These are changing a bit, I will now start scripting them, as I tend to ramble, and they will now be only 5-6 mins long. Next Weeks will be Top 5 Best Rome Total War Battle Maps. (Please comment 1 map you like, with a Brief explanation why, and it may feature on the video)
Lucien Legros Good thing siege battles exist, you can enjoy your units getting to do stuff without needing to worry an awful lot about giving commands, unless it’s a multiplayer battle.
I did do that a lot but now I'm actually kinda enjoying the stress of troop micromanagement. Especially the cav :D But hey, when the battle is basically already won, then I can steal a few moments of close-ups
That one is my fault, as I did that for his timelapses so he can make them while playing the senate in a safe spot, though in the video the river crossing was still there.
Actually playing each battle is a GOOD habit. The bad habit is auto resolve and I'll explain why: Auto is completely broken. battles that I can win very very easily on the map will sometimes end in an extremely high number of casualties or even defeat when I attempt them in auto resolve. The balance of power could be in your favour and yet auto resolve will still sometimes take an unnecessarily large chunk of your army even when you know that you could have handled it much better
If you count not upgrading your units as a bad habit, then my bad habit is to first build up the armourer and then the barracks so my units get the armour upgrade before they can even be trained there... Also I usually build in every settlement until I can't build anything anymore and if I don't have enough income to support that I sometimes sacrifice recruitment to do the building instead, if I don't neccessarily need those troops.
Chad C It is sometimes negative, in siege battles it takes more time to get through gates, through siege towers etc. Also worse performance etc, it do be looking hella cool though. Don’t mind what I said if this was a joke.
That is the polar opposite of a bad habit. It nearly always will help you win battles by taking the time to think things through. Literally the only thing it doesn't do is teach you to win battles in a no-pause challenge run.
I've seen a tournament fight, where the English player built a box with stakes and yeoman archers inside, but forgot to turn skirmish mode off. And when the enemy engaged in melee, all of his archers instantly ran away from the box right under the hoofs of his opponent's cavalry. That's all you need to know about skirmish mode in Total War
Hugh, my bad habit is exactly the opposite to number one. I tend to over prepare with the construction of the army and the development of the generals. The first fifteen to twenty five years I play in defense, building the perfect armies and this ofcourse strains my economy to its limits. I almost allways go on offense because I'm broke, rather on my own decision.
@DeSPoTNemanjaS not true I beat total war atilla on 4 different nation's legendary campaign with WRE ERE Aksum and geats. Maybe did 10 battles on each campaign and found it easy. Playing battles is fun but far from the only thing that can make a campaign enjoyable or successful
@DeSPoTNemanjaS eh I find the battles adequate but easily cheesed. Also defending settlements in any of them I've played is far to stacked for the defenders. The A.i needs a huge mental upgrade before I say any advanced tactics really become necessary. Open field it's a little better but you can still be outnumbered 5-1 and absolutely wreck them without even having to be to clever.
I find the campaigns in total war games far exceed the paradox games in enjoyment although I do like both. But my only point was that the game can still be hugely enjoyable without playing all that many battles if anything playing the battles can make it easier as in my experience I normally take far fewer casualties if I'm in command than the A.i does.
It's really awesome that RTW has such mechanics like generals getting different traits depending on where they station and what buildings are there, but I don't have a habit to give a damn about it and I usually place a governor in a city and leave them be, just be there and be useful or not, whatever. I know this game has some more depth into it but I guess I'm just lazy. Also I didn't know building all buildings in a city can have a negative impact on other cities or something. I always build all buildings available in every city. The only priority is buildings generating happiness, then buildings generating money, then military buildings. I'm a lazy person.
Academunies are fantastic for improving generals. if you're the first faction to build one, you get special historical figures join the governor of the city it was built in, I think
Regarding replenishment and being OCD with having full strength units, my biggest bad habit is a knock-on from this - creating elite units and NEVER using them in battle because I can't easily retrain them. I would never let that early Triarii unit in RTW get anyway near a fight in case one of the poor petals got hurt. They'd simply stand by while cheap replaceable units did all the fighting. Ironically that's somewhat historically accurate but it's still a waste of unit upkeep.
I did something similar, I used the triarii with my main strongest army led by faction leader, and I’d put him behind the hastati or principes, and use it to deflect a Calvary charge while taking minimal casualties. It saved me a lot, especially when I had no hoplites / hoplites were on the other side of the line
Holy shit, thank god they introduced casualty replenishment. I would retrain units for such a small amount of men missing. I think it was a form of OCD because I couldnt help myself at all
The building one is only really a bad habbit in the games after medieval 2 since you could often offord to pay for all the upgrades anyway and having the large balance caused your generals to become more corrupt just to link into the traits etc
I still do #2, but I tend to focus on building all the economy buildings whenever I can first in every settlement, since my first main army is usually enough to slowly capture neighboring provinces, then the incredible income from all those investments gets exponentially better to the point where I'm fielding multiple armies with no problem very early on.
I definitely have the habit of going back to a city to replenish my troops, even with only a few losses. It looks cooler and you never know if you’re gunna run into a huge army.
I can confirm that point of fighting all the battles, even the smaller most insignificant ones in RTW or Med2, because some times you just want to completely wipe out most if not all of your enemies and give them no chance to fight you back by any means.
I think doing your battles manually is quite important at the beginning. Especially in some total war games, if you don't use your troops right and lose too many of them (which auto-resolve tends to make happen), even though you win the battle, it can spell disaster for your campaign. This issue is perhaps mittigated a little in Attila and any other title with auto-replenish.
There is a reason to fighting each battle. So you don't loose 250 men to 3 units of Spear Warband in auto resolve. If you manually fight those same 3 Spear Warband units you can walk away with between 0-5 losses unless you make some bad moves.
To be fair, garrisons CAN be useful in Shogun/Napoleon since they provide public order and can give you a little more push to win narrower fights. Especially since in Napoleon, basic militia units are still relatively cheap but also provide a much larger public order bonus. I definitely feel your habit with full replenishment - it took me a while to shake that habit, and made me really glad for the later games where they made it automatic. Especially when you start using units higher tiered than where you are conquering... Same with building everything, though honestly I just try to do it everywhere. Still do it myself (and in Warhammer I often try to fit everything into the capital just so I can at least have that to build fresh armies), but these days when I play the older games it's more of a 'well, I have the money for it...'
About the Honorable mention, I just do it because im a super poor strategist at any strategy game, and I know that if i actually did give it a shot while the odds were against me, I’d just lose because I always make critical mistakes and not know it until its too late
My bad habit especially in atilla is going over the entire empire probably 5-6 times each turn even knowing I've checked on everything already I just have to make sure I didn't miss that one crucial order. Makes the game take far longer than they should
I don't like auto resolving in M2TW because the game just tells you you are to lose even though the cavalry you got will DECIMATE their heavy infantry but the game thinks you will lose anyway so i just play every battle and decimate the infantry. Also the habit i have is that when i win i REFUSE to end it until i capture/decimate as much enemy troops as possible and i spitefully chase after the commanders cause it pisses me off if they get to escape
That last one is not a bad habit if you intend on making a character with high dread (mtw2) by chasing down your enemies you increase dread (followed by executing them to increase it further)
@@aegir3452 yeah it's alright when i do go for that but sometimes i want to have a 'not engage in too much war' playthrough but even when i go full defensive that habit gets me in trouble with the pope lul or the countries just hate me for the rest of the game
I think the worst bad habit I have is lack of logistics and overreach. I am the kind of player who tries to take his starting army on a conquering trip across half the world, only to realise ten turns in that I'm five years away from the nearest decent reinforcements, and the armies I'm fighting outnumber me two to one. This kind of ties into building everything; I like to have lots of money so I can begin to supercharge my development early on and keep things at low taxes. It may be why I'm so bad at the later Total Wars; you can kind of get away with overstretch up to Empire where everywhere you conquer can instantly churn out an army for you anyway and administration isn't such a bother. Later Total Wars don't reward conquest with financial returns as readily and initially restrict recruitment, meaning a rapid advance can quickly become a slow, sad retreat if not planned out extremely well in advance, and the resulting empire can be stagnant and not all that viable. I completely lack the patience to play a campaign like Attila, for example.
I once did what you said as the French but more Brutal in Medieval 2 I grabbed my prince, made him go on a sacking campaign through Italy, to Sicily, west north Africa and back up in Spain All prisoners got executed All buildings got demolished The amount of Mercenaries I recruited were top notch Many settlements revolted (I figured I would lose all with my High taxation) In the end I was filthy rich, many of my enemies were underdeveloped and my Prince had full dread but was absolutely insane with all the bad modifiers added to that It is a lovely tactic I did think would work and just did it to squeeze money out of potential enemies, but you could give it a try Why wait for reinforcements non?
My bad habit is being too cautious, especially in Empire, Napoleon, and Rome 2. Though I have found that it does pay off in shogun 2 FOTS in late game and I absolutely steamroller the competition
Fighting every single battle is a waste of time. It does not make sense to me. I do the same as you, I only play bridge battles, sieges as defender, and decisive battles because such battles usually have the biggest impact on your campaign. If you have 2k soldiers and your enemy has 400 and you're gonna obviously win, why bother wasting your time if you can auto-resolve it and quickly achieve victory? If you win, you go to your enemy's nearest city, conquer it (by auto-resolving), replenish your soldiers in the next turn, and voila. It perfectly works for me.
No, it's not. That's like saying playing videogames is a waste of time. Do you enjoy playing game(s)? If yes, it is not waste of time, because you liked it. Same thing applies to fighting every single battle. Was it a waste of time? No, because battles are lot of fun!
@@Uragan00829 Thanks for your reply, but you missed my point. I said, to quote, "I only play bridge battles, sieges as defender, and decisive battles because such battles usually have the biggest impact on your campaign." Playing decisive battles is fun. You know, after playing hundreds of hours in Total War games, mostly Rome: Total War and Medieval II, regular battles just bore me because they are repetitive (it's best to auto-resolve such battles and replenish units in the nearest city afterward). Try playing two long campaigns in Total War: Rome Remastered in a row and play every battle. That's what I did playing as Scythia and then Numidia. Playing as Numidia I conquered the whole North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, and a part of the Middle-East and I had to play almost every battle because Numidian units suck and literally every automatic battle is lost. This campaign got me tired of playing Rome Remastered for some time. I need a break.
@@AL3S93 I understand that you can be bored with the battles, but you said that "Fighting every single battle is a waste of time" as it was objective thing. You should wrote instead: Fighting every single battle is a waste of time FOR ME. Capiche?
@@Uragan00829 Of course it is an objective thing. I formed a thesis and I thought that supporting it with arguments would not be necessary because it seemed obvious. Subjective are feelings and emotions, not statements like this. I can easily prove my point with two simple arguments: Fighting every single battle is a waste of time because 1) you will eventually end up fighting exactly the same battles over and over again (happened to me way too many times) which is pointless in many ways, for example, it does not develop nor improve your tactical skills; and 2) you also waste your time fighting repetitive battles and time can be spent on other activities such as pushing the campaign forward - achieving goals. I understand that people may like fighting battles IN GENERAL, I do too, because it's fun, but the fun ends when grinding comes in.
The more dead People the less overcrowding and dirt what About executing all Prisoners in Med2 the more people kill today the less you have to worry tomorrow@@MelkorGG
haha good old scorched Earth. If i'm fighting a faction larger than me i'll take cities I don't intend to hold and exterminate then destroy all the buildings and leave. Works really well playing as England, just run around with a fleet and an army looking for easy targets
I sometimes like to use skirmish mode, especially with cheap horse archers that I'm using to delay or lure off an enemy unit while I deal with the main body. Makes it a bit easier to manage everything. I always turn it off for archers though.
for the honorable mention there is a steam achievement for the latter total war titles for fighting every single battle and I know NTW has that achievement so that is why some people do that not out of habbit but mainly to get a steam achievement that requires it to be done.
The #2 i dont really think its a bad habits once you get to late stages of the campaign regarding the garrison in Shogun 2 at time i send in a few garrison in frontline settlements where i cant/unwilling to overstretch the lines as im fighting other clans ie when playing as clans that are located in the center where you would decide to focus on the left or right
MELKOR it isn’t a bad idea but I also like keeping a few garrisons behind the front lines incase things go bad on the front and I have a few units to replenish my losses quickly if need be (and sometimes mix a few knights et cetera to keep my settlements from being soft targets
on number 4, its the other way around for me since napoleon was my first total war. now i have warhammer 1,2 and 3 (1 and 2 for the factions), napoleon and rome remastered.
Never said there was anything wrong with it. People who click on a bad habbits video are usually people who want to focus less on fun and more and getting better. This video is for them. I could not care less what you do.
Units at full stack is definitevly one of my bad habits too. You could make a video where you calculate how much of a difference that actually makes to have 78 instead of 80 for example.
in NTW and ETW I always attack 2 or more enemies between them like my army sandwiched between them in campaign map and then in battle map I circle enemy reinforcements with 4-6 units (depends what units coming from reinforcement) and dealing with main enemy army with my rest of units. most of time this works sometimes it failed due to exhaust and run out of ammo. We all know reinforcement units coming like gen-cav-art-inf so its easy to deal with 2 or more armies
#2 can be justified I just like fighting every battle and killing everyone even if I outnumber them by a ton. Some fights I don’t even bother but if they have a family member like a faction leader then I’m 100% fighting just so I can kill the family member because you never know that family member can be a pain to kill in the future. That’s the main reason why I fight the battles next to just seeing the death animations like in Rome 1 how goofy they are
Well, if you have mercs like Cretans then you kinda have to play every battle no matter what because the stupid auto resolve system will always make your missile units lose men no matter what they're facing
Waiting an entire turn, or 2 turns, to replenish 1 unit from 79 troops to 80 is bad. Always replenish, but sometimes people, myself for example, can take it too far.
I am a beginner in Rome total war and I really have quite a lot of trouble with keeping public order. It always happens no matter what I do. If someone has some advice I would love to know it.
1. If it's a newly conquered province, enslave the populayion. It will boost public order than peacefully occupy it 2. Lower the tax in that province 3. Use Peasants as Garrison (in rtw, more men in a unit means more public order, so use Peasants since it's cheap) 4. Assign your general in that settlement, general presence in a settlement will boost public order 5. Build temples If that still fails, there are other factor that causing low public order Open up settlement window then in the bottom left click Show Settlement Details In public order section, there two symbol (+) and (-) (+) Is what boosting your public order (-) is what causing your public order low
For med2 and rome 1: #1 Using only wedge, or only standard formation when committing to cav fights; #2 not doing timed cavalry charges, and just blobbing cav. #3 not taking at least 6 missile units. #4 using grouping and using standard UI. #5 not prioritizing killing enemy standard foot archers as a pike or spear faction #6. Not boosting camera speed. #7 not playing objectively and just spamming orders without solid reasoning behind it. #8 making noob boxes rather than porcupine formation. #9 turtleing immediately. #9a. Shooting at all enemy archers rather than targeting 2-3 and completely eliminating them. #10 not spreading archer line as far as you can protect it. Other tips: Remember, unit ammo is a pool, so no matter how many troops are in a unit it has the same ammount of ammo as a full unit, work on killing the unit, not necessarily the maximum number of enemies when it comes to archers. Do the opposite with melee units. [(As a pike player) (go for numbers as cavalry or chariot factions)] Archers lines work best in loose formation 2 deep with gaps between units. Remember to use map geometry and realize it is not a 2d plane. Trade space for stamina whenever possible. Oh and bonus: always kill a unit with at least 1/4 strength left as it cannot rally without at least 1/4 strength.
Melore, i have been playing rome for about a month(playing total war for the first time), and i am getting into medieval 2, but it is way too hard for me:(. Any advice?
Building was a Roman thing so I don’t see how this isn’t a good thing considering they was builders!. I know there’s a lot of buildings that aren’t needed in every city, but I build anyway cause it’s a Roman thing they did.
@@OmegaNovaB XD I'm not offended or anything. There is nothing anyone can mock me for, which my little sister already has not bullied me for : ) I was just explaining why I mess some words up, that's all. No worries : )
#1 Bad habit - continuously pausing the game during battles to give commands! Cheating n00bish behavior, and it makes the game more boring without realizing it!
Legends focuses more serious in game mechanics. I focus on the players. Legend is just his own opinion. I try and involve the community. Sometimes I even have a poll, wherever possible, and it is just the communities Top 5, not my Top 5. (Also, I announced I will do Top 5 first. He uploaded first, but I had already told my Discord I was about to do it.)
I fight every battle bcs I feel like a cheater when I use autoresolve . You can still have a noticeable losses against a weak enemy if you make a dumb move. While autoresolve just make some countings and throw at you a good result. I like the human input.
How is it cheating? It is the equivalent of letting someone else command your army. You are the ruler in the game so you just send out an army with another general.
Nah, it's pausing the battles all the time. I personally never do it since total war is very easy to micro compared to an average RTS so there is really no need for it. But there are so many people who pause battles unnecessarily. Think faster!
I think that pausing its a good habit. Yes, pausing every 30 seconds when nothing happens, its a bad habit, but it isnt when you need to focus in all the battle map and more, if its a difficult battle. If you are not carefull enough, you can get ambushed by cavallery o being attacked in a weak X place when you're too focused in Y place, and if X place doesnt have men enough they can rout and encircle you losing more men that you wanted.
These are changing a bit, I will now start scripting them, as I tend to ramble, and they will now be only 5-6 mins long.
Next Weeks will be Top 5 Best Rome Total War Battle Maps.
(Please comment 1 map you like, with a Brief explanation why, and it may feature on the video)
Melkor Teutoborg Forest, come to search for your legions!
Worst habit for me: taking too much time to look at my units fighting. I got so immersed I forget to command my troops.
My liege the enemy have sent knights to attack our flanks, we must reform!
Quiet! I watching my spearman fighting this peasant
For real
Which they had a slow mo version so I can see the fight and not get flanked. So much giving orders I can never enjoy the fight
Lucien Legros Good thing siege battles exist, you can enjoy your units getting to do stuff without needing to worry an awful lot about giving commands, unless it’s a multiplayer battle.
I did do that a lot but now I'm actually kinda enjoying the stress of troop micromanagement. Especially the cav :D
But hey, when the battle is basically already won, then I can steal a few moments of close-ups
Honorable mention: Relocating the Senate to the Amazons
lmao
That one is my fault, as I did that for his timelapses so he can make them while playing the senate in a safe spot, though in the video the river crossing was still there.
XD
Arazeth it’s a mistake we all make
@@handles4days69 wait what...? I don't think everyone is modding the senate to the edge of the map to make timelapses, that's a bit too specific...
Actually playing each battle is a GOOD habit.
The bad habit is auto resolve and I'll explain why:
Auto is completely broken. battles that I can win very very easily on the map will sometimes end in an extremely high number of casualties or even defeat when I attempt them in auto resolve.
The balance of power could be in your favour and yet auto resolve will still sometimes take an unnecessarily large chunk of your army even when you know that you could have handled it much better
Sometimes it can give you far fewer casualties than you could possibly do it with if your commander has a lot of stars.
Building every single building is amazing. I hated when they took out building.
If you count not upgrading your units as a bad habit, then my bad habit is to first build up the armourer and then the barracks so my units get the armour upgrade before they can even be trained there...
Also I usually build in every settlement until I can't build anything anymore and if I don't have enough income to support that I sometimes sacrifice recruitment to do the building instead, if I don't neccessarily need those troops.
I'll sometimes go out of my way to drain a town's population (in rome) just so i can build everything for that tier before upgrading.
MELKOR’s worst habit: not playing on huge unit size
Chad C It is sometimes negative, in siege battles it takes more time to get through gates, through siege towers etc. Also worse performance etc, it do be looking hella cool though. Don’t mind what I said if this was a joke.
Real
Here’s my bad habit: When you pause way too much in battles.
İ do it too dang
I fight every battle AND I pause every single battle a lot
That is the polar opposite of a bad habit. It nearly always will help you win battles by taking the time to think things through. Literally the only thing it doesn't do is teach you to win battles in a no-pause challenge run.
I do that too, but typically only when I need to issue a couple of orders that need to be executed quickly and at the same time
@@JirkaGasik like a surrounding cavalry charge
I've seen a tournament fight, where the English player built a box with stakes and yeoman archers inside, but forgot to turn skirmish mode off. And when the enemy engaged in melee, all of his archers instantly ran away from the box right under the hoofs of his opponent's cavalry. That's all you need to know about skirmish mode in Total War
Hugh, my bad habit is exactly the opposite to number one. I tend to over prepare with the construction of the army and the development of the generals. The first fifteen to twenty five years I play in defense, building the perfect armies and this ofcourse strains my economy to its limits. I almost allways go on offense because I'm broke, rather on my own decision.
same, kinda turtle gameplay but too much of it
I like managing cities more than the battles.
Same : )
@DeSPoTNemanjaS not true I beat total war atilla on 4 different nation's legendary campaign with WRE ERE Aksum and geats. Maybe did 10 battles on each campaign and found it easy. Playing battles is fun but far from the only thing that can make a campaign enjoyable or successful
@DeSPoTNemanjaS eh I find the battles adequate but easily cheesed. Also defending settlements in any of them I've played is far to stacked for the defenders. The A.i needs a huge mental upgrade before I say any advanced tactics really become necessary. Open field it's a little better but you can still be outnumbered 5-1 and absolutely wreck them without even having to be to clever.
I find the campaigns in total war games far exceed the paradox games in enjoyment although I do like both. But my only point was that the game can still be hugely enjoyable without playing all that many battles if anything playing the battles can make it easier as in my experience I normally take far fewer casualties if I'm in command than the A.i does.
My biggest habit is quitting a campaign when the AI gets too powerful
It's really awesome that RTW has such mechanics like generals getting different traits depending on where they station and what buildings are there, but I don't have a habit to give a damn about it and I usually place a governor in a city and leave them be, just be there and be useful or not, whatever. I know this game has some more depth into it but I guess I'm just lazy. Also I didn't know building all buildings in a city can have a negative impact on other cities or something. I always build all buildings available in every city. The only priority is buildings generating happiness, then buildings generating money, then military buildings. I'm a lazy person.
Academunies are fantastic for improving generals. if you're the first faction to build one, you get special historical figures join the governor of the city it was built in, I think
Is this like an academy lol. You can't sound switched on with a Yorkshire accent
Regarding replenishment and being OCD with having full strength units, my biggest bad habit is a knock-on from this - creating elite units and NEVER using them in battle because I can't easily retrain them. I would never let that early Triarii unit in RTW get anyway near a fight in case one of the poor petals got hurt. They'd simply stand by while cheap replaceable units did all the fighting.
Ironically that's somewhat historically accurate but it's still a waste of unit upkeep.
I did something similar, I used the triarii with my main strongest army led by faction leader, and I’d put him behind the hastati or principes, and use it to deflect a Calvary charge while taking minimal casualties. It saved me a lot, especially when I had no hoplites / hoplites were on the other side of the line
Holy shit, thank god they introduced casualty replenishment. I would retrain units for such a small amount of men missing. I think it was a form of OCD because I couldnt help myself at all
Ha ha, I have the exact same.
It slows down let's play series so much also. : )
No matter the settlement I build everything
Same.
Seeing a settlement with no construction queue makes me anxious..
Im gonna turn this tiny village into a city to rival Constantinople!
It's my #1 worst habit.
i prefer to do the battle myself, because i usually end up with far less casualties than with the auto resolve.
8:10
I didnt even know you can do this :C
thanks
Me neither. I feel like a dumb.
You could do it only in Rome Total War.
If you did it regularly, basically those advisors would live for ever.
>as you play as RUSCHIA
That pronounce... Never thought that the name of my country could be corrupted this way.
The building one is only really a bad habbit in the games after medieval 2 since you could often offord to pay for all the upgrades anyway and having the large balance caused your generals to become more corrupt just to link into the traits etc
I still do #2, but I tend to focus on building all the economy buildings whenever I can first in every settlement, since my first main army is usually enough to slowly capture neighboring provinces, then the incredible income from all those investments gets exponentially better to the point where I'm fielding multiple armies with no problem very early on.
I play every battle because I simply like battles, I got into TW because of the battles more than the campaigns
I definitely have the habit of going back to a city to replenish my troops, even with only a few losses.
It looks cooler and you never know if you’re gunna run into a huge army.
I can confirm that point of fighting all the battles, even the smaller most insignificant ones in RTW or Med2, because some times you just want to completely wipe out most if not all of your enemies and give them no chance to fight you back by any means.
I have over 1k hours on Rome and only just learnt from this video you can switch retinues, holy fuck I swear I'll never learn this game 100%
I think doing your battles manually is quite important at the beginning. Especially in some total war games, if you don't use your troops right and lose too many of them (which auto-resolve tends to make happen), even though you win the battle, it can spell disaster for your campaign. This issue is perhaps mittigated a little in Attila and any other title with auto-replenish.
There is a reason to fighting each battle. So you don't loose 250 men to 3 units of Spear Warband in auto resolve. If you manually fight those same 3 Spear Warband units you can walk away with between 0-5 losses unless you make some bad moves.
To be fair, garrisons CAN be useful in Shogun/Napoleon since they provide public order and can give you a little more push to win narrower fights. Especially since in Napoleon, basic militia units are still relatively cheap but also provide a much larger public order bonus.
I definitely feel your habit with full replenishment - it took me a while to shake that habit, and made me really glad for the later games where they made it automatic. Especially when you start using units higher tiered than where you are conquering... Same with building everything, though honestly I just try to do it everywhere. Still do it myself (and in Warhammer I often try to fit everything into the capital just so I can at least have that to build fresh armies), but these days when I play the older games it's more of a 'well, I have the money for it...'
About the Honorable mention, I just do it because im a super poor strategist at any strategy game, and I know that if i actually did give it a shot while the odds were against me, I’d just lose because I always make critical mistakes and not know it until its too late
My bad habit especially in atilla is going over the entire empire probably 5-6 times each turn even knowing I've checked on everything already I just have to make sure I didn't miss that one crucial order. Makes the game take far longer than they should
My bad habit is auto resolving major battles because I can't focus for 30 minutes
I don't like auto resolving in M2TW because the game just tells you you are to lose even though the cavalry you got will DECIMATE their heavy infantry but the game thinks you will lose anyway so i just play every battle and decimate the infantry.
Also the habit i have is that when i win i REFUSE to end it until i capture/decimate as much enemy troops as possible and i spitefully chase after the commanders cause it pisses me off if they get to escape
That last one is not a bad habit if you intend on making a character with high dread (mtw2) by chasing down your enemies you increase dread (followed by executing them to increase it further)
@@aegir3452 yeah it's alright when i do go for that but sometimes i want to have a 'not engage in too much war' playthrough but even when i go full defensive that habit gets me in trouble with the pope lul or the countries just hate me for the rest of the game
Ahh the honorable mention doesn't hit me....I autoresolve everything.
I think the worst bad habit I have is lack of logistics and overreach. I am the kind of player who tries to take his starting army on a conquering trip across half the world, only to realise ten turns in that I'm five years away from the nearest decent reinforcements, and the armies I'm fighting outnumber me two to one. This kind of ties into building everything; I like to have lots of money so I can begin to supercharge my development early on and keep things at low taxes. It may be why I'm so bad at the later Total Wars; you can kind of get away with overstretch up to Empire where everywhere you conquer can instantly churn out an army for you anyway and administration isn't such a bother. Later Total Wars don't reward conquest with financial returns as readily and initially restrict recruitment, meaning a rapid advance can quickly become a slow, sad retreat if not planned out extremely well in advance, and the resulting empire can be stagnant and not all that viable. I completely lack the patience to play a campaign like Attila, for example.
I once did what you said as the French but more Brutal in Medieval 2
I grabbed my prince, made him go on a sacking campaign through Italy, to Sicily, west north Africa and back up in Spain
All prisoners got executed
All buildings got demolished
The amount of Mercenaries I recruited were top notch
Many settlements revolted (I figured I would lose all with my High taxation)
In the end I was filthy rich, many of my enemies were underdeveloped and my Prince had full dread but was absolutely insane with all the bad modifiers added to that
It is a lovely tactic I did think would work and just did it to squeeze money out of potential enemies, but you could give it a try
Why wait for reinforcements non?
My bad habit is being too cautious, especially in Empire, Napoleon, and Rome 2. Though I have found that it does pay off in shogun 2 FOTS in late game and I absolutely steamroller the competition
My bad habit is not putting the archers behind the infantry
Fighting every single battle is a waste of time. It does not make sense to me. I do the same as you, I only play bridge battles, sieges as defender, and decisive battles because such battles usually have the biggest impact on your campaign. If you have 2k soldiers and your enemy has 400 and you're gonna obviously win, why bother wasting your time if you can auto-resolve it and quickly achieve victory? If you win, you go to your enemy's nearest city, conquer it (by auto-resolving), replenish your soldiers in the next turn, and voila. It perfectly works for me.
No, it's not. That's like saying playing videogames is a waste of time. Do you enjoy playing game(s)? If yes, it is not waste of time, because you liked it. Same thing applies to fighting every single battle. Was it a waste of time? No, because battles are lot of fun!
@@Uragan00829 Thanks for your reply, but you missed my point. I said, to quote, "I only play bridge battles, sieges as defender, and decisive battles because such battles usually have the biggest impact on your campaign." Playing decisive battles is fun. You know, after playing hundreds of hours in Total War games, mostly Rome: Total War and Medieval II, regular battles just bore me because they are repetitive (it's best to auto-resolve such battles and replenish units in the nearest city afterward). Try playing two long campaigns in Total War: Rome Remastered in a row and play every battle. That's what I did playing as Scythia and then Numidia. Playing as Numidia I conquered the whole North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, and a part of the Middle-East and I had to play almost every battle because Numidian units suck and literally every automatic battle is lost. This campaign got me tired of playing Rome Remastered for some time. I need a break.
@@AL3S93 I understand that you can be bored with the battles, but you said that "Fighting every single battle is a waste of time" as it was objective thing. You should wrote instead: Fighting every single battle is a waste of time FOR ME. Capiche?
@@Uragan00829 Of course it is an objective thing. I formed a thesis and I thought that supporting it with arguments would not be necessary because it seemed obvious. Subjective are feelings and emotions, not statements like this. I can easily prove my point with two simple arguments: Fighting every single battle is a waste of time because 1) you will eventually end up fighting exactly the same battles over and over again (happened to me way too many times) which is pointless in many ways, for example, it does not develop nor improve your tactical skills; and 2) you also waste your time fighting repetitive battles and time can be spent on other activities such as pushing the campaign forward - achieving goals. I understand that people may like fighting battles IN GENERAL, I do too, because it's fun, but the fun ends when grinding comes in.
Not watching YTWM and MELKOR should be #1
YEAH!!!
Melkor's another bad habit: Pronouncing "academy" as "academoney" XD
My habit is slow Mo battle army's crashing each other
I have habit no 3 too, if units are missing men the army flag looks all tattered
#allaboutaesthetic
5:33 What Total War game is he playing?
Congrats on 6K subs!
What about exterminating every Settlement in Medieval 2 despite of the plague? Or scourged earth tactics in Rome and Medieval 2?
I see those as good habits. The more death the better : )
The more dead People the less overcrowding and dirt what About executing all Prisoners in Med2 the more people kill today the less you have to worry tomorrow@@MelkorGG
That's the spirit : )
I actually remember how I defeated the plague in Byzantium by exterminating population
haha good old scorched Earth. If i'm fighting a faction larger than me i'll take cities I don't intend to hold and exterminate then destroy all the buildings and leave. Works really well playing as England, just run around with a fleet and an army looking for easy targets
I sometimes like to use skirmish mode, especially with cheap horse archers that I'm using to delay or lure off an enemy unit while I deal with the main body. Makes it a bit easier to manage everything. I always turn it off for archers though.
for the honorable mention there is a steam achievement for the latter total war titles for fighting every single battle and I know NTW has that achievement so that is why some people do that not out of habbit but mainly to get a steam achievement that requires it to be done.
The #2 i dont really think its a bad habits once you get to late stages of the campaign
regarding the garrison in Shogun 2 at time i send in a few garrison in frontline settlements where i cant/unwilling to overstretch the lines as im fighting other clans ie when playing as clans that are located in the center where you would decide to focus on the left or right
Additional Garrisons improve public order, that's why I do it
Oh yeah, you need some garrisons. But just put peasants in there. Not fully armoured knights and cavalry. : )
MELKOR it isn’t a bad idea but I also like keeping a few garrisons behind the front lines incase things go bad on the front and I have a few units to replenish my losses quickly if need be (and sometimes mix a few knights et cetera to keep my settlements from being soft targets
Omg, I haven't known it is possible to swap retinue between generals.
on number 4, its the other way around for me since napoleon was my first total war. now i have warhammer 1,2 and 3 (1 and 2 for the factions), napoleon and rome remastered.
Yeah for some reason I also like having my armies all at full health
SAME!
Hey, there's nothing wrong with enjoying maxing out armies and cities. It's a game after all, just have fun!
Never said there was anything wrong with it. People who click on a bad habbits video are usually people who want to focus less on fun and more and getting better. This video is for them. I could not care less what you do.
Units at full stack is definitevly one of my bad habits too. You could make a video where you calculate how much of a difference that actually makes to have 78 instead of 80 for example.
Uh-kah-duh-me ;)
Raising your generals in academy is normally a good idea, but then again, we can't all find our Julianus Vatinius in the academy, now can we?
in NTW and ETW I always attack 2 or more enemies between them like my army sandwiched between them in campaign map and then in battle map I circle enemy reinforcements with 4-6 units (depends what units coming from reinforcement) and dealing with main enemy army with my rest of units. most of time this works sometimes it failed due to exhaust and run out of ammo. We all know reinforcement units coming like gen-cav-art-inf so its easy to deal with 2 or more armies
Yes I love watching Jon
Huh. After all these years of owning Rome Total War, I had no idea about number 1.
*Academeny*
I definetely think focusing too much on your economy is a bad habit.
wtf you can pass generals' traits onto each other? :O does it work on M2TW also?
only works for Rome : )
using only elite units is my old bad habit
thats ithink why i fight all my battles its real shame to loss even just 1 troop because of auto resolve
Imo auto-resolving is a bad habit I once had but I got rid of it.
i would say the biggest bad habbit is not playing on the largest unit scale
Mine is forgetting about my agents 😂
I used to do number 2 as well
#2 can be justified I just like fighting every battle and killing everyone even if I outnumber them by a ton. Some fights I don’t even bother but if they have a family member like a faction leader then I’m 100% fighting just so I can kill the family member because you never know that family member can be a pain to kill in the future. That’s the main reason why I fight the battles next to just seeing the death animations like in Rome 1 how goofy they are
Never auto resolve if you have elephants. You wont have elephants anymore
Well, if you have mercs like Cretans then you kinda have to play every battle no matter what because the stupid auto resolve system will always make your missile units lose men no matter what they're facing
I do the same thing bro building everything possible lol.
I don't think making garrisons is a bad habit. As of a matter of fact it's actually saved me noob self a few times 😅
Replenishment is bad?
Waiting an entire turn, or 2 turns, to replenish 1 unit from 79 troops to 80 is bad.
Always replenish, but sometimes people, myself for example, can take it too far.
Nice
I am a beginner in Rome total war and I really have quite a lot of trouble with keeping public order. It always happens no matter what I do. If someone has some advice I would love to know it.
1. If it's a newly conquered province, enslave the populayion. It will boost public order than peacefully occupy it
2. Lower the tax in that province
3. Use Peasants as Garrison (in rtw, more men in a unit means more public order, so use Peasants since it's cheap)
4. Assign your general in that settlement, general presence in a settlement will boost public order
5. Build temples
If that still fails, there are other factor that causing low public order
Open up settlement window then in the bottom left click Show Settlement Details
In public order section, there two symbol (+) and (-)
(+) Is what boosting your public order
(-) is what causing your public order low
@@elang1702 thanks
@@alexkoppers7882 :D
For med2 and rome 1: #1 Using only wedge, or only standard formation when committing to cav fights; #2 not doing timed cavalry charges, and just blobbing cav. #3 not taking at least 6 missile units. #4 using grouping and using standard UI. #5 not prioritizing killing enemy standard foot archers as a pike or spear faction #6. Not boosting camera speed. #7 not playing objectively and just spamming orders without solid reasoning behind it. #8 making noob boxes rather than porcupine formation. #9 turtleing immediately. #9a. Shooting at all enemy archers rather than targeting 2-3 and completely eliminating them. #10 not spreading archer line as far as you can protect it.
Other tips:
Remember, unit ammo is a pool, so no matter how many troops are in a unit it has the same ammount of ammo as a full unit, work on killing the unit, not necessarily the maximum number of enemies when it comes to archers. Do the opposite with melee units. [(As a pike player) (go for numbers as cavalry or chariot factions)]
Archers lines work best in loose formation 2 deep with gaps between units.
Remember to use map geometry and realize it is not a 2d plane.
Trade space for stamina whenever possible.
Oh and bonus: always kill a unit with at least 1/4 strength left as it cannot rally without at least 1/4 strength.
Didn't know they couldn't rally with less then 1/4 troops. Good to know
Melore, i have been playing rome for about a month(playing total war for the first time), and i am getting into medieval 2, but it is way too hard for me:(. Any advice?
Use horse archers
Use easy mode
They should release patches, that makes skirmish mode off in every game.
Building was a Roman thing so I don’t see how this isn’t a good thing considering they was builders!. I know there’s a lot of buildings that aren’t needed in every city, but I build anyway cause it’s a Roman thing they did.
How could u not build every building possible? :D
Rome pick your nose habit lol
I do #2 to reduce the number of casualties so my army can campaign for longer before I have to heal them in a settlement.
Academney?
I do like your videos but wtf man
XD I had speech issues as a kid, I fixed most of them, but theres still about 4-5 words I struggle with.
Sorry man if it’s any consolation I feel very bad now
@@OmegaNovaB XD I'm not offended or anything.
There is nothing anyone can mock me for, which my little sister already has not bullied me for : )
I was just explaining why I mess some words up, that's all. No worries : )
#1 Bad habit - continuously pausing the game during battles to give commands! Cheating n00bish behavior, and it makes the game more boring without realizing it!
Can't tell if legend or melkor 🤔
Legends focuses more serious in game mechanics.
I focus on the players.
Legend is just his own opinion.
I try and involve the community. Sometimes I even have a poll, wherever possible, and it is just the communities Top 5, not my Top 5.
(Also, I announced I will do Top 5 first. He uploaded first, but I had already told my Discord I was about to do it.)
@@MelkorGG don't worry I was just joking 👍
I spend too much time watching my capital growing in rome TW.
I fight every battle bcs I feel like a cheater when I use autoresolve . You can still have a noticeable losses against a weak enemy if you make a dumb move. While autoresolve just make some countings and throw at you a good result. I like the human input.
How is it cheating? It is the equivalent of letting someone else command your army. You are the ruler in the game so you just send out an army with another general.
Nah, it's pausing the battles all the time. I personally never do it since total war is very easy to micro compared to an average RTS so there is really no need for it. But there are so many people who pause battles unnecessarily. Think faster!
no.
brain slow
I think that pausing its a good habit. Yes, pausing every 30 seconds when nothing happens, its a bad habit, but it isnt when you need to focus in all the battle map and more, if its a difficult battle. If you are not carefull enough, you can get ambushed by cavallery o being attacked in a weak X place when you're too focused in Y place, and if X place doesnt have men enough they can rout and encircle you losing more men that you wanted.