News / Submit
Archives
Articles

KIS Home
Reviews
Info
Screenshots
Background
Story of Kohan
Factions
Heroes
Units
Spells
Terrain
Buildings
Technology
Official KIS AI

Ahriman's Gift / Battles of Ahriman

Fan Fiction
Strategy
Editing
Cheats & Tips
Walkthroughs (KIS)
Kohan University

Forums
Staff
Player Gallery
Clans
Contests & Tourneys
Links

A Proud Member of

StrategyPlanet

 




Lexander's Tactics: Understanding Advantages

INTRODUCTION

Well, thanks heavily to all the information to be gathered from this group, a few games under my belt, and some good teammates, I finally had a weekend of more wins than losses. Nonetheless, there is so much to be learned and considered. So, here are some more thoughts, with comments welcome. Once again, these comments are primarily directed towards team games and are not the great insights of the masters, but they are some things to consider.

One interesting thing I have noticed in Kohan is a tendency to not completely examine the various advantages held by a team at a given time. All the openings and moves made by a team should in theory attempt to create new advantages, or remove those of the enemy. And yet, it seems most games tend to be 'go hit the enemy with your sledgehammer and hope for the best'.
 

Advantages in Kohan, in my experience, come in the following forms:

1. Economic
2. Military
3. Positional
4. Temporary

ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

There are two kinds of economic advantages:
a. Large gold production
b. Large resource production

Large gold production is important because it is necessary for the production of a stronger military and a stronger economy. In both situations, the final point of a economic advantage is to increase military. In effect, economic advantage is an INDIRECT advantage, and serves only to generate advantages of a different kind.

Large resource production is an advantage only in the sense that it allows the fielding of military power. Once an economic advantage is gained, it MUST be turned into a military advantage or else it is completely wasted.

Most dangerously, economic advantage gives no innate protection. Unlike a positional/time/military advantage, economic advantage can't and doesn't protect cities.

Finally, economic advantage can be gained both by internal growth and external growth. That is, external conquest has many of the same economic advantages as internal growth.

The point of all the above is to point out that economic growth is not a means to an end, it is simply an advantage that can and should be gained as is practical. Every build, every resource expended in improving economy should be focused on gaining other advantages AS SOON AS IS POSSIBLE. In every game I have seen, the player who focused on getting +200 econ as soon as possible would have been better off stopping at +100 to field armies. The reason lies in the other advantages.

 

MILITARY ADVANTAGE

Military advantage comes in several forms:

a. Firepower
b. Mobility
c. Numbers
d. Intelligence

There are others, but the above four all have interesting ramifications. Superior firepower is in many ways the final goal of pretty much everything. All economic advantage is focused towards improving your capacity to generate firepower. Firepower advantage involves both the ability to take more damage, fight longer before routing, do more damage, and hammer morale faster. Company makeup and organization is all about maximizing firepower while decreasing the effectiveness of the enemy. The real advantage of increased firepower is the side with more typically has the ability to attack and damage the enemy more easily. In some ways, this is perhaps the most important advantage a player will try to secure.

Superior mobility is a strange beast. The ZOC effect in the game really shows the importance of this. Frankly, this is why I am finding outposts to be extremely useful, in that such outposts curtail many of the advantages of mobility the enemy gains at small cost. Mobility, properly used, allows a player to project firepower in a local area faster. The larger and more open the map, the more important this advantage becomes. The real power of shadelings companies is to provide screening and raiding companies to a team without upkeep cost (shadelings are the fantasy equivalent of light cavalry during the middle 1800's) or problems of morale loss. Lots of weak mobile units can often look considerably stronger and be more effective than powerful companies unable to be at the point of contact (the fundamental problem of grenadiers). The ability to have both (particularly units such as the Cavalier) firepower and mobility advantage can go a long way toward victory.

Numerical advantage has two sides. First, more numbers typically translates to additional firepower. This is a matter of both being able to absorb more damage (more HP) and sheer ability to constantly attack more. Second, it allows for greater flexibility in combat. It is well understood that support units are not only vulnerable but are also powerful and therefore the ability to flank is critical. This usually requires superior numbers (I know, I know, not always and good players will find a way and all that, but it sure is easier with more troops and harder with less). Third, a company can only be one place at a time. This is the real problem with elites. For the cost of one elite company you can often field 2-3 companies and they don't all have to be together. Too many elites and a player is simply unable to be at enough locations on the map at the same time. Sure, you hit really hard, but if the enemy is knocking out your cities you won't be able to keep them for long (while his cheaper units won't be nearly so hard). This is not as true late in the game when everybody has lots of money (in theory), but early on going for the big stuff gives away this advantage on the hope you can gain a firepower advantage.

Intelligence in this context is your knowledge of the enemy. This is where outposts and raiding forces really shine. Time and time again I have reviewed films of my losses only to bemoan the fact that if I had only known he was that weak on that flank I would have nailed him. As such, always keep around scouting companies and outposts so you can keep tabs on your enemy and protect your flank.

POSITIONAL ADVANTAGE

This is a hard idea to fully grasp, but Chess players are probably more than familiar with it. Essentially, not every spot on the map is as good as the next. The real issue behind a positional advantage is that it lets a player do more with his forces than otherwise. In general, the edges of the map are not the best place for armies, while cities on the edge are harder than normal to hit (an interesting thought here is that it is probably better to use outpost in the center instead of cities). Additionally, mountains and rivers change the basic shape of the map, while terrain turns certain spots into better to defend locations than others. Finally, better position is necessary to be able to place cities. The point of all this is that a player should attempt to position his forces in places that provide the most options to himself and reduce the choices of enemies. Position also affects troop makeup. I once had a fight between myself and another player that ended up with both of us fighting over a small area. In that area, cavalry was a waste of money, flanking was almost impossible, and grenadiers were a bargain since speed was not all that critical. In general, attacks along the flank are harder to stop (since troops on the other flanks can't react fast enough) while attacks in the center can be blunted more easily, but once the center is held a team is at an advantage. Units defending in the middle can be at the critical point more quickly, while units on the flanks are not as useful. The practical effect of all of this depends a great deal upon the map, but the important ideas are that holding the center gives you a great deal of options both defensively and offensively while holding a flank against determined attack is usually not possible and shouldn't be allowed to happen (usually by applying pressure from the center yourself). Evaluation of the map (and the intelligence of the enemy, something I find a weakness in my play) will tell you what you need to know.

TEMPORARY ADVANTAGE

To be perfectly correct, all advantages in Kohan are temporary. However, some advantages clearly exist for only a short time and if not exploited will disappear. Temporary advantages are advantages such as:

a. Your troops are ready to attack, while the enemy is building his up. Soon it will be even (he might even have more) but right now you can attack.

b. You have highly mobile forces that your opponent will have a hard time stopping. If these are Shadeling/Scout companies you will find yourself in trouble if attacked heavily, but he has to get his companies into battle first.

c. You know where the enemy is and he doesn't. This can be corrected with scouting, but often gives you the ability to setup an attack that your opponent can't deal with.

d. You just crushed a few of his companies because he got flanked, and though he will build new ones, for a period of time you are ahead.

The problem with an economic advantage is that is rarely results in a temporary advantage, and a temporary advantage can often be used to cancel an economic advantage out. Temporary advantages are usually the byproduct of other advantages, but the game is usually won by the player that uses these advantages whenever they appear.

Now, none of this is probably news to anybody. I just like to put everything together and consider. The real point of all this is that a player needs to understand what his advantages are and how to exploit them. You are almost certainly dead if you are behind on most of the advantages, but it is not so bad if you can turn one advantage into another. Frankly, I believe all teams should have at least one nationalist and one ceyah player. Why? Ceyah get an early temporary advantage in the ability to field more units, while the Nationalist are typically a bit slow and vulnerable at the beginning but quickly become a nasty military power. For example, I prefer as Ceyah to build a lot of Shadelings (for attack) and Zombies (for defense) very quickly in order to protect allies and threaten the enemy. Shadelings aren't going to last very late into the game, but such a player is giving up a bit of a economic start for the ability to defend and attack while his friends build up. Done properly, the Ceyah player will be able to get an economy rolling quickly enough while slowing down the enemy (it is even better if you manage to hammer them early). Such a player also guarantees his team access to Ceyah support units, while the Nat player guarantees Zealots.

A good team will attempt to achieve all the advantages as quickly as possible. Frankly, one player going econ is not a bad idea if possible, but I personally think gaining military advantage early is often better (I don't mean rush as much as I mean get the armies out quickly and move into the best spots early, hitting the enemy if you can). Nonetheless, a team needs to understand these advantages and seek them out.

In the end, the real issue is understanding the balance of advantages. My first games were dominated by the tendency for somebody on my team (often me) trying to get too much economy while neglecting military, while my later games typically involved too much military and not enough economy. Lately, I have tried to generate various temporary advantages as quickly as possible, then put those advantages to use, all the while building up the 'permanent' advantages the entire time. The results have been much better. Then again, I have had some good teammates.