Which nations require the least micromanagement?

[Ironhawk]

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!!

[MaxWilson]

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

[thejeff]

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.

[MaxWilson]

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

[Tyrant]

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.

[Edratman2]

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.

[Aezeal]

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

[moderation]

MaxWilson said:
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

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.