Welcome

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.

Categories

Can we please get a victory condition overhaul?

42konyo42konyo Posts: 775Registered Users
In it's current state the Mortal Empires victory conditions are so boring and pointless that barely anyone ever finishes a campaign, personally I've probably finished only 1 out of 10 campaigns that I've started and the only reason for that is the lack of realistic and challenging victory conditions.

The main problems as I see them:
  • Minor and major (short and long) victory conditions are exactly the same.
  • Conditions are generic/shared across all factions.
  • They do not promote faction specific (loreful) endgame/play style.
  • They still force you to do certain things, taking away control from the player.
  • Campaigns take too long to complete due to conflicting objectives.
Personally at the very least I'd like to see the short campaign objectives changed to something that that faction would want (besides world domination obviously) to give a few examples:

Empire: Unite the provinces, wipe out the VC, Skarsnik subfaction and optionally ally/defeat Bretonnia/Dwarf factions.
VC: Take control of all empire provinces and wipe out the Empire and all it's subfactions, maybe confederate/vassalize other VC factions.
HE: Confederate/take over Ulthuan and wipe out DE/VC
DE: Confederate/ally other DE factions and take over Ulthuan.

Of course this is just the most basic option that i'd like to see, working with what we already have only requiring minor changes that wouldn't really require too much effort on CA's part, ideally it'd be somewhat in line with the lore (which I know very little about admittedly)
What would you guys like to see changed about them, and how many out of your total ME campaigns have you completed so far?


Comments

  • SephlockSephlock Posts: 2,050Registered Users
    #JusticeForUshoran #RuneGolems #RuneGuardians #ShardDragons #Thunderbarges #Stormfiends #BigMonsters #MoreDakka
  • 42konyo42konyo Posts: 775Registered Users
    Sephlock said:

    Still a better ending than any warhammer TW end screen
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Posts: 7,141Registered Users
    Different ones for different races. Also the idea of a final end battle isn’t all that bad. I’ve enjoyed the end battles for Tomb Kings, Hunter and the Beast, Vampire Coast, Bretonnia, the final Vortex battle and whoever else has them that I’ve forgotten about.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • SephlockSephlock Posts: 2,050Registered Users
    I wouldn't mind randomized goals during the campaign either. Based on the way the factions act in-game it shouldn't be too hard for most of them.

    "One dude accidentally underpaid by a penny ten thousand years ago, DEATH TO THE MANLINGS!"

    "Some adventurer stole some minor trinket from one of our Tombs, DEATH TO THE LIVING!"
    #JusticeForUshoran #RuneGolems #RuneGuardians #ShardDragons #Thunderbarges #Stormfiends #BigMonsters #MoreDakka
  • FossowayFossoway Posts: 2,409Registered Users
    Short victory conditions should stay short. Not anyone wants to play the same campaign for ages.

    For example, as Empire: unite the provinces, wipe out the Vampire Counts, defeat Archaon and the Chaos Invasion. Boom, done. That would still take some time but without dragging the campaign forever.
  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Posts: 3,070Registered Users
    Fossoway said:

    Short victory conditions should stay short. Not anyone wants to play the same campaign for ages.

    For example, as Empire: unite the provinces, wipe out the Vampire Counts, defeat Archaon and the Chaos Invasion. Boom, done. That would still take some time but without dragging the campaign forever.

    The real issue for loreful campaign victory conditions is that for some factions it's harder to find simple conditions. For example, the Skaven. They don't have a particular territory they're known for conquering, though they do have particular factions they hate. Lorefully, what should their goals be? Long term is easy: conquer the surface world, eliminating (at least) the Dwarfs, Empire, and Lizardmen. But what about short term?
  • FossowayFossoway Posts: 2,409Registered Users

    Fossoway said:

    Short victory conditions should stay short. Not anyone wants to play the same campaign for ages.

    For example, as Empire: unite the provinces, wipe out the Vampire Counts, defeat Archaon and the Chaos Invasion. Boom, done. That would still take some time but without dragging the campaign forever.

    The real issue for loreful campaign victory conditions is that for some factions it's harder to find simple conditions. For example, the Skaven. They don't have a particular territory they're known for conquering, though they do have particular factions they hate. Lorefully, what should their goals be? Long term is easy: conquer the surface world, eliminating (at least) the Dwarfs, Empire, and Lizardmen. But what about short term?
    Every characters has their own personal motivations. You could use that as a base for individual goals. For example:
    - as Queek: capture Karak Eight Peaks, wipe out Clan Angrund, Crooked Moon, Dwarfs and Greenskin
    - as Skrolk: capture Hexoatl and Itza, wipe out Itza, Hexoatl, Cult of Sotek and Order of Loremasters
    - as Tretch: capture Naggarond, Har Ganeth and Quintex, wipe out Naggarond, Har Ganeth, Cult of Pleasure and Nagarythe
    - as Ikit Claw: capture Nuln, Karak Zhufbar, wipe out Empire, Dwarfs, Tilea and Estalia

    What I mean is, keep it short, keep it simple, keep it loreful. There is a reason why most players give up their campaign before finishing it, it's because it's too long. The long victory condition can stay long, but the short one is too long as it is.
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Posts: 729Registered Users
    I like the idea of having different victory conditions based on different legendary lords.

    For some it might be hard to make different ones, but for many it would work. Then, the choice of legendary lord is not only a choice for starting Pos and initial lord and faction bonuses, but also what your goals are.

    If someone says that this is too restrictive, fine, also keep a generic "conquer X,Y,Z" long victory.

    I also like the idea of having victory conditions be (somewhat) dynamic based on what happens during the game.

    For Dawi this would be simple. If a faction sacks/razes one of your ancient strongholds or betrays an alliance, you must destroy them (or at least settle the grudge).

    I am sure someone creative/knowledgeable can come up with cool variable victory conditions.
  • innerpinnerp Junior Member Posts: 305Registered Users
    i really like factions that have a focused victory condition like khalida with her annhialate all vampires or aranessa and removing all norscans and pirates.
  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Posts: 3,070Registered Users
    innerp said:

    i really like factions that have a focused victory condition like khalida with her annhialate all vampires or aranessa and removing all norscans and pirates.

    Part of the issue here is that you can never have the victory conditions just be about eliminating factions because the AI is capable of eliminating those factions too. It's not super fun to play Khalida with a goal of "kill all vampires" only to then get a notification that the Dwarfs and the Elves wiped out all the vampires before you ever even saw them.

    At the same time it can't just be about holding territory, because some factions can't hold territory at all, or can only hold very limited territory.

    Honestly I think the idea of final battles is a good one, we should have more of those.
  • _Mad_D0c__Mad_D0c_ Posts: 945Registered Users

    I like the idea of having different victory conditions based on different legendary lords.

    For some it might be hard to make different ones, but for many it would work. Then, the choice of legendary lord is not only a choice for starting Pos and initial lord and faction bonuses, but also what your goals are.

    If someone says that this is too restrictive, fine, also keep a generic "conquer X,Y,Z" long victory.

    I also like the idea of having victory conditions be (somewhat) dynamic based on what happens during the game.

    For Dawi this would be simple. If a faction sacks/razes one of your ancient strongholds or betrays an alliance, you must destroy them (or at least settle the grudge).

    I am sure someone creative/knowledgeable can come up with cool variable victory conditions.

    Yeah best way to give us new LL depending voctory conditions beside the current ones. I mean Rome 2 for example gives you 3 different victory conditions.
  • Unknown6203Unknown6203 Posts: 930Registered Users
    edited October 29
    Finally somewhat thinks like me!

    I have completed like 2/10... some factions i try but just cant like High Elves they are to damned boring. i choose a faction based on Race 40%, Starting location 40% and Leader is 20% of my choice when i start a new campaign.


    I had some things that will help out
    Either shorter victory condition and move the others.
    -Short- New shorter term vs some nemesis factions like in WH1, example Dwarfs vs Greenskins.
    -Long- What was short before it's now long.
    -Epic- Long vic. condition moved to Epic.

    Also some problems are faction specific Dark Elves and High Elves suffer at the hand of their starting locations. but i find High Elves worse... because Dark Elves at least fight among each other High Elves just sit there waiting to be confederated. so for these faction the problem is starting locations.

    Also another thing that makes the ME "boring" it's the lack of things to do in between battles, Diplomacy overhaul would help greatly.new options like
    *Gift/Trade/Sell regions- just like it says.
    *Intimidate- you intimated and opponent and if make good on that promise they would respect you this is from Medieval 2.
    *Liberate option- if you conquered a territory belonging to a death faction you can "revive" that faction as a Vassal or Ally.
    * Better Vassallage- Vassals are near impossible to have.


  • Lin_HuichiLin_Huichi Posts: 305Registered Users
    I agree. Short should be where you have a focused objective, like HE conquer Ulthuan tada. Long should be like Rome Total War hold your capital and take a certain amount of regions, (maybe 70).

    I like the Wood Elves campaign, building the Oak of Ages up for victory is easy and focused so I've completed lots of Wood elf campaigns but never anybody else. I got close as Dark elves but the long list of capitals to capture had me confused and I missed destroying Norsca. I just gave up.
  • PatriksevePatrikseve Member Posts: 1,657Registered Users
    Why does a game like this need a victory goal? I rather remove victory goals completely. Keep the smaller mission objectives, and embedd them with more lore/story and things that gives you interesting rewards and such or events. I wont care regardless about short/long victory condititions since I usually keep playing after them. I dont need the game to tell me I won something in grand strategy. Im very happy to carve out my own goals and leave the campaign when im done weather its 300-500 turns or 50-150 turns. The whole win/loose thing is a little to ingrained in game culture it doesn thave to be that way. We also have a summary option to look at werever we are in the campaign. So my suggestion is to just remove short/long victory conditions and add more chapter objectives and chapters. Think of it as a book, and then what you do and what you dont do gets recorded like a story and is presented to you whenever you start or continue a game as to your wish. This could be themed to say Dwarfs would be written in say blood? And the Empires would be in ink and the design of them would resemble the faction with som appropriate non coloured sketches/art along the way.

  • 42konyo42konyo Posts: 775Registered Users

    Why does a game like this need a victory goal?

    Because literally every total war game has had them?

    "The whole win/loose thing is a little to ingrained in game culture it doesn thave to be that way"

    Because that's what a game is, you play until you either win or lose?
    That's like saying the whole beginning/end thing is a little to ingrained in movie culture, it doesn't have to be that way.
  • DraculasaurusDraculasaurus Posts: 3,070Registered Users
    42konyo said:

    Why does a game like this need a victory goal?

    Because literally every total war game has had them?

    "The whole win/loose thing is a little to ingrained in game culture it doesn thave to be that way"

    Because that's what a game is, you play until you either win or lose?
    That's like saying the whole beginning/end thing is a little to ingrained in movie culture, it doesn't have to be that way.

Sign In or Register to comment.