PDA

View Full Version : Newbie Strategy help...



adamwehn
16th Jun 2005, 00:45
For the campaign as the major nations, what is the best way to succeed?

Lt. Kyuzo
16th Jun 2005, 14:25
All depends on who you are playing as mate

Cpt.HooK
16th Jun 2005, 14:53
I've only played as Britain so far but here is my basic plan.

Your main goals early on in the game are building your economy and industry forget your army for now do the quest that puts a military port in every province and a free sloop.

Quests help alot try to do them all but use them wisely

Attacking early on in the game is a bad idea unlees you have to,i find it much easier and cheaper to peacefully anex minor nations especially as Britain,

Try to secure Spain,Portugal,Piedmont and Hanover

Piedmont is very easy to deffend and also makes a good port in the med

When you have enough resources to build an decent army go invade Egypt :thumbsup:

adamwehn
16th Jun 2005, 15:04
Well I was playing Prussia in my first game, but I'd like a strategy for all the major nations.

5/77 Armd
16th Jun 2005, 16:01
You have to be careful though, and not completely neglect your army. I made this mistake too many times when I first started playing. Nial showed me the error of my ways.

You have to build up a somewhat modest army so you do not become the next course on a greedy neighbor's dinner plate. When you have a weak army, even neighbors that you have good relations with will declare war on you, one right after the other. Before you know it, you're getting invaded from three sides.

You can tell right away too, because they move all their armies right up to your border the turn before they attack! I would rather concentrate on my economy early on, but I'm forced to invest in my army more than I would like just to keep from being invaded.

giskard
17th Jun 2005, 17:58
Armd is right.

All nations need to build up their armies as soon as possible, at least 3 full armies early on are needed to keep you safe on medium difficulty, on hard you will need more.

On hard, your leaders will rapidly become marshells. The time it takes seems long because your fighting constantly but its actually very quick in years. Assuming you look after your armies.

I covered most of the important issues in a guide i wrote. Its being updated and added too all the time. So watch the Respawn news for the sections that get changed and you will not have to read the entire guide to see the new material.

Here is a link.

http://www.respawn.co.uk/content/view/255/77/

Giskard

adamwehn
17th Jun 2005, 18:50
I have a question about damaged units, because in one game I had some landwehr that took damage and I couldn't repair/reinforce them. How do I go about reinforcing them back to full strength and is it the same for all units?

giskard
17th Jun 2005, 19:24
Hello Adam.

If your a Monachy or any goverment over than Democracy or Republic you get miltery hospitals that you can build and they allow you to restore the unit to full strenght in the same way as you would with ships.

Otherwise you have to have 2 units of the same type, created in the same region (eg the flags are the same on the unit) and drag and drop one onto the other.

This will fill up one unit with members of the other unit. Any spare men are left in their original unit.

You can do this inside a barracks and i noticed it also works inside an army too. So you can do it on the campaign map within the same army.

Giskard

adamwehn
17th Jun 2005, 19:44
I give up on the campaign, it's impossible to succeed, I can't peacefully annex anyone without neglecting my military, and I can't militarily conquer anyone without getting everyone else in europe pissed off at me and joining a coalition against me. This game sucks as far as having fun... And before anyone asks, I was using the easy setting in my latest game and thought I was doing well, until I tried to improve my relations with saxony in hopes of a peaceful annexation, each and every time I offered them to improve relations they rejected it, 1000 gold the first time, 2000 the next time, and 3000 the third time. I got fed up after that and declared war on them, only to be gang banged by everyone in europe.

Age of Reason
18th Jun 2005, 21:31
I give up on the campaign, it's impossible to succeed, I can't peacefully annex anyone without neglecting my military, and I can't militarily conquer anyone without getting everyone else in europe pissed off at me and joining a coalition against me. This game sucks as far as having fun... And before anyone asks, I was using the easy setting in my latest game and thought I was doing well, until I tried to improve my relations with saxony in hopes of a peaceful annexation, each and every time I offered them to improve relations they rejected it, 1000 gold the first time, 2000 the next time, and 3000 the third time. I got fed up after that and declared war on them, only to be gang banged by everyone in europe.


One thing I did notice that bugged me and where I agree with you, is when you are on the diplomacy screen, and you have an offer for another country, it says "They can't refuse this offer, they will surely accept", but the country will still reject it.

5/77 Armd
19th Jun 2005, 00:08
I think that comment is supposed to be coming from your "advisors/ministers", I know because I've experienced it as well; but it doesn't "bug" me. I just accept it as an advisor saying that they would be foolish to not accept the proposal but maybe it's not in that country's best interest to accept it.

As far as adamwehn's comments go, I should direct you to my thread I started several weeks ago about 28 posts down from the stickies. It's called "I give up...." I was getting extremely frustrated with this game and thought that it was practically impossible. Then I followed some suggestions by other board members that ranged from diplomatic advice down to "just keep practicing and you'll get the hang of it..." So, all I can tell you is to keep trying. I enjoy the game very much despite its shortcomings.

My biggest bitcch is the overpowered militia where I devoted much energy complaining about it in another of my threads (Super thug battalions), but you can overcome that as well by using this game fault to your advantage. There are many ways; some I've gleaned from the advice of other board members, and some I've learned on my own.

I was ready to shelf this game, but I've found it's fun to play after I figured out how to overcome my obstacles.

adamwehn
19th Jun 2005, 01:13
The only fun part of this game for me currently is the quick battles.

Age of Reason
19th Jun 2005, 03:42
I think that comment is supposed to be coming from your "advisors/ministers", I know because I've experienced it as well; but it doesn't "bug" me. I just accept it as an advisor saying that they would be foolish to not accept the proposal but maybe it's not in that country's best interest to accept it.

Yeah, I think you are right.

On the other hand, I'd like to fire my advisors in favor of another with more foreign policy experience. Currently, my advisors have as much knowledge about other countries' interests as Paul Wolfowitz does about post-war planning in Iraq - which isn't much. :rolleyes:

adamwehn
19th Jun 2005, 03:45
Yeah, I think you are right.

On the other hand, I'd like to fire my advisors in favor of another with more foreign policy experience. Currently, my advisors have as much knowledge about other countries' interests as Paul Wolfowitz does about post-war planning in Iraq - which isn't much. :rolleyes:

I think you meant Don Rumsfeld, he's the one that botched post war planning. He's the brilliant military genius behind that.

Age of Reason
19th Jun 2005, 03:50
I think you meant Don Rumsfeld, he's the one that botched post war planning. He's the brilliant military genius behind that.

While its true that Rummy was Secretary of Defense and in charge of the whole chibang, Wolfowitz had his hand in the cookie jar too.

Wolfowitz repeatedly downplayed the need for much greater troop levels to occupy the post-war situation, stated that the expense for the war would be paid off from Iraqi oil production, and was part of the whole 1998 neo-con regime change crowd.

adamwehn
19th Jun 2005, 04:02
While its true that Rummy was Secretary of Defense and in charge of the whole chibang, Wolfowitz had his hand in the cookie jar too.

Wolfowitz repeatedly downplayed the need for much greater troop levels to occupy the post-war situation, stated that the expense for the war would be paid off from Iraqi oil production, and was part of the whole 1998 neo-con regime change crowd.

I think Rumsfeld placed him their to push his agenda. Rumsfeld was the brains behind the data, if Wolfowitz told him this then Rumsfeld must have believed it himself, but Rumsfeld is the real brains behind the planning. He even manipulated Tommy Franks into lowering the troop number requirements from something similar to 1991 in favor of his plan.

But this is off topic, this was about strategy to help a noob succeed.

Queeg
19th Jun 2005, 04:13
When the discussion starts to drift this far off topic, it's time for a patch.

Age of Reason
19th Jun 2005, 04:24
When the discussion starts to drift this far off topic, it's time for a patch.

:D

Good points all around.