How many times have you lost?

[Elvain]

I know that for good strategist it's very hard to be defeated. Though I'd like to ask you how many times or how often do you lose, because many guys complain that the game is to easy....

I have lost 2 games yet, I guess

Once at the very beggining when I played as Bohemia and was at war with Hungary.. to make Poland attack Hungary I had to declare war at Germany, so I did, lost kingdom power(I was their vasal), rebels emerged in Bohemia, Hungarians attacked and conquered Moravia and then Germans attacked also Bohemia. Hungary would agreed to a peace, but I became their vasal...
and Germans didn't agree to no peace proposal, I was even unable to defeat the rebels, and then Germans invaded Bohemia and took it :bash:

the second game now was as Antioch. I was in lack of money since the beggining and when Seljuks invaded me, I left the battle to AI. It seemed well at the beggining so I tried to get my king married somewhere abroad, always being refused, and then I saw that my marshal was killed-I forgot to controll how the battle was evolving :bash: stupid mistake
and still there was no money to hire new army. Second Seljuk marshal invaded, they plundered one village and just then attacked my(yet) unfortifed city.
This was a question of half an hour on hard with my mod.

[Xuca]

I have lost only once :knight:

It was my second game, I played as Zeta, united Serbia. I controled four Serbian provinces+Sicily.
I was at war with Bosnia, and they were sending spies to me all the time. They killed my King, raised rebellions, handed over towns, changed my province religion etc. Than the Caliph of Cordoba was elected as the Emperor of Europe. I declined, so Cordoba invaded me. Shortly they took over Sicily and Zeta, and I left with only my King as a marshal, almost no income and swarmed with rebellions. It took them less than half an hour to conquer me. This was at normal difficulty :embarras:
But that was my second game, so...

[Angryminer]

Is this the way you wanted it Elvain? You're welcome. :go:

I was lead into damnation as the leader of Muscowy. The campaign developed great, in the beginning. If I remember correctly I started out as the vasall of Golden Horde but managed to declare independence together with my trustworthy ally Ryazan. The Chief of the Golden Horde didn't see anything lost yet and denied any peace that didn't involve vasallity, so the war kept going on, despite heavy resistance in the local nobility (war exhaustion slowly raising). I managed to get the upper hand in the war and even conquered a province, when a local rebel founded the kingdom of Twer, annexing one of my provinces. That lead to a seperation of my formerly 5-provinces empire and a two-sides war. Ryazan wasn't able to withstand the Golden Horde and was forced into vasallity, denying my demand of attack and breaking the alliance.
That meant a bad situation:
1. My best army obliterated by two pagan armies with growing financial support (Mongol Cavalry!) and an enemy chief with no intentions for a peace-treaty.
2. A newly formed kingdom that seperates my kingdom and is at war with me.
3. Rebel armies forming due to high war exhaustion and nostalgia.
4. No ally to recieve a part of the beating.

That was where GoG's mechanics came to beat me up. Low income, thus only the monarch as marshall, two invading armies from the south, one invading from the north, a pagan loyalist-army in the south spawning because the presence of golden horde in the province, two level 7 rebels in the east and no real money to buy good troops fast.
If the kingdom of Twer wasn't founded I would have surely managed to keep the luck of war on my side.
The end of the story:
5 provinces Moscowy lost the province of Jaroslav when the kingdom of Twer was founded, wasn't able to defend Chernigow against the Golden Horde (damn that king-present-morale-bonus!) lost Kazan and Wladimir to rebels and had to surrender to the king of Twer when the Chief of Golden Horde killed nearly the whole army of Muscowy in an unsuccessful town assault, followed by an assault by the king of Twer.

Angryminer

[Elvain]

thanks, Angry :go:

[Anguille2]

I've played 3 games so fat till the end:

- First game with Highlands: victory with Kingdom Advantages
- Then Switzerland: wasn't going badly but then decided to write an AAR.
- Game with Fatimids with Mod Hard from Laudan: Lost some battles but achieved KA.
- Currently playing Highland with Mod Invasion from Laudan: have lost many battles but am ruling over Scotland and England (except York which is an Ally). I feel confident now but had to recruit more Marschals than i usually do (at leat 3) to control such a small territory.
- As soon as i have Holy Rome, i'll start a new game (AAR) with Ayyubids.

Conclusion: many battles lost but no game yet.

[Gallifrey]

I've only played three games to completion. My first was with Norway which I lost due to another King being elected emperor of europe. The other two, with Zenata and Abbassids I won with kingdom advantages. I've never been elected emperor and any games that take a drastic and irreversible turn for the worse I abandon.

[tybalt]

I am more the administater than the warmonger, therefore I have never lost with a kingdom so far; usually my kingdom gets bigger and bigger until it is no challenge anymore and I leave it or do the kingdom advantage thing.
Something different is the "Quick battle mode". If I chose "defend castle", I lose every time.

[Da Swede]

I have lost once, and it was as the Highlands. I declared war on the other scottish nations because i thought I would steamroll them. But i was wrong. I was defeated and pushed back to the Highlands. And they took my castle.

[Alex Poff]

The AI in this game is too easy, in my humble opinion. I have started out as a single province little guy many times and have never lost a game yet.

[Gallifrey]

I actually find it a lot easier to start with a small 1-3 province kingdom than to start with one of the big kingdoms..

[Elvain]

I agree, 2-3province kingdoms are lot easier...
but big empires have the advantage that they can afford a spy since the very beggining...

[Gallifrey]

A small kingdom can put a prince into the role of spy. I almost never "hire out" for my spies if I can at all avoid doing so.

[HappyAdolf]

never :king: :viking:

[Wolfgrin]

I've lost three or four games, but always in the first 30 minutes. I've lost twice as Cyprus, because the game started with the Ayyubids at war with me and unwilling to talk peace on ANY terms. I not only had no money to build an army, I didn't have the population to build one. They came with two armies and the next thing I knew, the Q'uran was at the top of the Bestseller charts.

It seems that, in this game, if you can build a decent army and a defensible city with a decent economy, you will not lose. Of course, if you're brash and a terrible strategist, you will lose.

Too bad. Rome: Total War is the same way. Survive the first hour and the game is as good as won. Winning is not a goal for the AI in either game.