Yeah, major shot in the dark here, but I haven’t been able to dig up anything solid anywhere else, including the game manual, and I just started vacation and don’t have the energy for a full-fledged what’s-with-games-these-days thread (it’s coming).
I’ve been on something of a before-video-games-went-to-complete-crap kick lately, and two of the old titles I’ve revisited have been The Ancient Art of War and The Ancient Art of War at Sea. I loved how you could create your own campaigns in those and make them as easy or hard as you liked, which is absolute anathema today (when Minecraft is hardcore hell, you know something’s seriously gone wrong, but I harped on that one enough already). I played the latter to absolute death in the DOS era and am pretty much dialed in there (up to the completely hopeless campaigns…The Race for the Crown needs to be broadsided into sawdust forever).
The former, on the other hand…I remember it well, but mostly for funny stuff like fighting on compasses and putting flags in the middle of water. I understand the effects of harsh terrain (forests, mountains, and water, in order of threat), I get how to take and defend forts, I’ve finally got the concept of “supply lines” down (put a man in a village and it distributes food to all friendlies within a certain radius) and I’m pretty hip on what it takes to win a battle.
Oh, little more about that…this isn’t Dead or Alive. Archers have a SLIGHT ADVANTAGE over knights, who have a SLIGHT ADVANTAGE over barbarians, who have a SLIGHT ADVANTAGE over archers, which, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, determine which side should win. Of far greater importance is the relative condition of each side; a squad of fresh barbarians will slaughter a squad of exhausted knights. I’d put the order of priority as follows: 1. Condition 2. The enemy leader 3. Unit type (archers/knights/barbarians) 4. Dumb luck 5. Terrain 6. Formation. In my experience, unless you intend to retreat a lot (which can work with the right campaign), formations are of negligible importance.
But one thing I still haven’t been quite able to get dialed in on are the enemy leaders. I’ve got a whole bunch of bits and pieces but I feel I’m still missing some things. If any of you remember this game, I’d appreciate anything you might add. I’ll include what the manual has to say about them. In order from worst to best (as far as I’ve been able to determine):
Crazy Ivan
Ivan will be unpredictable and rarely use logic when making a decision. He is the easiest opponent to defeat.
The main reason he’s the easiest opponent is that he has to play by the same rules as you. He gets tied up by difficult terrain, he can lose men in high mountains and deep water, his men get very tired if he pushes them too hard, they have to eat, they fight like men and not The Punisher, and they struggle with unfavorable matchups. Strategywise he’s unsophisticated, usually opting for a full-frontal dumbfire bull rush, but he usually has enough sense to keep a squad on his vital assets (flags and/or villages), which actually puts him a cut above Athena in the brains department. He doesn’t deal with adversity well and is the quickest to surrender of all the leaders. Please note that easIEST is not the same thing as easY, and if the campaign is a type where the enemy benefits from a full-frontal dumbfire bull rush, and especially if he has a heavy manpower advantage to offset the relative weakness of his troops, he can be plenty difficult, if not next to impossible. (Mumble grumble The Race for the Flags mumble grumble The Elusive Spy mumble fricking bullcrap grumble… 
) Overall, unless I feel like test-running one of the really brutal campaigns…and you all know how much I loooooove extremely difficult games! 
…I don’t really have a reason to choose him. He’s not an easy opponent the same way that Thor Foote is in TAAoWaS. You still need to structure the campaign in a way that you’re not in a hopeless position, which kinda defeats the point of “beating up on the scrub”.
Alexander The Great
Alexander will tend to protect his flag well and to keep a supply line open. He is a compassionate leader and will surrender when the situation becomes hopeless rather than send his remaining men to their death. He is slow when traveling through the mountains or forests but will move aggressively to engage enemy found in the open.
His forces are a bit stronger than Ivan’s but otherwise enjoy no special advantages, getting bogged down in rough terrain and needing regular meals to stay in fighting trim. He’s on the conservative side and, unless he sees a big opening or his food’s running dangerously low, will opt for quick precision strikes instead of a massive bull rush. He knows when he’s beaten and will choose surrender over needless bloodshed or even a Pyrrhic victory. In all, nothing special; the important thing is that you don’t get impatient and start fighting his fight. If there’s lots of thick forest around and he’s not budging, you need to find some way to draw him out rather than wear out your men getting to him. (Sherwood Forest is complete garbage with that “randomly placed flag” crap, so I’m not touching that one.)
Athena
Athena will move her squads toward your flags, attacking and fighting anyone in reach, regardless of their strength. She will tend to leave her own flag unprotected and will let her food supplies become dangerously low before looking for more food. She will die before surrender.
Bearing none of the foolish restraints of real people that actually existed, her strategy is to send her entire army screaming headlong into the enemy, fight to the last drop of blood, and maybe grab a bite every once in a while if it isn’t too much trouble. This does tend to wear out her forces fairly quickly, but they can move at a pretty fast clip even when out of food and exhausted (I’ve even seen them fast march for a stretch under these conditions). They’re better fighters than Ivan or Alexander’s men and will never surrender under any circumstances. In a nutshell, you want a knock-down drag-out slobberknocker, you have it in spades with her. This also means that you have to be very careful about the type of campaign you put her in; it’s very easy to get overwhelmed, and any race-for-the-flags scenario (most definitely including The Race for the Flags) is a doomed undertaking. There doesn’t seem to be any middle ground with her, you either crush her or get crushed by her, and it’s a very thin line.
Julius Caesar
Caesar will concentrate his power, fighting to the end and rarely conceding defeat. He will move slowly and steadily toward his goal to conserve his strength.
Much like Athena, he goes for the all-out assault, rarely caring about niceties such as “protecting his flags” or “occupying forts”. The main difference is that he understands the value of condition and will take the time to let his men recuperate in villages instead of mindlessly sending them flying facefirst into the enemy. His men are also in better shape than hers and considerably better than yours, tiring about two-thirds as quickly as the “prime shape” setting. Like Alexander, he’ll surrender when the situation becomes hopeless, but given the quality of his troops you’ll have to hit him a lot harder to put him in that state. This is the first leader where you need some kind of strategic or situational edge to prevail. If it’s a straight man-to-man fight where both sides have clear shot at the other and forts don’t crank out men like toothpicks, you’re absolutely toast (mumble The Rivalry grumble… ). The only campaign where I think I could have fun with him (aside from just giving myself an overwhelming numerical advantage, which is fun, but not that fun) would be a “retreat to the other fort” thing, and I’m not 100% sure it would work.
Geronimo
Geronimo will keep on the move, providing an elusive target. Traveling as fast through forests and mountains as most armies can travel in the open, Geronimo will sweep down on villages periodically to keep his men well fed.
Not only are his forces are not hindered at all by mountains or forests (water still affects them normally), their staying power is comparable to Caesar’s. This gives him a lot of leeway in picking his shots, and if the map has plenty of unfriendly terrain (mumble War in the Mountains grumble… ), he can effectively dictate the entire campaign. This also means that he’s going to have the upper hand in a lot of battles; unless you’re sharp, you can find yourself taking heavy losses in a big hurry. I haven’t quite worked out the conditions where he’ll surrender, but he’s at least as tenacious as Caesar. I think I could make a decent campaign around him, but I’m not sure what. Inconvenient river past the mountains? Vast empty plain with no villages?
Genghis Khan and Subotai
Genghis Khan and Subotai will protect their flag and keep their supply lines open. They can travel quickly through the mountains and forests and are among the three toughest opponents in The Ancient Art of War.
Blah blah speed and surprise yada yada protect their assets blibbidy blib keep their troops well fed rah rah rah attack where you’re weakest…can we talk a bit about the colossal innate advantages their men have over yours? They’re slowed only slightly by even dangerous mountains and never die in them, they have about double your men’s stamina on “prime shape” (I can’t even imagine what torture Islands of Doom must be), and, worst of all, they’re both deadlier and harder to kill. I kid you not; battle Ivan, Alexander, or Athena under identical conditions and you’ll see the difference. While not the absolute (fictional, idealized) diehard Athena is, they (along with the last two leaders) will not surrender until their forces are on the very brink of annihilation. Not a fun opponent by any means. Their only failing, if you can call it that, is that they’re extremely aggressive in going after your flags, going so far as to attempt to get a flag in dangerous water (they’re the only leader I’ve seen do that). At this point I’m about 98% certain that’s exactly what I’m going to base their campaign around.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon will try to strike where you are weak, protecting his flags and keeping his supply lines open. He is slow when traveling through forests and mountains — but he is among the three toughest opponents in The Ancient Art of War.
Very similar to GK&S, including their fighting ability, stamina, and ability to handle mountains and forests. The main difference that while the Mongols keep one squad on the important locations and attack with the rest, trusting in their physical superiority to win the day, Napoleon is more calculated, attacking or defending as the situation demands. He is willing to wait and build up his strength to take on a powerful force as well as retreat from a battle to cut his losses. He is a sharp thinker and can adjust his attack plans on the fly in response to changing situations. Because of this, you cannot relax for a moment against him. If you create a weak point anywhere or allow him to park in a fort, he is going to gobble up your forces like a croissant. I honestly have no idea what to do with him yet; all my ideas where I can actually beat this guy seem incredibly heavy-handed.
Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu will protect his flags, keep his supply lines open and strike with strength where you are weak. Sun Tzu moves quickly through forests and mountains. A brilliant strategist, he is the toughest opponent in The Ancient Art of War.
Ugh. The big cheese…emphasis on CHEESE…himself. With forces that are made of iron, can charge all day on half a bowl of rice, and have the special advantages of Athena (continue running even when exhausted), Geronimo (move like the wind through mountains and forests) and Napoleon (on-the-fly adjustments), he’s just an absolute monster. Take him on only if you enjoy suffering. You know you who are.
