Secret Master

Secret Master

29 Mar

blahmaster6k said: Honestly, considering that the second night vision tech is a 1946 tech, it hardly comes up in a normal game from my experience.

I've pushed those techs ahead of time as Italy when going all in on a GBP/special forces kind of thing.

I'll save everyone the trouble and post it myself:


28 Mar

Here's the logic of training air wings.

1) Rookies are terrible at air to air combat. Consider these two wings:

{ "lightbox_close": "Close", "lightbox_next": "Next", "lightbox_previous": "Previous", "lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.", "lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow", "lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow", "lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen", "lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails", "lightbox_download": "Download", "lightbox_share": "Share", "lightbox_zoom": "Zoom", "lightbox_new_window": "New window", "lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar" } 1680038268452.png

1680038366988.png... Read more
blahmaster6k said: True, but keep in mind that the other side also has the -50% night attack penalty. Meaning that during the night time, your divisions will still have a 25% firepower buff that the other side doesn't have.

I just want to remind everyone (and I know you know this, but others might not) that between GBP right and the night vision techs, you can completely eliminate the night fighting penalty.

1680037697897.png... Read more

07 Mar

bitmode said: In my opinion, battles should actually be much faster.

This is something that's just baked into the design of the game. And it has odd results.

Most big naval battles in the period lasted 1 to 5 days at the most. Convoy battles were sometimes longer, but these also are of the "convoy attacked in multiple running battles" variety.

It's worth pointing out that when capital ships were involved, longer naval battles were problematic simply because they burned so much fuel when fighting. But we don't have to worry about th... Read more

08 Feb

blahmaster6k said: And I think I was one of the first people to discover that multirole strategy so you don't have to inform me about it

I really should have tagged the OP as well, since I know that you know that I know that you know.... Well, you get the point.
blahmaster6k said: In enemy air superiority zones, you should not be using CAS at all. It will simply be interrupted and not carry out its missions. This is why you use fighters only unless you have at least yellow, preferably green air.

That's the optimum path against a human opponent, certainly.

But I'll be honest: one of the ways I scam the AI is to run something akin to this set up.

Run Battlefield Support as your doctrine. And build multi-role planes like this:

1675882287473.png... Read more

06 Feb

marcelo r. r. said: I can't believe even in real life someone in CONTROL of SUEZ will blow up to cut itself from india ocean.

Pfft. That's amateur hour.

I've seen AI Romania blow the Suez in an MP game with humans on majors because of how weird occupation come out with exp. forces and so on.

"Smoke'em if you got'em. Our modders have to go into the save game file and fix things before we can continue our epic battle for Egypt."

It reminds me of a Monty Python skit where the Royal Army brigadier gets angry with the Axis po... Read more

04 Feb

IITonicII said: I tried logistical strikes but it doesn't seem to change anything.

I find this odd.

I recently ran a game and wiped out enemy logistics without too much effort.

A few things to consider when bombing logistics.

1) Did you bomb them for more than a week? It takes time to have impact thanks to supply grace and fuel stockpiles on the front.

2) Do you actually control the skies? If the bombers aren't getting through, then it doesn't matter what mission they are running.

3) Did you have enough pl... Read more

28 Nov

Telenil said: How does it play out in multiplayer? @Secret Master ? @Axe99 ?

Dunno. I've been playing Vic3 for the past month.

So, my dreadn... Read more

19 Oct

Harin said: Second, have a goal. My goal is to keep resistance under 50%, because that is where garrison losses double.

Harin said: Choose a default occupation law that will keep the resistance targets of ...
Read more

15 Jun

Dread Og said: Also drop the amenities back to 1 after mass recruiting if you want to save money again.

Ah, I hadn't considered this an option before because I figured they'd get pissed and leave.

So, I can raise amenities for a "recruitment year" and then let it lapse back to normal. Excellent suggestion.  
Evangeline said: You can also increase your court splendor

Does this have a visible impact on attracting people to court? I can never tell.

For the record, though, I am usually either low tier (because I'm just poor, so I'm struggling in other ways) or top tier. I'm never in the middle, so I can't tell if there is a progressive effect.  

10 Jun

Evangeline said: In terms of inviting knights: I never get knights that way! Instead, go through the members of your court and look for any unmarried women. Then arrange matrilinial marriages for them and sort the potential spouses in the list by prowess. All the best knights will simply marry into your court!

I run out of women before my knights fill up.  

08 Jun

shrimpboom8 said: Each additional regiment saves less time than the one before it (assuming size 5 onagers against level 4 forts, the first saves 150 days, the second saves 50, the third 25, etc.). That being said, splitting up multiple siege stacks will greatly increase the speed at which you occupy territory, assuming you can defend them (each siege has a base progress of 1/day, though the progress is lowered if the army does not have effective siege weapons)

Yeah, I was also thinking about carpet sieges and how the 1/day make them more effective in some sit... Read more

07 Jun

m0xxY said: Do you not think this to be an issue?

As I'm not addressing balance right now, the thought has not yet occurred to me.

Knights have always been a bit powerful, but I'm not ready to call them unbalanced or broken yet, as I'm not the expert. If I was the expert, I wouldn't be asking these questions. :)

Read more
I've been working with abusing Only The Strong lately to create mega-leaders that can effectively massacre armies by themselves. It's going fairly well, and following a bit of advice I've seen posted online, I've been able to accomplish a lot. But as I progress through the Middle Ages, some issues have cropped up that I'm not entirely sure how to solve. Searching online has yielded contradictory information, so I could use some help.

1) Is there any way, aside from increasing knight effectiveness, to make knights better at killing enemies in the pursuit phase? By the time I get later in the game, I can just stack wipe enemies with 40 prowess/400% knights. But in the tribal era, when facing bigger enemy armies, I can't reliably stack wipe them in the early phase, so I'd like kill more enemies during pursuit. Since I've been using MAA for basically just siege equipment, I can't stack cavalry to do this. And when I play a culture or dynasty with access ... Read more

16 Mar

    Secret Master on Support Forums - Thread - Direct
Moved to technical support  

06 Mar

    Secret Master on Support Forums - Thread - Direct
Moved to Tech Support  

18 Feb

    Secret Master on Support Forums - Thread - Direct
Moved to tech support  

02 Sep