7th, 2009, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by vfb

You're not going to improve your game much by always fighting the guy who goes AI.

I really think it's best to ignore which player is playing which nation, and just base your decisions on the individual circumstances of each game.

In a multiplayer game do you try and take out an (in your estimation) easy target first to grow, or fight an equally sized and skilled opponent such that you both fall behind?

I'll fight a larger opponent if I have a temporary or national advantage against him, and leave smaller nations alone if they are not a threat. If I'm at a disadvantage for whatever reason, then I'll do some diplomacy and see if I can get someone else to gang up on my perceived enemy. If there's a nation who is both bigger than me and has a national advantage, and I can't convince anyone else to go to war with him, then I'll be likely to leave him alone, if peace is an option.

The one thing I won't do is attack (or not attack) a nation because of the person who is playing that nation.

Quote:

Absolutely you have to look at a lot besides the player, but it is almost never irrelevant. I've got a couple of games now where I'm on the way out, but I never want people to think I'm a pushover..

Of course, I agree that the threat posed by (or vulnerability of) a nation depends on who the player is. I just won't base my decisions on that.

Executor · #29 April 7th, 2009, 02:17 PM

Yes you fight stronger players at the begining before they get to powerful, and than you roll over the weaker nations after.
Eliminating the good players early on is much better IMO.

Executor · #30 April 7th, 2009, 03:22 PM

Hm, I just tried something very interesting, but unfortunantly it doesn't work, nice idea doe.
I've put a few charmers with penetration items along with 10 PD, and cast ghost rider on my own army. The mages all aim only the commander since the horsman are mindless but he doesn't stick around after the battle, sadly...