Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.
@fredrin check out Al's vc campaign 300 turns in for 'burning world'.
Ahaaaa, that makes more sense. 300 turns is one almightily long campaign though.
I would probably align myself closest with Josh in terms of playstyle - breakneck expansionism at all costs. By my count he has about 25-35 provinces left for him to conquer, taking him to maybe turn 200, at which point he would be ready to take the fight to Chaos rather than the other way around.
Things on the campaign map do get settled after a long period of time, so some corrupted hordes rampaging down from the North might be quite welcome game-changer by turn 200+.
@fredrin check out Al's vc campaign 300 turns in for 'burning world'.
I think that's more due to the end game event of the chaos incursion. All chaos does is sack or raze.
That's what people said they didn't like in Attila though. The huns are what caused the 'burning world' there and that also took roughly 300 turns to occur.
Mitch's explanation of his campaign strategy is also pretty neat!
My victory conditions (in terms of territory) are to control by direct ownership or through alliances/vassals. I'm choosing the latter.
For the guys I have to kill I can just send forth an army from my regions and cross off another grudge. :P
I can, and intend to, win with just 5 regions. It's all about your playstyle really.
I'm very much taking the fight to the enemy mainly cause I'm fairly small, I like my style of play because I have a small very defensible set of regions that are easy to keep safe. Action for me right now is centered quite heavily in the South, my ally there is taking a beating from some Orcs that are holding out down there so I've gone down to help finish them off. Chaos are an ever present threat, but I've got a buffer zone of Orcs to the north who I've not had much trouble with. Haven't even considered going Westward yet either!
Mitch's explanation of his campaign strategy is also pretty neat!
My victory conditions (in terms of territory) are to control by direct ownership or through alliances/vassals. I'm choosing the latter.
For the guys I have to kill I can just send forth an army from my regions and cross off another grudge. :P
I can, and intend to, win with just 5 regions. It's all about your playstyle really.
I'm very much taking the fight to the enemy mainly cause I'm fairly small, I like my style of play because I have a small very defensible set of regions that are easy to keep safe. Action for me right now is centered quite heavily in the South, my ally there is taking a beating from some Orcs that are holding out down there so I've gone down to help finish them off. Chaos are an ever present threat, but I've got a buffer zone of Orcs to the north who I've not had much trouble with. Haven't even considered going Westward yet either!
Mitch's explanation of his campaign strategy is also pretty neat!
My victory conditions (in terms of territory) are to control by direct ownership or through alliances/vassals. I'm choosing the latter.
For the guys I have to kill I can just send forth an army from my regions and cross off another grudge. :P
I can, and intend to, win with just 5 regions. It's all about your playstyle really.
I'm very much taking the fight to the enemy mainly cause I'm fairly small, I like my style of play because I have a small very defensible set of regions that are easy to keep safe. Action for me right now is centered quite heavily in the South, my ally there is taking a beating from some Orcs that are holding out down there so I've gone down to help finish them off. Chaos are an ever present threat, but I've got a buffer zone of Orcs to the north who I've not had much trouble with. Haven't even considered going Westward yet either!
This is promising. It implies there is a lot of satisfaction to be had in strategies other than good ol map-painting.
Can anyone explain what the heck has happened to the Empire in Darren's brief but eventful campaign?
@Fredrin my guess would be that Midland, Hochland and Talabecland had a little scuffle between friends, for one. . Also, Averland might have been razed by greenskins, another guess. Also, that Reikland being weak in that one under Karl Franz seems to keep the counties fairly split apart, the other two are fairly united under one flag, devastation or not.
@fredrin check out Al's vc campaign 300 turns in for 'burning world'.
Ahaaaa, that makes more sense. 300 turns is one almightily long campaign though.
I would probably align myself closest with Josh in terms of playstyle - breakneck expansionism at all costs. By my count he has about 25-35 provinces left for him to conquer, taking him to maybe turn 200, at which point he would be ready to take the fight to Chaos rather than the other way around.
Things on the campaign map do get settled after a long period of time, so some corrupted hordes rampaging down from the North might be quite welcome game-changer by turn 200+.
Ahh I'm much closer to Mitch's play style. I wouldn't even consider properly expanding until around 300 turns in when I've pretty much completed my tech tree. In that sense it kind of annoys me if the map is already a wreck, because then I'm just colonising razed villages with my ultra elite armies.
Having said that I tend to do a lot of razing early on to create buffer zones, but buffer continents can be a bit of overkill.
My Glob... could it be? ... Genuinely dynamic Campaign AI? I think that's what I'm seeing here unless my eyes deceive me.
Can anyone explain what the heck has happened to the Empire in Darren's brief but eventful campaign?
Also, look at the Border Princes pushing up into Empire territories in Mitch's campaign. That's pretty epic.
No evidence of the "burning world" scenario some were foretelling, though it looks as Archaon has carved a neat path through Middenland in Mitch's.
Achhh, seeing all these campaign maps is giving me am intolerable urge to play this game. Thanks but no thanks for the info, Charlotte
I think this is one of the biggest points that is being overlooked by everyone. The AI seems to REALLY be dynamic in this regard. Never doing the same thing.. .This looks extremely promising. I NEED this game haha
Where is the commentary on each campaign? All on red dot?
Well it is a bit relief to see we can continue a campaign with vassal states rather than all of them unifying into the main race. I might actually play Empire in that case.
I think I'd probably play Darren's style of campaign initially- create a strong ally secure 1 border but still expand at a steady pace later on adding allies or vassal. Playing with only 5 regions seems a bit boring though turns would go faster I guess while maximum expansion is unnecessary and makes me think other 'friendly' powers would start regarding a new threat.
Funny that Al's campaign had Greenskins Waaagh!!! though I am disappointed it took 300 turns.
Post edited by bli-nk#6314 on
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” Mark Twain
@Fredrin my guess would be that Midland, Hochland and Talabecland had a little scuffle between friends, for one. . Also, Averland might have been razed by greenskins, another guess. Also, that Reikland being weak in that one under Karl Franz seems to keep the counties fairly split apart, the other two are fairly united under one flag, devastation or not.
Cheers man. So, in short, total bedlam! Seems things get messy without an effective unifying force under KF.
Ahh I'm much closer to Mitch's play style. I wouldn't even consider properly expanding until around 300 turns in when I've pretty much completed my tech tree. In that sense it kind of annoys me if the map is already a wreck, because then I'm just colonising razed villages with my ultra elite armies.
Having said that I tend to do a lot of razing early on to create buffer zones, but buffer continents can be a bit of overkill.
No proper expansion until turn 300?! Wow. I ... can't even imagine playing a campaign like that haha
I will try and play a turtle campaign in this game to test it out as a novel strategy... but my inner megalomaniac usually wins in such situations
@Fredrin my guess would be that Midland, Hochland and Talabecland had a little scuffle between friends, for one. . Also, Averland might have been razed by greenskins, another guess. Also, that Reikland being weak in that one under Karl Franz seems to keep the counties fairly split apart, the other two are fairly united under one flag, devastation or not.
Cheers man. So, in short, total bedlam! Seems things get messy without an effective unifying force under KF.
Ahh I'm much closer to Mitch's play style. I wouldn't even consider properly expanding until around 300 turns in when I've pretty much completed my tech tree. In that sense it kind of annoys me if the map is already a wreck, because then I'm just colonising razed villages with my ultra elite armies.
Having said that I tend to do a lot of razing early on to create buffer zones, but buffer continents can be a bit of overkill.
No proper expansion until turn 300?! Wow. I ... can't even imagine playing a campaign like that haha
I will try and play a turtle campaign in this game to test it out as a novel strategy... but my inner megalomaniac usually wins in such situations
It's just guesswork of mine! Hard to see a better explanation though...
Turtle? Go dwarf. EDIT: Or greenskins and go raiding/sacking far away, come to think of it...
Tacitus Quotes:
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.
I found Rome a city of filth covered marble and left it a pile of rubble. - Me
My Glob... could it be? ... Genuinely dynamic Campaign AI? I think that's what I'm seeing here unless my eyes deceive me.
Can anyone explain what the heck has happened to the Empire in Darren's brief but eventful campaign?
Also, look at the Border Princes pushing up into Empire territories in Mitch's campaign. That's pretty epic.
No evidence of the "burning world" scenario some were foretelling, though it looks as Archaon has carved a neat path through Middenland in Mitch's.
Achhh, seeing all these campaign maps is giving me am intolerable urge to play this game. Thanks but no thanks for the info, Charlotte
I think this is one of the biggest points that is being overlooked by everyone. The AI seems to REALLY be dynamic in this regard. Never doing the same thing.. .This looks extremely promising. I NEED this game haha
Except the AI has done this in past games. In Atilla my past four games have seen very different rises in power. In one, the Irish moved all the way into Spain and others they died in thirty turns. In another, the Western Roman Empire fell in forty turns and in another it lasted until the bitter end. The AI's been dynamic for a while now. I've rarely had two games, even if I play in the same region, turn out the same.
My Glob... could it be? ... Genuinely dynamic Campaign AI? I think that's what I'm seeing here unless my eyes deceive me.
Can anyone explain what the heck has happened to the Empire in Darren's brief but eventful campaign?
Also, look at the Border Princes pushing up into Empire territories in Mitch's campaign. That's pretty epic.
No evidence of the "burning world" scenario some were foretelling, though it looks as Archaon has carved a neat path through Middenland in Mitch's.
Achhh, seeing all these campaign maps is giving me am intolerable urge to play this game. Thanks but no thanks for the info, Charlotte
I think this is one of the biggest points that is being overlooked by everyone. The AI seems to REALLY be dynamic in this regard. Never doing the same thing.. .This looks extremely promising. I NEED this game haha
Except the AI has done this in past games. In Atilla my past four games have seen very different rises in power. In one, the Irish moved all the way into Spain and others they died in thirty turns. In another, the Western Roman Empire fell in forty turns and in another it lasted until the bitter end. The AI's been dynamic for a while now. I've rarely had two games, even if I play in the same region, turn out the same.
True, but even with this supposed 'restriction' of settlement occupation that everyone keeps going on about, there is tons of variety in these maps.
Are the white regions razed ? If so, it seems Tilea gets razed in every campaign
Ha yeah, hard to tell though it looks to be a lighter shade (white) rather then the default map light brown, so maybe it's faction?
I think the Tilea thing is white (I downloaded the pic to get a better zoom)...and if so Tilea only does bad in Darren's campaign, in Josh's they own Tilea and border princes both. Now if you want to talk a faction doing badly, we should talk Kislev, only in Darren's they're intact. It's almost as if the longer the game goes on, the less chance they have to hold on...
I wonder what the victory conditions for the dwarfes are. I guess it can't be controlling provinces anymore and it sounded like Mitch is doing well even though he has only 5 holds left.
I wonder what the victory conditions for the dwarfes are. I guess it can't be controlling provinces anymore and it sounded like Mitch is doing well even though he has only 5 holds left.
Like Attila, allied settlements count towards victory conditions, so the player doesn't really need to hold many territories themselves.
I think all settled races only start off with 1 or 2 holds anyway, the rest are all held by npc factions.
I think I heard dwarf victory conditions were somewhat grudge related? So Mb you have to wipe out specific greenskin tribes. I'd also imagine there's a number of holds you have to reconquer, or Mb help allied dwarf factions take over?
I hope you can create a blog entry narrating how a game went xD
Like a lets play? Except you don't go into detail about things you're not allowed to tell. A story of the expansion of the great dwarven/orcish/human empire?
I wonder what the victory conditions for the dwarfes are. I guess it can't be controlling provinces anymore and it sounded like Mitch is doing well even though he has only 5 holds left.
Like Attila, allied settlements count towards victory conditions, so the player doesn't really need to hold many territories themselves.
I think all settled races only start off with 1 or 2 holds anyway, the rest are all held by npc factions.
I think I heard dwarf victory conditions were somewhat grudge related? So Mb you have to wipe out specific greenskin tribes. I'd also imagine there's a number of holds you have to reconquer, or Mb help allied dwarf factions take over?
It would be really stupid to make province occupying based victory condition after making half of the map unoccupyable, the railroad would be real. The grudge related victory conditions sound interessting though. And I think surviving/throwing back Chaos will also play a role.
I wonder what the victory conditions for the dwarfes are. I guess it can't be controlling provinces anymore and it sounded like Mitch is doing well even though he has only 5 holds left.
Like Attila, allied settlements count towards victory conditions, so the player doesn't really need to hold many territories themselves.
I think all settled races only start off with 1 or 2 holds anyway, the rest are all held by npc factions.
I think I heard dwarf victory conditions were somewhat grudge related? So Mb you have to wipe out specific greenskin tribes. I'd also imagine there's a number of holds you have to reconquer, or Mb help allied dwarf factions take over?
It would be really stupid to make province occupying based victory condition after making half of the map unoccupyable, the railroad would be real. The grudge related victory conditions sound interessting though. And I think surviving/throwing back Chaos will also play a role.
A article I once read claimed that the races victory conditions would have greater diversity and have lore connected conditions. The Empire aims to unit all humans against Chaos (which implies that you don't need to conquer them, thou that will work too) . The Dwarfs will have the mentioned grudge system. They aim to clean the great book of grudges. Which appears to have a dynamic system, which means that new grudges can be created through the course of the campaign. WoC simply want to see the world burn. What the other 2 (3) want, I don't remember if the article mentioned them.
Comments
It looks like the VC one is on top of something else
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeCan anyone explain what the heck has happened to the Empire in Darren's brief but eventful campaign?
Also, look at the Border Princes pushing up into Empire territories in Mitch's campaign. That's pretty epic.
No evidence of the "burning world" scenario some were foretelling, though it looks as Archaon has carved a neat path through Middenland in Mitch's.
Achhh, seeing all these campaign maps is giving me am intolerable urge to play this game. Thanks but no thanks for the info, Charlotte
- Report
1 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeI love getting these little campaign updates.
- Report
2 · Disagree Agree- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeI would probably align myself closest with Josh in terms of playstyle - breakneck expansionism at all costs. By my count he has about 25-35 provinces left for him to conquer, taking him to maybe turn 200, at which point he would be ready to take the fight to Chaos rather than the other way around.
Things on the campaign map do get settled after a long period of time, so some corrupted hordes rampaging down from the North might be quite welcome game-changer by turn 200+.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIf youre going to lose a campaign being overrun by orcs is the way to do it
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeWhere did you get that?
GPU: MSI GeForce GTX970
RAM: 16GB DDR3
SSD: 250GB Samsung 850 Evo
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThis is promising. It implies there is a lot of satisfaction to be had in strategies other than good ol map-painting.
- Report
3 · Disagree AgreePlus Al's vampires...helping along, my guess.
Also, Averland might have been razed by greenskins, another guess.
Also, that Reikland being weak in that one under Karl Franz seems to keep the counties fairly split apart, the other two are fairly united under one flag, devastation or not. Wow, is that them? I thought it was Stirland or something, but I think you're right!
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeHaving said that I tend to do a lot of razing early on to create buffer zones, but buffer continents can be a bit of overkill.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeSiege of Talabheim
Altdorf - The Imperial City
Feedback and comments are more than welcome. I want to make it as good as it can get!
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeWell it is a bit relief to see we can continue a campaign with vassal states rather than all of them unifying into the main race. I might actually play Empire in that case.
I think I'd probably play Darren's style of campaign initially- create a strong ally secure 1 border but still expand at a steady pace later on adding allies or vassal. Playing with only 5 regions seems a bit boring though turns would go faster I guess while maximum expansion is unnecessary and makes me think other 'friendly' powers would start regarding a new threat.
Funny that Al's campaign had Greenskins Waaagh!!! though I am disappointed it took 300 turns.
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeNo proper expansion until turn 300?! Wow. I ... can't even imagine playing a campaign like that haha
I will try and play a turtle campaign in this game to test it out as a novel strategy... but my inner megalomaniac usually wins in such situations
- Report
1 · Disagree AgreeHard to see a better explanation though...
Turtle? Go dwarf.
EDIT: Or greenskins and go raiding/sacking far away, come to think of it...
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeAuferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.
The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.
I found Rome a city of filth covered marble and left it a pile of rubble. - Me
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeIf so, it seems Tilea gets razed in every campaign
- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeSiege of Talabheim
Altdorf - The Imperial City
Feedback and comments are more than welcome. I want to make it as good as it can get!
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeNow if you want to talk a faction doing badly, we should talk Kislev, only in Darren's they're intact. It's almost as if the longer the game goes on, the less chance they have to hold on...
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeI think all settled races only start off with 1 or 2 holds anyway, the rest are all held by npc factions.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeI hope you can create a blog entry narrating how a game went xD
Like a lets play? Except you don't go into detail about things you're not allowed to tell. A story of the expansion of the great dwarven/orcish/human empire?
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree Agree- Report
0 · Disagree AgreeThe Empire aims to unit all humans against Chaos (which implies that you don't need to conquer them, thou that will work too) .
The Dwarfs will have the mentioned grudge system. They aim to clean the great book of grudges. Which appears to have a dynamic system, which means that new grudges can be created through the course of the campaign.
WoC simply want to see the world burn.
What the other 2 (3) want, I don't remember if the article mentioned them.
- Report
0 · Disagree Agree