but isnt strategy C also a plan to win the war?

what i meant is: the good general lays a plan before he goes to war. a plan how to win the war.
while the bad general goes to war and only then starts thinking about how to win it.

I know you meant that...

Anyway - I thoght you might say that of tactic/strategy C. It's not strictly a way to win the war, more a way to get into a position to win the war. No promises of anything, but it gives the best hope and odds :-)

Actually, let me revise that last bit of yours:

1) " the good general lays a plan before he goes to war. a plan how to win the war."

3) "while the bad general goes to war and only then starts thinking about how to win it."

He's number 3. The total clot ;-)

Number 2 is the guy who gets ambushed into it - and I think it's this slot most of us fit in to! :-)

I think Redtony described how he used tactic B and won.

Tactic C for him would have been checking if his opponent had a marketplace inside his castle. If outside, destroy/take it over, and start destroying the opponents woodmill, and then execute his plan while the opponent quickly runs out of options to produce further marksmen.

It might have worked worse then the plan Redtony did use, but it's also an example of plan C

Genming: I dont see it posted in this topic about not fighting unless you can win.

BTW nice quote in your chardescr Genming

It's funny how Szun Tsu says you can win before you start fighting...and in essence it's true.

However, both in this game and IRL, one can win by just fighting, even if pityfully and unplanned. It just depends on what you want to win..

..for example one can fight to gain experience with this game.

...and, of course, the level of ability/skill needed to win it :-)

The highest battle is to win without fighting and I believe some of us has already done that before. Summon a huge army and stationed them outside your enemy gate and your enemy quit without fighting. hehehe...

Well dunno if it was tactic B or C, the only thing i know is it worked out.

Just think about it, world is full of great strategists, but no one has ever made it out to become the "ultimate tactician" not even Napoleon (he was defeated not only in Waterloo but also in Beresina and Bailen) or Rommel (Although he is my favourite general, I don't think he would be able to stand against allied invasion in Normandy) so, just make up a strategy and try to win with it, if u succeed u can post a new topic in the forum (maybe: chapter 10: victor tactic) but remember there's always some way to get over your strategy.

Just my 2 cents.

Red!

P.D. I'll always be a n00b, but do u know how do I enjoy being a newbie?

Tony, I disagree. There have been several military leaders that went either undefeated or nearly undefeated.

Ulyses Grant
Alexander The Great
Ghengis Kahan
Attilla the Hun

Well Alexander ranks high in my book.

Atilla did get defeated though. Didnt you see the Atilla movie?

But being a great strategist/tactician is when you take inferior resources and form it into a superior military force. Preferably within one's own lifetime.

The tiny country of Macedonia took half the known world in Alexander's day. Attilla took one tribe and nearly crushed the Roman empire (although in the end that proved too hard a task). Napoleon took a torn country and formed it into one of the greatest warmachines ever in Europe.

But the thing about small empires growing almost without bounds is that at a certain point they face the opposition of those left combined, which often proves fatal. And it's often at that time that someone has figured out a strategy to counter the 'undefeatable strategy' the rising power has used.

Rommel got defeated in North Africa because he was faced by a superior logistical power, and a general who had read his book on tactics.
Russia and Britain and a few other powers had learned by the time of Waterloo (and had a lot more soldiers I venture).
And Attilla's tactics didnt go unnoticed either by the Romans (who all in all had a lot more resources, and once you got a tactic to counter the tactic of someone with less resources...).

But the awkward thing within this game is that it's often not-done for someone with superior resources to be picking off the weaker players aka noobs.
Hence I like to warn my opponents of their impending doom so they can prepare and give a decent fight. Often my nemesis, but hey I'm having fun

Attilla was defeated in the Catalaunic Fields, northwestern part of Spain, by a combined roman-visigoth army.

Alexander was an outstanding general, as he was able to defeat such different army types as he faced Indians/Persians/Greeks/Turkish (by then turkish tribes lived in central Asia) but he died too young, maybe his triumphal race would have been stopped in western Europe? no one knows.

Ulysses Grant used superior weaponry and better trained men the Union had.

About Gengis Kahn... thanks god he didn't get into Europe
Anyway Gengis' victories were owed to his soldier's way of fighting, hard-forged, disciplined people that came out from a hostile environment (around the Gobi Desert) I think whatever charismatic warchief that had appeared then would have been able to drive them to victory.

Red!

I thought it was the waterslide that let Napoleon down tho..Much respect to Pinas(sorry!Egres)last word on tactics,nuff said!

Last Edited : Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 11:59

SunTzu said it all, successfull strategies have historically followed these principles:
To attack where unexpected
to threaten multiple targets simultaneously
to put strength against weakness

btw......when Gengis reached europe he found a lot of mud huts and went home.

Last Edited : Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 23:40

bringing to front page for noobs, plz dont post

6

I am curios, i want to read chapters 1-17 of these, learningful strategies and tactics. (:

Someone put them on his site, anyone remember which?

However, another way to read them all is by simply going into the strategy archives (see buttons 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, >>> at the bottom of the page on the right)

I am a fresh out of the box noobie but my 2cents is this:

If you don't want your tactics to be countered don't advertise them. (Now don't get me wrong, I have learned much through the forums but have thought to myself 'helping noobs out and helping them figure out the game is 1 thing but disclosing your tactical genious to others isn't IMO the best idea for YOU as the player.)
Secondly secrecy in general is possible the most advantageous tactic you have as a player, that includes your politicking your allegiances your plans and your tactics. Now obviously in politicking in nature you are corresponding with someone and they will have 'some' knowledge of what you might be doing but telling 1 player that you are talking to another player would in my mind NOT be advantageous because if you are talking to more than 1 player, so is the other guy. Given this you now don't have ANY idea of who knows what about your campaign OR your allies/enemies!

There is nothing wrong in revealing tactics. You get better players to fight against and you learn more along the way.

Furthermore tactics is nothing more than words. It is how you translate these tactics and morph them to suit your battle at that particular time that will help you win. You could read all the books in war and still lose battles if you are not flexible enough to adapt to your enemy tactics.

Thats also why there is no such thing as a best strat for everyone.

*bump

*Bump* for our Newbies