From: dgemoets@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Darren Gemoets-- CSC)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: More Warlords Hints
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:37:29 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center

emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:

>Since the surrender conditions are dependent on
>both the total number of cities you have, and also the number of
>cities of your nearest opponent, it's probably best to try to keep
>everyone down, rather than eliminating one opponent at a time.  (i.e.
>if the Orcs are your closest challenger in number of cities, attack
>them and reduce their city count, rather than finishing off the
>Sirians or Dwarves...)

I agree, except I seldom play that way.  I just enjoy the idea of single-
handedly demolishing an entire opponent (or two!).  When playing humans, I
will definately want to destroy them entirely, because they can form alliances,
and you can never count out a maddened human.  They tend to be vengeful!

>When playing the Elves, after I get the cities in the general area of
>Elvallie, I try to get to one of the cities along western Sulador, and
>then roll up the Giants from the south.

Yes, especially because you can start building navy units with some of those
"spare" cities in the SW, then by the time you're ready to steamroll north,
you've got 2-3 navies ready (or almost ready).

>Once you get a handle on the
>Giants, secure the northern border, and then aim for the Orcs.

I think controlling the waterways of the northern border is crucial for
Elves, especially if someone up north is beginning to dominate.  Once you
control the waterways, it makes it difficult for the eneny to get very far
one direction or the other.  Just don't spread yourself out *too* thinly!

>I haven't tried an 'eastern strategy' against the Orcs yet, but it seems
>to me that an alternative to reducing the Giants is to grab the two
>cities at the southwest part of Huinedor, and roll the orcs from the
>south.

I once tried this as the Elves, and it worked quite well!  Of course, the
opponents weren't too tough.  After subduing/eradicating the Sirians and
getting a hold on the Storm Giants (to the point that they were just being
defensive), I sent my most mobile troops East across the bridge into SW
Huinedor.  After securing the two southmost cities, I was able to move
northward without worrying about a flank attack, i.e., I could leave a
negligible garrison.

>The cities of Fire and Ice are also good ones to take early,
>just becase they're so hard to capture once someone is established in
>them.

Also, once you establish a small garrison in each (anti-griffin armies), you
can pump out heavy cavalry to your cities at the front lines and use *them*
as garrisons, so that you can use your other troops for attacking purposes!

>Don't forget that you can't guard anything, and you'll probably
>lose a couple of cities to counterattacks, so reserves are important.  

I find it's important to judge which cities require garrisons, and which don't.
Observe all your enemies, and watch out for new flying armies or wizards.  If
one is produced, see which way it goes, and start generating that garrison.
A token garrison on almost any city is usually a good idea, but I don't leave
a serious garrison unless I see a strong enemy force nearby.

>Another important thing is to grab as many artifacts/goodies as you
>can.  The heros get several things from the ruins/etc: allies, money
>and artifacts.  Of the three, I think the artifacts are the least
>important.  When playing opponents in Warlord mode, they'll rush out
>and collect as many goodies as they can.  Therefore, it's important
>for your heros to beat them to the temples.  For instance, the hero
				    ^^^^^^^
Do you mean ruins?  Or did I misunderstand?

>for the Elves should rush to the temples, etc, in southern Sulador,
>and try to beat the Frost Giants hero there.  There's always time
>after that to go back to the Ruins of Haviel just north of Elvallie.
>The Selentines should go south for Old Woods Tower, Harvest Stone and
>even Mrin's Crypt first, and then go back to the ruins, etc in the
>north.

I am undecided on this issue.  I think artifacts *are* important, but I'm not
sure it's necessary to get them all first.  What I like to do are get one or
two artifacts, then let the computer do the rest of the work for me.  That is,
let them run all around gaining artifacts, then kill them with a powerful
force (and that hero with 1-2 artifacts).  You get all their artifacts, and
you can often distribute the artifacts intelligently (if your other heroes
are nearby enough.  The problem arises when they keep getting allies or goodies,
but no artifacts!  That's why you have to do your share of ruin-plundering
yourself; just don't go way out of your way.

>Not all cities are created equal.  Look at the documentation.  Certain
>cities are good at producing certain armies (e.g. Carmel for light
>infantry).  Other cities produce really wimpy armies, and it's often
>best to shut such cities down altogether.  

This is one of my favorite characteristics of Warlords.  Different cities
produce different armies of different skill.  All armies of the same type
are not created equal!

>Watch your cash flow.  If you're the first to hit a Sage, you'll get a
>big cash bonus.  This is a Very Good Thing, as it prevents poverty
>later on.  Unless you have a good balance, try to keep a positive cash
>flow (more money coming in than is spent on army maintenance).  Try to
>prevent "You do not have enough money for the next turn's build"
>situations.

I've never really had money problem, but then again, the two times I've played
I've been enhanced!  I prefer enhanced because it shortens games (half the
production), not so much for the expenditure halving.  In fact, I wish they
were different options.

>Furthermore, if you can hit several sages, you'll have a
>much better chance of keeping the other players poor.

Unfortunately, there are only two sages, and both are in the middle of nowhere.

>Finally, more money in your bank account increases your chance of getting more
>heros.

I'd always suspected this, but I didn't see it documented.  The exception to
this rule is the game I played as the Elves.  By the time I won, I had over
12,000 gold, and still only had three heroes (gained at turns 1, 14, and 16).

>Also, a good bank account permits you to build up cities that
>are in imminent danger.  But, don't waste your money if you're not
>likely to win the siege.  Instead, pull out, regroup, and take the
>city back.  

Or raze the city and use your army for something else.

>As far as tactics, I tend to use the pegasi as 'augmentation' to
>stacks of cavalry and/or heavy infantry, to gain the flying bonus.  I
>like to keep griffins grouped together as a strike force, for
>'city hopping'.  

I try to use all flying creatures for their flying bonus or to transport
heroes to ruins/sages.  But unless I'm amassing several waves of attacks on
a well-defended city, I won't use the flying creatures with heavy cavalry.
In fact, except in the beginning of the game, I only use heavy infantry as
garrisons and early rounds of multi-wave attacks.  I try to have a +1 (either
flying or special) in almost any attack of any consequence.

>It's very important to build and maintain a mobile reserve.  A stack
>of 7 cavalry and 1 pegasus, centrally located, makes a good reserve.
>If you have plenty of heros, put a hero with this stack, too.

Sounds like a good strategy.  I haven't played tough enough opponents to
require this yet, though.  Although I can't imagine using a hero for this
mobile reserve.  They're too precious!

>In several places, you'll need to "block" the bridges to prevent
>invasions from the Orcs of Kor to Eastern Sulador by Hereuth, for
>instance.  I handle this by having three cities producing heavy
>infantry, and one city producing pegasi, feeding the nearest city to
>the bridge.  I try to keep two stacks of 7 heavy infantry/1 pegasus,
>parked on the bridge.  This has been sufficient to keep the Orcs from
>crossing.

This sounds good also.  Again, I haven't needed to yet, but I got the
idea in my last game.  To a lesser degree, you can also guard temples this
way (especially since they'll be enhanced).  Plus you get a bonus for defending
in on a temple.  It doesn't seem worth it to guard a ruin in this way.

>Don't forget to adequately garrison your cities.  I try to keep a
>garrison of at least 3 good light infantry in every city.

See above for my comments on garrisons.

>One of the best spots on the map is the city of Carmel.  This city
>produces one of the best units in the game, light infantry with a
>strength of 5.  And, it's right next to the Temple of Iris.  So, you
>can run the light infantry (and anything else that you transfer to
>Carmel) to the Temple, get it blessed, and then bring it back to the
>coast around Carmel and load it on ships.  

Well said.  In my last game as the Horse Lords, I took Khamar from the Dwarves
early, because his hero was going all over visiting ruins.  As soon as could,
I got Carmel and began pumping out 5 Strength Light Infantry, and sending them
to Iris.

Other topics:

Has anybody noticed anything fishy about the way the game handles neutral
city garrisons?  Sometimes, you can take out six neutral light infantry with
one of your own 3-Strength light infantry.  Then later, two neutral light
infantry will take out three cavalry!  Once, after having conquered a few
neutral cities, two (or three) neutral light infantry took out a cavalry and
a hero with a Command artifact!  Right.  It's *conceivable* that I just got
incredibly unlucky, but that really seems far-fetched.  This phenomenon shows
up without fail if I get a city, then on the same turn get another city with
the same force that took out the first.  It's as if the program is saying,
"Sorry, but you can't take out two neutral cities in one round with the same
force."  Also, I almost never (or maybe even never) see a battle in which
both sides lose an army or two, but one side eventually prevails.  In my
experience, it's either all or nothing.  If this *is* the case, then I don't
like it.  If I managed to bring a good force to take out two cities in the
same round, then I should get it!  (Or at least earn it).  On the other hand,
if I take one light infantry to Dhar-Khosis or Hithos (both with 6 city
strength and a good neutral force), then I deserve to get my butt kicked.  I
suspect that the game doesn't do "real combat" for neutral cities, as outlined
in the manual.  There is just some (>50%) probability that you will succeed.
Maybe the number of units is factored in, but not the units' strength, like it
does with fighting ruin monsters.

What's the point of Battle artifacts?  If I understand, they only give a 1-3
bouns to the hero's strength.  Well, in the majority of your hero battles, you
defeat your enemy without ever getting to the hero!  Maybe I just don't make
many attacks with just a hero and one other guy, where the artifact would
protect the hero.  This isn't a complaint against the game, just an observation.

My favorite units, all-around, are cavalry.  They have 5-6 strength, and 15-20
moves (I think one or two have just 14).  They aren't *too* costly, especially
the Dunethel and Fleymark (or is it Derridon?).  Needless to say, I like being
the Horse Lords (with hero names like Hettar and Cho-Hag, if you read Eddings).

I wish you could manually reorder your stacks.  Sometimes, I want my slow
heavy infantry to be killed off before my Elven Archers, because I'm in or near
the forest.  Other times I think I can kill off a unit with just my hero,
therefore not losing anyone, but I want other units there as backup.  The game
basically puts them in ascending power order, but I want to be able to override
their groupings.

Well, I've rambled enough.

>			happy campaigning,
>			dave

			and Darren!

dgemoets@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov