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

Medieval 3 & Empire 2 Total War ideas discussion

Duke_SuraknarDuke_Suraknar Junior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 26
Greetings to all,

I have recently had the urge for some Medieval Action and loaded up Medieval 2 TW and started a new Campaign (moded) made a small mod of for 2 days for my pleasure.

And I was thinking how great it would be if we had Medieval 3 Total war, incorporating the latest tech and with the newer mudding tools (STEAM assembly Kits etc).

In my "daydreaming" I envisioned a M3TW which would be set roughly at the same time as as M2TW but would span the entire Continent of Europe AND Asia.

So that we could actually play as Mongols or other Asian Kingdoms and Empires during the same time, including Middle eastern Powers and of course the European Powers of the time.

An enhanced experience to cater the "what if" scenarios we all strive for and imagine when playing TW games (at least I do).

So the map could span from Iceland to Japan and Siberia to India and Malaysia including of course the Arabian peninsula and a portion of Africa from Mauritania to Somalia.

That kind of Map covering some 600-800 years of history would truly be Epic I think for the next Medieval Title.

Or even a new title "TOTAL WAR: Old World(s)"

---

This of course could be followed up by EMPIRE 2 Total War, or "TOTAL WAR: New World(s)"

Which would Add the Americas, and Indonesia, Philippines and Australia New Zealand and cover the next Chapter of History to the end of the 19th Century.

I have been thinking about whether it should stop in Napoleonic Era or not, but I am of the Opinion that it should actually include the Napoleonic period from a Grand Campaign Perspective, where Napoleon could rise as a Character in it at the appropriate time if the Kingdom of France still exists etc etc.

I did not like when EmpireTW did not advance to Napoleonic Times and I did not like how limited NapoleonTW was either. While I truly enjoy playing in both these periods.

So this time around the title could span from the Musket & Pike Renaissance to the End of Napoleonic Times mid to end 19th Century. And actually have a DLC which could Cover various Napoleonic Campaigns in more detail with own localize Maps etc as an expansion to it rather than a separate title.

Bonus Thoughts.

I recently tried a Conversion Mod "The Great War" for NapoleonTW. And I felt it kind of works well. So maybe another title for TW moving forward is also periods which were never covered by the official TW series such as the first WWI and WWII or even beyond could be possible and even as a continuation to the above ideas.

In Conclusion, I think TW series has matured to a point where it should attempt more Epic premise projects.

I have tried the likes of Europa Universalis and Hearts of Iron and Imperator of the Competition (Paradox) and it just does not feel the same way, they all have Epic premises covering the world basically with their all encompassing maps but are so limited in many other aspects lacking the Tactical glory we all experience and love in TW games Simplistic in some titles (EUU), very rigid and inflexible in others (HOIIV). And completely irrelevant in others (imperator).

Back to Total War, I hope more is on the works and I also hope it is presented in a semi-classic semi modern fashion. There are allot of things that I like about Three Kingdoms for instance (I have not had time to play Troy yet) but sometimes in 3K I do not always enjoy the story Driven approach to it (I think I prefer Records mode in the long run), I like the hands off Classic approach, "here is your starting conditions now go change history to your heart's content" classic Grand Campaign style :)

Thoughts & feelings anyone?
~ Duke Suraknar ~

*Everyone dies, not everyone really fights*
«1

Comments

  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,125
    I wouldn't hope for 600+ years of time in a game, Ca has previously said that most people only play around 200 turns per campaign so that would be either having multiple years per turn or fast majority don't experience most of the games content.

    Also wouldn't think the base game would stretch all the way to the Pacific, might be something they do as an expansion. They have previously done the character spin offs like Attila and Napoleon so doing M3 focused on Europe, the Middle East and North Africa with the Mongols as a game event and invasion, followed by a stand-alone expansion based off Genghis Khan which if both games are owned have a combined campaign.

    Generally lager maps means less details in each region so a lot of the smaller parts would be lost which I think would be a shame with how rich the area was, especially the HRE. The number of little states and their different government forms would seem a good source of DLC.


    On Empire 2 I think that is one of the reasons for issues with Empire 1, trying to get the revolution to work in France. It's why France is a single province so they could get enough unrest I think. Issue being how often is that going to matter? By that point if the campaign is still going the player is likely going to be so strong that it will make it even easier to take out France as they will have a civil war.

    Easiest solution would be like 3K and Medieval has had, start dates. Seems an easy way to build the campaign to run till 1820 and have the 3 main dates being 1700, American revolution and then French Revolution.

    Wouldn't expect it to cover Australia & New Zealand, think that area would be left off the map still. Might get South America as provinces however.

    Would also need to have a lot of big changes from what we currently have in TW though. Need a rework to the province system as it really would fail to capture this time frame and wouldn't fit it a prime example Britain is likely to not have a port at all due to the location of the main cities they chosen, if they added a 4th to Wales then it would be close enough to the coast to get a port. Would also need to have navies readded as their own thing and preferable without army/fleet caps. That could also then bring back the trade nodes to cover the links to other regions.

    I feel otherwise with the WW1 mod, shows that it doesn't work in TW.
  • Duke_SuraknarDuke_Suraknar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 26
    edited April 3
    You sound very pessimistic mate, why is that?

    I have been a follower and Fan of the series since 2001 with Shogun Total War, the first one. And been modding them since too.

    So while you say most people do not like more than 200 turns there are plenty of Mods that make the game last more than 1000 with 4 turns or even 12 turns per year in a game such as Medieval 2 Total War, that starts in 1080 and ends in 1530.

    And since originally vanilla it is set to advance 2 years per turn but many did not like this and prefer slower and longer pace. Myself I play it at 2 turns per year so that could last about 2000 turns.

    So yes it can span 600 years, and they can release it like M2TW 2 years per turn that would be tops 300 turn game. Then we more classic players can mod it to make it fit our likes and wants for longer games :)

    As for the Map size.

    Really, I think with todays Hardware and software it could be possible to do.

    And it is in that light that I am expressing my vision and hopes for Future Titles of the Series :) I know they have not done something as ambitious before but that should not be a reason not to hope for something more ambitious and grandiose given that it is technically possible today ;)

    Maybe it will even turn you from a pessimist to an optimist about the series. Hah Mind you maybe you are not being pessimistic here, and just assess the future titles based on what CA has done before.

    But I think that they should push for more instead of reusing the same model with new graphics only.

    Also, you do express some good points though especially about The French and American Revolutions and also about the Province system....

    I think there is room for innovation in this regard.

    Provinces could be Dynamic :) For instance.

    The starting conditions would have established Kingdoms with some provinces but outside of them the vast steppes with nomad tribes etc would not be separated in to provinces until conquered by any of the kingdoms and the size could vary.

    The map is already different in Three Kingdoms with multiple layers of detail based Zoom distance, such an approach could very well cater the whole world if they want with Levels of Detail.

    So technically is possible and since it is I do not see why not...lest some Competitor decides to go that way.
    ~ Duke Suraknar ~

    *Everyone dies, not everyone really fights*
  • bli-nkbli-nk Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,839
    I would be favor of such a large map ONLY if terrain type hugely influenced base movement of armies.

    Steppes armies might move 250 points IN the steppes but move at base 100 in most other terrains (get a smaller bonus in hills if 100% cavalry).

    In the mountains armies that are native to mountains move at base 100 but armies non-native move at base 50 (still modified by characters/tech).

    Then an army marching thru the steppes from Mongolia might actually reach Poland if it stayed in the steppes in 8 turns rather than the 20 turns if only using 100 movement points.

    Rivers that freeze in winter could be crossed with 0 movement penalty but most rivers cut movement by 30% with major rivers costing 60% of movement unless it is a designated ford/bridge.

    Geography should have more variation, AI factions with at least 33% of their territories in the steppes might get an extra wide area of possible targets so the AI can benefit from the bonus movement while AI factions that are 50% mountains/jungle might get constrained area of possible targets and focus mostly on nearby neighbors which is what occured 90% of the time historically.

    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” Mark Twain
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,125

    You sound very pessimistic mate, why is that?

    I have been a follower and Fan of the series since 2001 with Shogun Total War, the first one. And been modding them since too.

    So while you say most people do not like more than 200 turns there are plenty of Mods that make the game last more than 1000 with 4 turns or even 12 turns per year in a game such as Medieval 2 Total War, that starts in 1080 and ends in 1530.

    And since originally vanilla it is set to advance 2 years per turn but many did not like this and prefer slower and longer pace. Myself I play it at 2 turns per year so that could last about 2000 turns.

    So yes it can span 600 years, and they can release it like M2TW 2 years per turn that would be tops 300 turn game. Then we more classic players can mod it to make it fit our likes and wants for longer games :)

    Because again, people don't play it. That's not my number or detail but CAs form their playerbase. You can mod it if you want more turns, but CA isn't wasting their time and resources on something the community isn't interested in. That's not pessimistic that is reality. If most people don't play past 200 turns then its a waste of time and money to flesh the content out over 800 turns as you wont get the benefit of it and are liable for negative comments as a result.


    As for the Map size.

    Really, I think with todays Hardware and software it could be possible to do.

    And it is in that light that I am expressing my vision and hopes for Future Titles of the Series :) I know they have not done something as ambitious before but that should not be a reason not to hope for something more ambitious and grandiose given that it is technically possible today ;)

    Maybe it will even turn you from a pessimist to an optimist about the series. Hah Mind you maybe you are not being pessimistic here, and just assess the future titles based on what CA has done before.

    Yeah they do have the tech to do it and would seem the metrics support that most can run such a large map as we're seeing with the WHF series getting much more provinces in their combined campaigns. That's not the issue here, here it is playability and reason.

    Base game for M3 it should really focus on the region that the Medieval time period applies to. They weren't interacting much outside of that and the only real connection was the Mongols. So it's better to have the detail in the first game and then an option to cover the grander scale with less detail for the regions. No matter the Tech the larger the area covered the less detail those areas get. That's how it works for gameplay, otherwise you run in to blocks like the old Constantinople in Empire.

    For Empire, again you run in to the lowering of detail which was one of the issues people had with the first game so adding regions extremely far away which add nothing of value in the time period it is best to drop them to cover other elements.


    But I think that they should push for more instead of reusing the same model with new graphics only.

    Also, you do express some good points though especially about The French and American Revolutions and also about the Province system....

    I think there is room for innovation in this regard.

    Provinces could be Dynamic :) For instance.

    The starting conditions would have established Kingdoms with some provinces but outside of them the vast steppes with nomad tribes etc would not be separated in to provinces until conquered by any of the kingdoms and the size could vary.

    The map is already different in Three Kingdoms with multiple layers of detail based Zoom distance, such an approach could very well cater the whole world if they want with Levels of Detail.

    So technically is possible and since it is I do not see why not...lest some Competitor decides to go that way.

    Yeah they could be, doesn't seem they would be though. We're nearing 10 years of effectively the same province system now. This has became the series standard which doesn't fill me with hope of a great improvement to it.

    When I've said detail, I don't mean just the trees and such but the placement of towns and cities, the overall distribution of provinces. Although we also get issues then with rivers placements as well.

    To CA, seeing a competitor go in a direction that the market shows no interest in and adds no value to their product...I can see them being happy about that.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,454
    I think due to the numerous playstyles and even moods we all have the length of the game can be tweaked anyway we want it, be that 1 turn = 4 years or 4 turns = 1 year. The main reasons the games run shorter is because there's little left for the player to do in the later game which to me is more a limit of the mechanics rather than the wants of the player. Personally I would like to see a short, medium and long term campaign victories with late game narrative campaigns as an option as well.

    In reference to gameplay attached to the map in medieval 2 I took over the Americas with Turkey so there's the sandbox content and the idea that Constantinople traded as far as Britain to Japan/China so even back then there was global trade. That to me is part of the magic of TW, a while back I took over the Americas with Sweden or turned history on its head and colonised the British Isles with armies from India.

    I like the idea of exploring the East more and there's certainly possibilities with the Ming culture within China, if things had worked out differently China could have easily expanded and this could happen in the hands of the player. Japan could also become a strong regional power and deal directly with the Byzantine Empire as a major trading empire of the East.

    There are lots of options and it would of course depend on CA's scope for any future titles.
  • Duke_SuraknarDuke_Suraknar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 26
    Commisar said:



    Because again, people don't play it. That's not my number or detail but CAs form their playerbase. You can mod it if you want more turns, but CA isn't wasting their time and resources on something the community isn't interested in. That's not pessimistic that is reality. If most people don't play past 200 turns then its a waste of time and money to flesh the content out over 800 turns as you wont get the benefit of it and are liable for negative comments as a result.

    I think that saying "people don't play more than 200 turns" is not enough. One has to go further and evaluate why it is this case and may it is this case because the game lacks content in advanced stages and becomes same old same old at one point.

    Maybe iot is like this also because people manage to finish a campaign within 200 turns on easy difficulty boom boom boom complete the winning conditions..,on average within that turn spam.

    We cannot just assume that because the number shows 200 it is because people do not like to play more than 200 turns ;) That would be fallacious r4easoning.

    The point remains that a game that covers 600-800 years of History is more than possible especially on the proposed Scale.
    Commisar said:



    Base game for M3 it should really focus on the region that the Medieval time period applies to. They weren't interacting much outside of that and the only real connection was the Mongols.

    Here I actually disagree quite emphatically. Because this view seems to me very shortsighted and limited.

    I mean, are you seriously suggesting that Medieval Period only happened in Europe? The rest of the world did not exist in that time? Only someone with a limited knowledge of history and which is based on Eurocentrism would claim something like this. I like to think of TW players being a bit more knowledgeable of history and while I understand exceptions exist I hope that present company is not an exception.

    In fact there are many world shaping events throughout the planet during the Medieval Period, otherwise the game should be rebranded to "Total War: Medieval Europe". The rise of the Mongol Empire,, the Golden age of the Islamic Culture innovations and discoveries, heck even maybe Discovery of the Americas by Vikings on one side and China's Admiral Zheng He and his Fleet all happened during Medieval Times and Period.

    There is plenty of Content to go around here and put together in a Grand Game such as proposed. And no reason to limit one's vision.

    So again, I understand if you have a pessimistic opinion about CA. And in reality I am not against it maybe they read you and realize that maybe there are more players in their following with same feelings such as yours and may have the desire to change that.

    Yet, my thread here is not about debating what CA will do or not, but about discussing what would be cool and epic and exciting as a next title to have. It is a Wishful thread expressing a dream or playing a Total War game that spans the world and giving the player the opportunity to play history in whatever "what if" permutation they desire!

    It would really be cool if CA embarked on making something like this!

    And if you have personal Wants of a European Centric Experience, then maybe that could be a DLC expansion which offers more details and focuses on strictly European events and Royal Families and their interactions during the Medieval Period.

    I do not see adding more regions as a limitation but rather as an opportunity. An opportunity of playing history differently making different decisions about it, expanding to far off regions of the world and interacting with far off Civilizations in an attempt to Unite all the people! A Total War Sandbox! With Global History of the period as its Theme.
    Commisar said:


    [Yeah they could be, doesn't seem they would be though. We're nearing 10 years of effectively the same province system now. This has became the series standard which doesn't fill me with hope of a great improvement to it.

    When I've said detail, I don't mean just the trees and such but the placement of towns and cities, the overall distribution of provinces. Although we also get issues then with rivers placements as well.

    To CA, seeing a competitor go in a direction that the market shows no interest in and adds no value to their product...I can see them being happy about that.

    Yes it is true, maybe CA really doe snot care about what the competition is doing, like yourself. So no need to talk about it I agree.

    Yet we can certainly talk about our wants and aspirations. I mean, if we do not express these here, where should we express them and to whom?

    As Fan of the series and its Creators, it is to the Series and its Creators I express this alongside its Fans, fellow players.

    If CA wants to consider these suggestions or not that is their prerogative of course, but it doe snot stop us from discussing the possibilities and expressing our visions about the series we like to play and the stimuli of our imagination in relation to it.

    On the contrary, I think this is a very positive thing todo for a Community of players and about the game they form a community for, it is a form of feedback too in and of itself for the CA devs too.

    Any smart business considers the feedback of its players so that it can make its next offering more appealing and fun or pleasurable or satisfactory (in the case of games) for them. It is about offering more value.

    cheers!
    ~ Duke Suraknar ~

    *Everyone dies, not everyone really fights*
  • Duke_SuraknarDuke_Suraknar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 26

    I think due to the numerous playstyles and even moods we all have the length of the game can be tweaked anyway we want it, be that 1 turn = 4 years or 4 turns = 1 year. The main reasons the games run shorter is because there's little left for the player to do in the later game which to me is more a limit of the mechanics rather than the wants of the player. Personally I would like to see a short, medium and long term campaign victories with late game narrative campaigns as an option as well.

    In reference to gameplay attached to the map in medieval 2 I took over the Americas with Turkey so there's the sandbox content and the idea that Constantinople traded as far as Britain to Japan/China so even back then there was global trade. That to me is part of the magic of TW, a while back I took over the Americas with Sweden or turned history on its head and colonised the British Isles with armies from India.

    I like the idea of exploring the East more and there's certainly possibilities with the Ming culture within China, if things had worked out differently China could have easily expanded and this could happen in the hands of the player. Japan could also become a strong regional power and deal directly with the Byzantine Empire as a major trading empire of the East.

    There are lots of options and it would of course depend on CA's scope for any future titles.

    Agree with all your points as well :) I share the feeling, well said friend!
    ~ Duke Suraknar ~

    *Everyone dies, not everyone really fights*
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,454
    I do think for the next major historical (if we get one) CA hopefully does a major update on the engine allowing much more complex gameplay options as historical needs something.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,125

    I think due to the numerous playstyles and even moods we all have the length of the game can be tweaked anyway we want it, be that 1 turn = 4 years or 4 turns = 1 year. The main reasons the games run shorter is because there's little left for the player to do in the later game which to me is more a limit of the mechanics rather than the wants of the player. Personally I would like to see a short, medium and long term campaign victories with late game narrative campaigns as an option as well.

    It's not quite that, most games people don't take even most of the map, very few manage to even get victory conditions to trigger achievements.

    The issue is the long standing one for TW and all other grand strategy games, snowballing. Earlier in the game it's interesting with challenges, mid game when you hit your stride it's fun as you can really get things done but then...that's it. You have enough money you no longer need to build up the economy, you have plenty of armies and can easily replace losses to stomp every enemy. You no longer need to invest in tech, use diplomacy or care about the government. So overall it just loses interest and people look to move back to a new game. At this point the players have the most content to actually interact with, they have more buildings and unit options but they are sort of no longer meaningful.

    Think it's only the recent titles that they've dropped the differences in campaign lengths. Empire had it for a starter and R2/Attila had it as victory conditions but you had multiple choices of them to go for with economic as well (although all felt rather similar TBH).

    I think that saying "people don't play more than 200 turns" is not enough. One has to go further and evaluate why it is this case and may it is this case because the game lacks content in advanced stages and becomes same old same old at one point.

    Maybe iot is like this also because people manage to finish a campaign within 200 turns on easy difficulty boom boom boom complete the winning conditions..,on average within that turn spam.

    We cannot just assume that because the number shows 200 it is because people do not like to play more than 200 turns ;) That would be fallacious r4easoning.

    The point remains that a game that covers 600-800 years of History is more than possible especially on the proposed Scale.

    They have, it's a long standing issue like I mention above for grand strategy games. Once you snowball enough the game loses it's challenges and it becomes just monotony of painting the map for the sake of painting the map, which doesn't seem to be popular.

    As I've been playing my campaigns with the intent to get achievements...a lot of people aren't playing till they get the victory conditions, especially in R2 and Attila.

    No, it's just evidence that people find the early part of the game the most enjoyable and that is where CA tends to invest their time and resources instead, where most of the playerbase spends their time in the campaigns.

    Yes it is possible. It's also possible for CA to have it cover millions of turns. But still it doesn't solve the issue and investing the money on such without addressing the problem still makes it a bad investment. It also means quite possibly people play even shorter campaigns as the content is more spread out with them moving on to new campaigns even quicker, they still only have so much time and budget to make the content.

    Here I actually disagree quite emphatically. Because this view seems to me very shortsighted and limited.

    I mean, are you seriously suggesting that Medieval Period only happened in Europe? The rest of the world did not exist in that time? Only someone with a limited knowledge of history and which is based on Eurocentrism would claim something like this. I like to think of TW players being a bit more knowledgeable of history and while I understand exceptions exist I hope that present company is not an exception.

    In fact there are many world shaping events throughout the planet during the Medieval Period, otherwise the game should be rebranded to "Total War: Medieval Europe". The rise of the Mongol Empire,, the Golden age of the Islamic Culture innovations and discoveries, heck even maybe Discovery of the Americas by Vikings on one side and China's Admiral Zheng He and his Fleet all happened during Medieval Times and Period.

    There is plenty of Content to go around here and put together in a Grand Game such as proposed. And no reason to limit one's vision.

    No, saying that the Medieval period applies to Europe. It's quite literally a term made by Europeans to define the time frame in Europe between the fall of Rome and what is now viewed as the Renaissance. I think the game should focus on the location it's named off. Such as the Rome games being focused on the areas impacted by Rome, Shogun on Japan and 3K on China.

    At this point instead Asia has it's own names for the time period as they are very distant from Europe and haven't been impacted by the same events as such (E.g. the collapse of the Roman empire). So you are instead imposing European time period on these regions which were doing their own thing with their own set up during it and as a result doing a disservice to it overall as you cut off parts that are relevant to them.

    There are good reasons to limit it, same way they always have, to give more focus and tell a more fitting and coherent story, with a more detailed game world to play in.

    So again, I understand if you have a pessimistic opinion about CA. And in reality I am not against it maybe they read you and realize that maybe there are more players in their following with same feelings such as yours and may have the desire to change that.

    Yet, my thread here is not about debating what CA will do or not, but about discussing what would be cool and epic and exciting as a next title to have. It is a Wishful thread expressing a dream or playing a Total War game that spans the world and giving the player the opportunity to play history in whatever "what if" permutation they desire!

    It would really be cool if CA embarked on making something like this!

    And if you have personal Wants of a European Centric Experience, then maybe that could be a DLC expansion which offers more details and focuses on strictly European events and Royal Families and their interactions during the Medieval Period.

    I do not see adding more regions as a limitation but rather as an opportunity. An opportunity of playing history differently making different decisions about it, expanding to far off regions of the world and interacting with far off Civilizations in an attempt to Unite all the people! A Total War Sandbox! With Global History of the period as its Theme.

    It opens up the world, but it means limiting what is in those areas of the world. So doing a Medieval game where most of Europe is united from the start...is rather a step back. If Europe ends up with a map as detailed as M2 they really wouldn't be good and certainly not epic.

    Yes it is true, maybe CA really doe snot care about what the competition is doing, like yourself. So no need to talk about it I agree.

    Yet we can certainly talk about our wants and aspirations. I mean, if we do not express these here, where should we express them and to whom?

    As Fan of the series and its Creators, it is to the Series and its Creators I express this alongside its Fans, fellow players.

    If CA wants to consider these suggestions or not that is their prerogative of course, but it doe snot stop us from discussing the possibilities and expressing our visions about the series we like to play and the stimuli of our imagination in relation to it.

    On the contrary, I think this is a very positive thing todo for a Community of players and about the game they form a community for, it is a form of feedback too in and of itself for the CA devs too.

    Any smart business considers the feedback of its players so that it can make its next offering more appealing and fun or pleasurable or satisfactory (in the case of games) for them. It is about offering more value.

    cheers!

    Not saying you can't have your say, just as I've done don't get your hopes up. I've posted ideas about trying to add more depth to elements of the series which could open up other areas and possibly add more than just map painting. The idea being to see how the community feels and generally been rather "Meh". See similar on other posts. With the changes CA has been making since Empire it also seems they have taken note, generally ignore the comments of the vocal minority and go with the lowest common denominator, would explain why they haven't really added depth to the series and have streamlined a lot of it and made it more flashy.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,454
    It's not quite that, most games people don't take even most of the map, very few manage to even get victory conditions to trigger achievements.

    The issue is the long standing one for TW and all other grand strategy games, snowballing. Earlier in the game it's interesting with challenges, mid game when you hit your stride it's fun as you can really get things done but then...that's it. You have enough money you no longer need to build up the economy, you have plenty of armies and can easily replace losses to stomp every enemy. You no longer need to invest in tech, use diplomacy or care about the government. So overall it just loses interest and people look to move back to a new game. At this point the players have the most content to actually interact with, they have more buildings and unit options but they are sort of no longer meaningful.

    Think it's only the recent titles that they've dropped the differences in campaign lengths. Empire had it for a starter and R2/Attila had it as victory conditions but you had multiple choices of them to go for with economic as well (although all felt rather similar TBH).





    I think the snowball issue was pretty much dealt with via 3K as the game was balanced to create diplomatic entities that disallowed the player from taking on smaller kingdoms/factions. This could also be dealt with in reference to long term goals and missions as well as CA tweaking gameplay. Achievements in most games are pretty high these days, plus it’s nice to have the option to reflect our mood, be it a few short victories with different factions and one big planned victory. This would be especially true for initially weak factions that require high initial diplomacy and slow but steady growth.

    So I think the idea of a very long campaign that contains short, medium and long term goals is viable.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,125

    I think the snowball issue was pretty much dealt with via 3K as the game was balanced to create diplomatic entities that disallowed the player from taking on smaller kingdoms/factions. This could also be dealt with in reference to long term goals and missions as well as CA tweaking gameplay. Achievements in most games are pretty high these days, plus it’s nice to have the option to reflect our mood, be it a few short victories with different factions and one big planned victory. This would be especially true for initially weak factions that require high initial diplomacy and slow but steady growth.

    So I think the idea of a very long campaign that contains short, medium and long term goals is viable.

    They tried, it still happens though as in general you've snowballed up and now you have a new realm divide. It also clashes with the improved diplomacy, you can be allies with another faction and help build each other up then hit that point you both become one of the Kingdoms and destroys that chain. It also didn't stop any of the three of us wiping out the smaller factions around us but pretty much forced us to do so in an attempt to get an advantage over the others.

    It also rather has the same issue that realm divide had in S2, it's a know event that comes late game which doesn't really make it more interesting as a result. Large blob vs large blob fighting just like you have previously. Might be why it's at 46.5% on achievement to declare yourself emperor in 3K.

    Oh yeah I think campaign victory lengths should come back and they need to be better designed. R2 and Attila felt rather the same. All required taking out many factions and owning large amounts of land, with just the annoying side bits changing. Annoyed me having to destroy some factions I'd been friends with all the campaign to get the achievement, I got attached to how my empire and it's allies were doing and it grinds me that I had to throw that out for the victory conditions.
  • Duke_SuraknarDuke_Suraknar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 26
    As I am reading the replies here, I would like to quickly post and say that personally I do not care about STEAM achievements etc.

    I never played a game for them, never. If they are achieved they are achieved on their own and usually I do not even know what I did to get them.

    For me these are a bonus, but not a goal not even a guide.

    That said, I do not think I am the only one playing in this fashion, I am sure there are many other people too and as such I think it is important to express because achievements are not so important in the grand scheme of things or to define how a game should be played, is played, or how it should be designed.

    In the end, it is all a matter of the game and type of experience the Designers and Devs wish to play and offer/share with others.

    As I said, I just think it is nice for us the players of the series to express our aspirations and discuss them too :)

    I continue reading the replies and will reply if applicable to specific items in lieu. :)
    ~ Duke Suraknar ~

    *Everyone dies, not everyone really fights*
  • Duke_SuraknarDuke_Suraknar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 26
    Oki I read all the replies and points.

    And I still think that making a nice details and in depth game that spans the medieval Age and period for both Europe and Asia would actually be very cool still.

    I do not think that just because the map would cover a larger geographical area that this means that Europe's areas should be simplified.

    As I said, the way that I would envision this is keeping the same regional sizes as in M2TW for Europe and Middle east and as we move east to the plains and mountainous regions in various sizes as we come in to china then regions become smaller like in Europe and same with other then kingdoms of India Korea Japan, then medium regions for established Mongol and Turkic tribes etc etc.

    As for the Terminology of Medieval and Middle ages, I think that argument is not really relevant. The Middle Ages is also a Historical era, in a line of Eras such as Prehistory, Classical era, Eaay Modern and Modern era, it applies to the world.

    So to say we cannot have Asia or Africa etc in the game because it is Called Medieval is not a valid point for me.

    I still think we can have a Medieval 3 game that includes Islam and Asian Kingdoms and Empires and offering to the player the possibility to play any of them from Iceland to Japan.

    And that would be something amazing to be able to to. See if history could have gone differently. What if the Mongols had actually conquered Europe..would they have been the ones to Discover the Americas?

    What if instead they were pushed back by the Shahs of Bagdad and the Conquest went the other way around?

    What if China Colonized the Americas 100 years before Christopher's Columbus?

    What if the Scotts Conquered all of Europe and Beyond instead?

    This is the fun of the TW Games of me, and this includes Warhammer too, it is the same fun, what is Dwarves, Britannia's, The Empire or the Elves defeat and become me the new rulers?

    I do understand that long Campaigns with 60 provinces owned etc etc may seem long for some but as others suggest here, the Victory Goals and Conditions do not have to be that cut and dry. There can be variety to offer the players many ways to have fun.

    I understand how you play the game, but not everyone plays it the same way. I for instance do not care about the Economical play of the TW series and usually will mode the game from Turn one from the get go, to have ample Cash and play like that without worrying of the economy because it is for me a chore. And I get impatient waiting for money to be plentiful so I can build a farm that then takes several turns to complete etc. etc...

    I think a King Rulers, doe snot personally go and finance the building of a farm in a specific settlement. These are things the population does on their own. And the Kings only need to make sure that they provide enough protection fo their population to prosper. So kings and Generals concentrate on Political and Military Considerations mainly and their advisors and the population at large takes care of the economical part paying a tax to their protectors. This was the Feudal social contract if you will.

    And it has not really changed today either...we still pay Taxes to the governing parties and they ensure our protection etc. The only difference is that today we elect the Head Manager of this operation every 4 years.

    Anyways...the point is that I prefer to concentrate on the Military and Political (Diplomatic) aspects of the game so I never really got any fun out of the economical part since it was never fun for me to begin with.

    I liked the various economical approaches of Warhammer, and in terms of Historical Titles Three Kingdoms is the first one that I did not feel compelled to Mod Economically either. So I think this approach can work very well in the next title, and especially in what I am proposing here.

    Total War for Glory and Riches through Great Battles! That is the meat and fun of the game. It was never an Economical simulator anyways.
    ~ Duke Suraknar ~

    *Everyone dies, not everyone really fights*
  • Duke_SuraknarDuke_Suraknar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 26
    Oh an By the way a nice site for some ideas about how the rest of the world fared and interacted with Europe during the middle ages.

    http://www.medieval-life.net/asia.htm

    There is more than enough Content and History for a truly Epic TW :)
    ~ Duke Suraknar ~

    *Everyone dies, not everyone really fights*
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,454
    Commisar said:

    I think the snowball issue was pretty much dealt with via 3K as the game was balanced to create diplomatic entities that disallowed the player from taking on smaller kingdoms/factions. This could also be dealt with in reference to long term goals and missions as well as CA tweaking gameplay. Achievements in most games are pretty high these days, plus it’s nice to have the option to reflect our mood, be it a few short victories with different factions and one big planned victory. This would be especially true for initially weak factions that require high initial diplomacy and slow but steady growth.

    So I think the idea of a very long campaign that contains short, medium and long term goals is viable.

    They tried, it still happens though as in general you've snowballed up and now you have a new realm divide. It also clashes with the improved diplomacy, you can be allies with another faction and help build each other up then hit that point you both become one of the Kingdoms and destroys that chain. It also didn't stop any of the three of us wiping out the smaller factions around us but pretty much forced us to do so in an attempt to get an advantage over the others.

    It also rather has the same issue that realm divide had in S2, it's a know event that comes late game which doesn't really make it more interesting as a result. Large blob vs large blob fighting just like you have previously. Might be why it's at 46.5% on achievement to declare yourself emperor in 3K.

    Oh yeah I think campaign victory lengths should come back and they need to be better designed. R2 and Attila felt rather the same. All required taking out many factions and owning large amounts of land, with just the annoying side bits changing. Annoyed me having to destroy some factions I'd been friends with all the campaign to get the achievement, I got attached to how my empire and it's allies were doing and it grinds me that I had to throw that out for the victory conditions.
    No, the 3K worked pretty well when it comes to snowballing from my experienced. We can't really go off old games for what would essentially be a new way of designing the game. It's like saying we can't have cross DLC because we've never done it before. The game would work fine by giving the player control over how long turns last and if they would like to engage with the short, medium or long term game victory conditions. They could also do late game issues like Mongol or other more interesting race invasions. They could also make it extremely expensive to set up in a different continent through huge cost, travel time and early disease penalties. The main point is we cannot say that this is not possible or that is not possible based on future tech or a new engine as we personally do not have those answers.

    When it comes to a Mongolian Invasion then new/global technologies would appear all over the world updating the tech tree. There could be a system that allows invasion of a new continent to appear only after a particular year or technology is acquired just like M2 which actually was interesting.

    Now, to me when it comes to creating historical over fantasy a lot less time has to go into graphics, animation, models, magic, graphical effects etc. so more of the time will go towards new systems, mechanics, short/medium/long term achievements or goals including more detailed/interesting narrative goals.

    I think CA are more than capable of achieving this.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,125

    As I am reading the replies here, I would like to quickly post and say that personally I do not care about STEAM achievements etc.

    I never played a game for them, never. If they are achieved they are achieved on their own and usually I do not even know what I did to get them.

    For me these are a bonus, but not a goal not even a guide.

    Not saying they are, but as a metric it is a good place to note it. When most of them you get just by taking a chunk of the map, building armies/navies and unlocking techs...it's something you can easily get by accident just playing normally. If most people aren't getting there, it would seem in line that they don't play long enough to take enough settlements as the other requirements tend to be rather lower bars to clear.

    I do not think that just because the map would cover a larger geographical area that this means that Europe's areas should be simplified.

    As I said, the way that I would envision this is keeping the same regional sizes as in M2TW for Europe and Middle east and as we move east to the plains and mountainous regions in various sizes as we come in to china then regions become smaller like in Europe and same with other then kingdoms of India Korea Japan, then medium regions for established Mongol and Turkic tribes etc etc.

    ...That is a simplified map and a huge step back for the series.

    As for the Terminology of Medieval and Middle ages, I think that argument is not really relevant. The Middle Ages is also a Historical era, in a line of Eras such as Prehistory, Classical era, Eaay Modern and Modern era, it applies to the world.

    So to say we cannot have Asia or Africa etc in the game because it is Called Medieval is not a valid point for me.

    I still think we can have a Medieval 3 game that includes Islam and Asian Kingdoms and Empires and offering to the player the possibility to play any of them from Iceland to Japan.

    No it's not. It's a time period where you can look at others, but it's wrong to call it say Medieval Japan when they have their own term for it. They have their own time periods based off their own local history and applying a European time to it is arbitrary. Modern periods cover more of the world but that's down to it being based off more widespread elements thanks mostly to the rise of international Empires. For example Japan has it's own "classical" period, and it's set during the early Medieval period for Europe. This is being Eurocentric, you are applying European time periods to other areas of the world, forcing that history around other cultures that had their own rich history and time periods as a result.

    It's a game named after a European time period, it makes sense it should thus be focused on that time frame and the region it applied to. Same way ToB shouldn't of included all the world, it's not that applicable to the setting and means spreading the focus to lose the point of the choice.

    No, the 3K worked pretty well when it comes to snowballing from my experienced. We can't really go off old games for what would essentially be a new way of designing the game. It's like saying we can't have cross DLC because we've never done it before. The game would work fine by giving the player control over how long turns last and if they would like to engage with the short, medium or long term game victory conditions. They could also do late game issues like Mongol or other more interesting race invasions. They could also make it extremely expensive to set up in a different continent through huge cost, travel time and early disease penalties. The main point is we cannot say that this is not possible or that is not possible based on future tech or a new engine as we personally do not have those answers.

    When it comes to a Mongolian Invasion then new/global technologies would appear all over the world updating the tech tree. There could be a system that allows invasion of a new continent to appear only after a particular year or technology is acquired just like M2 which actually was interesting.

    Now, to me when it comes to creating historical over fantasy a lot less time has to go into graphics, animation, models, magic, graphical effects etc. so more of the time will go towards new systems, mechanics, short/medium/long term achievements or goals including more detailed/interesting narrative goals.

    I think CA are more than capable of achieving this.

    Might be different experiences but only issue I had was late game getting officer types I wanted for my choice of army builds. Otherwise wasn't an issue other than triggering rivalry between the largest factions.

    We can, otherwise we can't discuss anything that we haven't already done, why you continue to discuss it. We can also look at what CA has said and done, they've said people don't tend to play past 200 turns and as such they have focused on campaigns with most content accessed before that point. They are investing their resources where it will bring the biggest benefit, they have tried later elements and they haven't really worked out. So a profit seeking business isn't going to reverse such path unless they have made something to resolve the issue.

    We can know that changing turn length will cause issues, the main one being balancing out other elements such as character ranks, build speeds and so on then need to get tweaked. Otherwise it's the exact same game just now the date flies by slower/faster depending on what you choose. Not likely to be popular due to needing more support from CA meaning less resources for other elements and if it means a much slower game...people are likely to get bored quicker.

    Objects like I said no issue. Good thing for those that want quick campaigns with their victory conditions. Think it could be interesting if we could choose some of our own objectives.

    Yeah they do tend to cover some content for the end of the time period/in to the next so wouldn't be surprised if there was some America content in the base game, we have a good number of systems to cover the techs used, attrition seems an easy one for the mid Atlantic.

    They do also need to invest more time in the research though, and these days they do have to invest more in to the models else face backlash over "where's the unit diversity?!" that we get so much these days *sigh* think that's also why we get the faction "perks" as standard these days as well, to help make them look different at first glance.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,454
    Commisar said:

    As I am reading the replies here, I would like to quickly post and say that personally I do not care about STEAM achievements etc.

    I never played a game for them, never. If they are achieved they are achieved on their own and usually I do not even know what I did to get them.

    For me these are a bonus, but not a goal not even a guide.

    Not saying they are, but as a metric it is a good place to note it. When most of them you get just by taking a chunk of the map, building armies/navies and unlocking techs...it's something you can easily get by accident just playing normally. If most people aren't getting there, it would seem in line that they don't play long enough to take enough settlements as the other requirements tend to be rather lower bars to clear.

    I do not think that just because the map would cover a larger geographical area that this means that Europe's areas should be simplified.

    As I said, the way that I would envision this is keeping the same regional sizes as in M2TW for Europe and Middle east and as we move east to the plains and mountainous regions in various sizes as we come in to china then regions become smaller like in Europe and same with other then kingdoms of India Korea Japan, then medium regions for established Mongol and Turkic tribes etc etc.

    ...That is a simplified map and a huge step back for the series.

    As for the Terminology of Medieval and Middle ages, I think that argument is not really relevant. The Middle Ages is also a Historical era, in a line of Eras such as Prehistory, Classical era, Eaay Modern and Modern era, it applies to the world.

    So to say we cannot have Asia or Africa etc in the game because it is Called Medieval is not a valid point for me.

    I still think we can have a Medieval 3 game that includes Islam and Asian Kingdoms and Empires and offering to the player the possibility to play any of them from Iceland to Japan.

    No it's not. It's a time period where you can look at others, but it's wrong to call it say Medieval Japan when they have their own term for it. They have their own time periods based off their own local history and applying a European time to it is arbitrary. Modern periods cover more of the world but that's down to it being based off more widespread elements thanks mostly to the rise of international Empires. For example Japan has it's own "classical" period, and it's set during the early Medieval period for Europe. This is being Eurocentric, you are applying European time periods to other areas of the world, forcing that history around other cultures that had their own rich history and time periods as a result.

    It's a game named after a European time period, it makes sense it should thus be focused on that time frame and the region it applied to. Same way ToB shouldn't of included all the world, it's not that applicable to the setting and means spreading the focus to lose the point of the choice.

    No, the 3K worked pretty well when it comes to snowballing from my experienced. We can't really go off old games for what would essentially be a new way of designing the game. It's like saying we can't have cross DLC because we've never done it before. The game would work fine by giving the player control over how long turns last and if they would like to engage with the short, medium or long term game victory conditions. They could also do late game issues like Mongol or other more interesting race invasions. They could also make it extremely expensive to set up in a different continent through huge cost, travel time and early disease penalties. The main point is we cannot say that this is not possible or that is not possible based on future tech or a new engine as we personally do not have those answers.

    When it comes to a Mongolian Invasion then new/global technologies would appear all over the world updating the tech tree. There could be a system that allows invasion of a new continent to appear only after a particular year or technology is acquired just like M2 which actually was interesting.

    Now, to me when it comes to creating historical over fantasy a lot less time has to go into graphics, animation, models, magic, graphical effects etc. so more of the time will go towards new systems, mechanics, short/medium/long term achievements or goals including more detailed/interesting narrative goals.

    I think CA are more than capable of achieving this.

    Might be different experiences but only issue I had was late game getting officer types I wanted for my choice of army builds. Otherwise wasn't an issue other than triggering rivalry between the largest factions.

    We can, otherwise we can't discuss anything that we haven't already done, why you continue to discuss it. We can also look at what CA has said and done, they've said people don't tend to play past 200 turns and as such they have focused on campaigns with most content accessed before that point. They are investing their resources where it will bring the biggest benefit, they have tried later elements and they haven't really worked out. So a profit seeking business isn't going to reverse such path unless they have made something to resolve the issue.

    We can know that changing turn length will cause issues, the main one being balancing out other elements such as character ranks, build speeds and so on then need to get tweaked. Otherwise it's the exact same game just now the date flies by slower/faster depending on what you choose. Not likely to be popular due to needing more support from CA meaning less resources for other elements and if it means a much slower game...people are likely to get bored quicker.

    Objects like I said no issue. Good thing for those that want quick campaigns with their victory conditions. Think it could be interesting if we could choose some of our own objectives.

    Yeah they do tend to cover some content for the end of the time period/in to the next so wouldn't be surprised if there was some America content in the base game, we have a good number of systems to cover the techs used, attrition seems an easy one for the mid Atlantic.

    They do also need to invest more time in the research though, and these days they do have to invest more in to the models else face backlash over "where's the unit diversity?!" that we get so much these days *sigh* think that's also why we get the faction "perks" as standard these days as well, to help make them look different at first glance.
    But as I said generally, they are improving on issues with snowballing is improving so by the next game there are further improvements. In reference to discussing future content based on what only has happened before I disagree as just like the above you can make judgements based on what's happened beyond past behaviour, that's how a lot of people worked out we would get cross DLC and WH in general would be expanded. So what's happened in the past is part of the puzzle but it's just that only part of the puzzle.

    Just because something hasn't initially worked does not mean ipso facto they will just give up. As mentioned, they had a lot of success with how the late game played in 3K as it was the most balanced late game I've ever played. Also, extras like finding America, Mongolian/other invasions were on average seen as a positive. There's nothing to say WH3 would been fine as long as they had added a more broad option including a free game option.

    There's no evidence to suggest that changing turn times will cause any real problems as a year can be used as a marker within the scope of turn times to work out changes in turn difference. They do not have to get it perfect as both options are available meaning overall the prime measurement will always be balanced better just like in terms of unit size. No harm can come from giving players options.

    In reference to the models by their very nature they cannot be more complex than fantasy, a human is a human after all so one animation loop can work for all models rather than doing multiple for totally different races so in that sense they can work less but get much better results.

    As I said above, they need to do some heavy research and make sure that historical outplays fantasy in certain aspects be it through mechanics, diplomacy, unit abilities/formations/building stats/training etc.

    I also think it's possible there will never be a standard historical ever again and will always have some fantasy elements within it. I do hope they give it one more big push but to me it's possible we will get a historical saga and then 3K2.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,125

    But as I said generally, they are improving on issues with snowballing is improving so by the next game there are further improvements. In reference to discussing future content based on what only has happened before I disagree as just like the above you can make judgements based on what's happened beyond past behaviour, that's how a lot of people worked out we would get cross DLC and WH in general would be expanded. So what's happened in the past is part of the puzzle but it's just that only part of the puzzle.

    Just because something hasn't initially worked does not mean ipso facto they will just give up. As mentioned, they had a lot of success with how the late game played in 3K as it was the most balanced late game I've ever played. Also, extras like finding America, Mongolian/other invasions were on average seen as a positive. There's nothing to say WH3 would been fine as long as they had added a more broad option including a free game option.

    There's no evidence to suggest that changing turn times will cause any real problems as a year can be used as a marker within the scope of turn times to work out changes in turn difference. They do not have to get it perfect as both options are available meaning overall the prime measurement will always be balanced better just like in terms of unit size. No harm can come from giving players options.

    In reference to the models by their very nature they cannot be more complex than fantasy, a human is a human after all so one animation loop can work for all models rather than doing multiple for totally different races so in that sense they can work less but get much better results.

    As I said above, they need to do some heavy research and make sure that historical outplays fantasy in certain aspects be it through mechanics, diplomacy, unit abilities/formations/building stats/training etc.

    I also think it's possible there will never be a standard historical ever again and will always have some fantasy elements within it. I do hope they give it one more big push but to me it's possible we will get a historical saga and then 3K2.

    Again not really. You still end up having snowballed by that point. Difference to previous titles is so has a couple of AIs so they can form a power block to compete with you. They could go the EU4 method with the recently improved diplomacy in 3K to have AI nations form coalitions against you in other games as often it's not setting appropriate to have them suddenly blob. Of course there is also the old issue of...why? The basic goal of the series is to expand and paint the map so once you've done that it is pretty much victory.

    Ca saying they don't intend to work on it does do that however. Also 3K doesn't back that, again majority of players still don't reach that point even once and it's still within the realm of the 200 turn limit CA has said people play within. So community still hasn't changed (possibly actually gotten worse for campaign length) and CA still hasn't shown inclination to change that policy.

    They can still have those events. But if it means people having to sit there spamming end turn for an hour to reach it, that's not fun. In and of it's self it isn't going to be interesting/fun enough to wait just for those type of events. Why previous Medieval titles had multiple start dates as well. And when you boil it down, we've already had a number of games with mass of hordes spawning and having to sail armies across the ocean for several turns before starting to conquer land isn't really special, we can already send armies by sea around the old world to invade lands.

    It can. Same way having records and romance mode caused issues in 3K and why they ended support for Troy with the expanded game options. It opens up more paths for bugs with more complex elements, it increases test time for patches and content and it reduces the speed of production of all new patches and content as they have to make them for multiple game settings. So yes it can cause problem and it can cause harm for the product.

    Yeah they can, I don't have huge issues with the unit models and choices - like seriously how often are people zooming in to watch units? Personally I tend to be more interested in managing my army. However it is still a big part of the series now, there's been many posts of people saying they can't go back to Historical due to the lack of diversity and the recent titles have all ended up with both posts and reviews complaining over the diversity, Ca does seem to have tried to get more diversity in both Troy and 3K as a result.

    Yeah they have said they want to be a more diverse game company, a good first step is to keep TW split in market targets. Have Fantasy games focus on being Fantasy and Historical for the Historical market. Sagas can then vary with their setting.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,454
    Commisar said:

    But as I said generally, they are improving on issues with snowballing is improving so by the next game there are further improvements. In reference to discussing future content based on what only has happened before I disagree as just like the above you can make judgements based on what's happened beyond past behaviour, that's how a lot of people worked out we would get cross DLC and WH in general would be expanded. So what's happened in the past is part of the puzzle but it's just that only part of the puzzle.

    Just because something hasn't initially worked does not mean ipso facto they will just give up. As mentioned, they had a lot of success with how the late game played in 3K as it was the most balanced late game I've ever played. Also, extras like finding America, Mongolian/other invasions were on average seen as a positive. There's nothing to say WH3 would been fine as long as they had added a more broad option including a free game option.

    There's no evidence to suggest that changing turn times will cause any real problems as a year can be used as a marker within the scope of turn times to work out changes in turn difference. They do not have to get it perfect as both options are available meaning overall the prime measurement will always be balanced better just like in terms of unit size. No harm can come from giving players options.

    In reference to the models by their very nature they cannot be more complex than fantasy, a human is a human after all so one animation loop can work for all models rather than doing multiple for totally different races so in that sense they can work less but get much better results.

    As I said above, they need to do some heavy research and make sure that historical outplays fantasy in certain aspects be it through mechanics, diplomacy, unit abilities/formations/building stats/training etc.

    I also think it's possible there will never be a standard historical ever again and will always have some fantasy elements within it. I do hope they give it one more big push but to me it's possible we will get a historical saga and then 3K2.

    Again not really. You still end up having snowballed by that point. Difference to previous titles is so has a couple of AIs so they can form a power block to compete with you. They could go the EU4 method with the recently improved diplomacy in 3K to have AI nations form coalitions against you in other games as often it's not setting appropriate to have them suddenly blob. Of course there is also the old issue of...why? The basic goal of the series is to expand and paint the map so once you've done that it is pretty much victory.

    Ca saying they don't intend to work on it does do that however. Also 3K doesn't back that, again majority of players still don't reach that point even once and it's still within the realm of the 200 turn limit CA has said people play within. So community still hasn't changed (possibly actually gotten worse for campaign length) and CA still hasn't shown inclination to change that policy.

    They can still have those events. But if it means people having to sit there spamming end turn for an hour to reach it, that's not fun. In and of it's self it isn't going to be interesting/fun enough to wait just for those type of events. Why previous Medieval titles had multiple start dates as well. And when you boil it down, we've already had a number of games with mass of hordes spawning and having to sail armies across the ocean for several turns before starting to conquer land isn't really special, we can already send armies by sea around the old world to invade lands.

    It can. Same way having records and romance mode caused issues in 3K and why they ended support for Troy with the expanded game options. It opens up more paths for bugs with more complex elements, it increases test time for patches and content and it reduces the speed of production of all new patches and content as they have to make them for multiple game settings. So yes it can cause problem and it can cause harm for the product.

    Yeah they can, I don't have huge issues with the unit models and choices - like seriously how often are people zooming in to watch units? Personally I tend to be more interested in managing my army. However it is still a big part of the series now, there's been many posts of people saying they can't go back to Historical due to the lack of diversity and the recent titles have all ended up with both posts and reviews complaining over the diversity, Ca does seem to have tried to get more diversity in both Troy and 3K as a result.

    Yeah they have said they want to be a more diverse game company, a good first step is to keep TW split in market targets. Have Fantasy games focus on being Fantasy and Historical for the Historical market. Sagas can then vary with their setting.
    Well, we can agree to disagree on that one because on a number of games I've not snowballed due to much larger diplomatic factions. 3K improved the system and it did balance the game away from obvious snowballing. That's pretty much what they do already, there are usually 3 sets of coalitions all balanced towards the players coalition. If you are part of a coalition you can't just start steamrolling your neighbours as they are usually part of your coalition. That said this way of looking at the game can only be improved as the pattern shows, when CA focuses on something it will usually get better. CA have on at numerous times offered very specific goals through campaign mechanics or victory goals as in attack certain factions rather than basic map painting. There's nothing to stop them continuing this process.

    The majority is not a concern, we know that some players like long term games and some like quick fixes. It's also a little more complex than you think, as I could take 200 turns to gain a short victory if my style of play is defensive. Steam Achievements tell us very little about how people actually play.

    It's not about spamming end turn for an hour, it's about making what's in between each turn engaging and that's what's being discussed here. I'm not talking about a highly subjective word like 'special' I'm talking about something that keeps the campaign moving or gives the player something to work towards, the age of gunpowder, finding the Americas or the Roman Reforms all worked as it added something new to the game.

    Again, I'm saying it's possible or even good for CA to tackle what's negative about the game, something they've obviously been doing. It can never be seen as a negative to make the game more interesting and give those who prefer a slower game something to get their teeth into, much better than shrugging and saying 'no point'.
  • bli-nkbli-nk Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,839
    edited April 13
    Yeah, 3K does not really snowball until there is only 1 other Emperor left.

    When the 3 Kingdoms first form and there are 2 rival emperors and often another 1-2 factions that could easily become Emperor you have to play diplomacy pretty hard not to have a huge grind of crazy victories as the larger AI tends to have 10-14 armies and if both Emperors and a couple of their vassas attack it can easily result in waves of 30-40 armies every dozen turns.

    You CAN usually defeat those waves but if you are in a weird central location or haven't defeated Nanman yet and they keep attacking as well... I haven't abandoned a campaign yet as lost but there were definitely a couple I thought about it and ended up having to fight an extra 40 turns to turn the tide to where I knew victory was foregone conclusion and choose not to play the next 40 turns just moving my armies and AR to get the win screen.
    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” Mark Twain
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,125
    edited April 14

    Well, we can agree to disagree on that one because on a number of games I've not snowballed due to much larger diplomatic factions. 3K improved the system and it did balance the game away from obvious snowballing. That's pretty much what they do already, there are usually 3 sets of coalitions all balanced towards the players coalition. If you are part of a coalition you can't just start steamrolling your neighbours as they are usually part of your coalition. That said this way of looking at the game can only be improved as the pattern shows, when CA focuses on something it will usually get better. CA have on at numerous times offered very specific goals through campaign mechanics or victory goals as in attack certain factions rather than basic map painting. There's nothing to stop them continuing this process.

    The majority is not a concern, we know that some players like long term games and some like quick fixes. It's also a little more complex than you think, as I could take 200 turns to gain a short victory if my style of play is defensive. Steam Achievements tell us very little about how people actually play.

    It's not about spamming end turn for an hour, it's about making what's in between each turn engaging and that's what's being discussed here. I'm not talking about a highly subjective word like 'special' I'm talking about something that keeps the campaign moving or gives the player something to work towards, the age of gunpowder, finding the Americas or the Roman Reforms all worked as it added something new to the game.

    Again, I'm saying it's possible or even good for CA to tackle what's negative about the game, something they've obviously been doing. It can never be seen as a negative to make the game more interesting and give those who prefer a slower game something to get their teeth into, much better than shrugging and saying 'no point'.

    Yeah might be difference in approach as well. I too run in to some factions being united to be too strong in some directions but haven't been boxed in yet so have had other directions I could expand, built up my own power block and waited for theirs to weaken before a quick strike which often leads the new AI to agree to a peace agreement rather than the old system of fight to the death which is a nice change.

    Yeah they have the victory achievements to attack other factions, that doesn't add any flavour to it but causes problems as I've previously said. Having to declare war on my ally because CA chose to tie it to an achievement wasn't fun and gamewise just worked like any other war. 3K/ToB have the story elements for some but these tend to be early game as late game goes so off the historical rail they can't write a story to make sense.

    It is for a company looking for profits. It's why they dropped 3K support and ToB had such a short life span. They weren't appealing enough to the majority for the long term support. It stops being viable as a product and they are better off moving to another product.

    Again we can. If people don't even play long enough to trigger the three kingdoms to form which the AI will do, it's not going that long and even fewer seem to play to even the short victories goals.

    But that's my point, those aren't going to make them exciting. Waiting to the late game to do something we've already been doing all game? Hordes spawning on the edge of the map? Change of pace if you are on that edge or they are a rival but again no more than other armies and wars. But if it plays the same, it's not fun. If you have to sit there pressing end turn to reach it, it's not adding to the fun. Players already don't play long enough to unlock all techs or to take all of the map so waiting to expand the map for another fight isn't a meaningful expansion and new techs are great but again if people ignore the existing ones it still doesn't change it that much.

    And again this doesn't do that. It's not adding anything special for it, just a time gate that you can't impact. It also makes no difference to slower pace, unless you mean less to do while waiting for it. if you want things to draw people in they need something to keep them interested through to it, something they can engage with in some form. These don't do that until they pop up.

    These type of events would actually be more exciting for shorter games with the multiple start dates. It would be far more interesting and relevant to have these events be a big part of the game, rather than an after though at the end. Even if we have a later start date than suggested here but keeping with the Medieval series in TW - 1066 and go with the 4 turns per year to cover the seasons that would be 616 turns before the Mongols turn up. If most people wont go past 200 turns I don't see them waiting another 400 for a horde to show up to get stomped within a few turns. I'd expect by that point players will already have taken most if not all the map and have built up and researched all they can and then have stacked the East with their forces ready to deal with the threat. As a result the then "spread" of gunpowder becomes meaningless as there's enough time to not need it. Then to wait another 1,000 turns before they can start to discover the Americas? Again think that would be more relevant with a later start date, historically many European nations went to discover new lands to claim/take as it was viewed as easier and less risky than trying to expand in Europe. If you've had over 1,500 turns in Europe...Now if you had a later start date being able to colonise part of the Americas would become relevant and meaningful expansion.
    Post edited by Commisar on
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,454
    Ichon said:

    Yeah, 3K does not really snowball until there is only 1 other Emperor left.

    When the 3 Kingdoms first form and there are 2 rival emperors and often another 1-2 factions that could easily become Emperor you have to play diplomacy pretty hard not to have a huge grind of crazy victories as the larger AI tends to have 10-14 armies and if both Emperors and a couple of their vassas attack it can easily result in waves of 30-40 armies every dozen turns.

    You CAN usually defeat those waves but if you are in a weird central location or haven't defeated Nanman yet and they keep attacking as well... I haven't abandoned a campaign yet as lost but there were definitely a couple I thought about it and ended up having to fight an extra 40 turns to turn the tide to where I knew victory was foregone conclusion and choose not to play the next 40 turns just moving my armies and AR to get the win screen.

    I agree, if there's one thing that singles out 3K it's the polished gameplay leading up to the final act. This was obviously the focus of CA for this game so, I can imagine for 3K2 there will be more of the same but better.
    Commisar said:

    Well, we can agree to disagree on that one because on a number of games I've not snowballed due to much larger diplomatic factions. 3K improved the system and it did balance the game away from obvious snowballing. That's pretty much what they do already, there are usually 3 sets of coalitions all balanced towards the players coalition. If you are part of a coalition you can't just start steamrolling your neighbours as they are usually part of your coalition. That said this way of looking at the game can only be improved as the pattern shows, when CA focuses on something it will usually get better. CA have on at numerous times offered very specific goals through campaign mechanics or victory goals as in attack certain factions rather than basic map painting. There's nothing to stop them continuing this process.

    The majority is not a concern, we know that some players like long term games and some like quick fixes. It's also a little more complex than you think, as I could take 200 turns to gain a short victory if my style of play is defensive. Steam Achievements tell us very little about how people actually play.

    It's not about spamming end turn for an hour, it's about making what's in between each turn engaging and that's what's being discussed here. I'm not talking about a highly subjective word like 'special' I'm talking about something that keeps the campaign moving or gives the player something to work towards, the age of gunpowder, finding the Americas or the Roman Reforms all worked as it added something new to the game.

    Again, I'm saying it's possible or even good for CA to tackle what's negative about the game, something they've obviously been doing. It can never be seen as a negative to make the game more interesting and give those who prefer a slower game something to get their teeth into, much better than shrugging and saying 'no point'.

    Yeah might be difference in approach as well. I too run in to some factions being united to be too strong in some directions but haven't been boxed in yet so have had other directions I could expand, built up my own power block and waited for theirs to weaken before a quick strike which often leads the new AI to agree to a peace agreement rather than the old system of fight to the death which is a nice change.

    Yeah they have the victory achievements to attack other factions, that doesn't add any flavour to it but causes problems as I've previously said. Having to declare war on my ally because CA chose to tie it to an achievement wasn't fun and gamewise just worked like any other war. 3K/ToB have the story elements for some but these tend to be early game as late game goes so off the historical rail they can't write a story to make sense.

    It is for a company looking for profits. It's why they dropped 3K support and ToB had such a short life span. They weren't appealing enough to the majority for the long term support. It stops being viable as a product and they are better off moving to another product.

    Again we can. If people don't even play long enough to trigger the three kingdoms to form which the AI will do, it's not going that long and even fewer seem to play to even the short victories goals.

    But that's my point, those aren't going to make them exciting. Waiting to the late game to do something we've already been doing all game? Hordes spawning on the edge of the map? Change of pace if you are on that edge or they are a rival but again no more than other armies and wars. But if it plays the same, it's not fun. If you have to sit there pressing end turn to reach it, it's not adding to the fun. Players already don't play long enough to unlock all techs or to take all of the map so waiting to expand the map for another fight isn't a meaningful expansion and new techs are great but again if people ignore the existing ones it still doesn't change it that much.

    And again this doesn't do that. It's not adding anything special for it, just a time gate that you can't impact. It also makes no difference to slower pace, unless you mean less to do while waiting for it. if you want things to draw people in they need something to keep them interested through to it, something they can engage with in some form. These don't do that until they pop up.

    These type of events would actually be more exciting for shorter games with the multiple start dates. It would be far more interesting and relevant to have these events be a big part of the game, rather than an after though at the end. Even if we have a later start date than suggested here but keeping with the Medieval series in TW - 1066 and go with the 4 turns per year to cover the seasons that would be 616 turns before the Mongols turn up. If most people wont go past 200 turns I don't see them waiting another 400 for a horde to show up to get stomped within a few turns. I'd expect by that point players will already have taken most if not all the map and have built up and researched all they can and then have stacked the East with their forces ready to deal with the threat. As a result the then "spread" of gunpowder becomes meaningless as there's enough time to not need it. Then to wait another 1,000 turns before they can start to discover the Americas? Again think that would be more relevant with a later start date, historically many European nations went to discover new lands to claim/take as it was viewed as easier and less risky than trying to expand in Europe. If you've had over 1,500 turns in Europe...Now if you had a later start date being able to colonise part of the Americas would become relevant and meaningful expansion.
    It is in CA's hands to create victory achievements which are engaging which they have done, for example the later WH2 DLCs had some fantastic ideas in there including RPG characters with decent story narratives, set piece battles, objectives to make those battles easier. Even Slannesh's Realm was a great idea for me, the idea of tempting the player of the correct track was a great idea. So to me, the ideas are there and if they add them to a cohesive game then there's nothing to stop them creating a game that suits all play styles.

    I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from in terms of short and long victory goals? I'm also sure more people would engage with long term victory goals if there are more reasons, like endings, rewards and Steam Achievements. Personally though I've seen no evidence or proof concerned with how many turns a player goes up to as I could get to turn 300 without even completing a short term victory due to playing my own way.

    As I've said, I believe some of the goals beyond the main game has been well received and the idea of how 'exciting' something is could be seen as quite subjective and possibly not even useful. Feelings of enjoyment or fulfilment aren't necessarily connected to excitement. Maybe I'm more laid back than most but I rarely feel excitement while playing a game or it's not a great measure of how much I like it.

    No, I still think as a basis, a large, well plotted, interesting game set around the way 3K plays with RPG elements running through will make for an entertaining game. I don't see any evidence that a majority wouldn't be interested in a choice of short, medium or long term gameplay.
  • VikingHuscal1066VikingHuscal1066 Registered Users Posts: 3,789
    I would honestly prefer an Empire 2 to a Medieval 3, and that's mainly because of how the Medieval setting is sort of stuck because of how well M2 did back in the day.

    I mean, when you stop and think about it, a Medieval 3 would HAVE to, absolutely HAVE to be one major campaign with maybe a few smaller ones of the side at best. But that might just be like doing M2 all over again.


    I personally think that an Empire 2 could not only offer up a considerably large campaign map, but also a lot more variety in terms of factions within one big grand campaign as compared to a M3, especially if the DLC was focused on expanding the map along with adding new factions.

    And I think that while an Empire 2 might start with your more standard M2/Rome 2 type of map and factions that reside in those areas, I think that CA could end up making such a game expand far beyond just European line infantry and such.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,125

    It is in CA's hands to create victory achievements which are engaging which they have done, for example the later WH2 DLCs had some fantastic ideas in there including RPG characters with decent story narratives, set piece battles, objectives to make those battles easier. Even Slannesh's Realm was a great idea for me, the idea of tempting the player of the correct track was a great idea. So to me, the ideas are there and if they add them to a cohesive game then there's nothing to stop them creating a game that suits all play styles.

    I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from in terms of short and long victory goals? I'm also sure more people would engage with long term victory goals if there are more reasons, like endings, rewards and Steam Achievements. Personally though I've seen no evidence or proof concerned with how many turns a player goes up to as I could get to turn 300 without even completing a short term victory due to playing my own way.

    As I've said, I believe some of the goals beyond the main game has been well received and the idea of how 'exciting' something is could be seen as quite subjective and possibly not even useful. Feelings of enjoyment or fulfilment aren't necessarily connected to excitement. Maybe I'm more laid back than most but I rarely feel excitement while playing a game or it's not a great measure of how much I like it.

    No, I still think as a basis, a large, well plotted, interesting game set around the way 3K plays with RPG elements running through will make for an entertaining game. I don't see any evidence that a majority wouldn't be interested in a choice of short, medium or long term gameplay.

    Sorry for the delay, not been very active over here lately...and this section of the forums are still where WH threads get sent to die lol.

    Can't really comment on the WH system as I haven't tried it. Don't think it rubbed off much on 3K though, but again in general it doesn't seem a huge focus for most players and I think being only really tied to achievements. I think opening it up is a good move and having multiple paths for the different play styles is best.

    But that's the point, currently if you want to play you can keep playing as many turns as you want, CA just designs the content for the 200 turns that the majority play. They still on average aren't getting the victory conditions and as I've said a number of them aren't well written so yeah people wont be that interested. We can also see in most games players don't get any of the victory conditions before moving on, so if they don't get the easiest ones there's not much point investing in the later ones other than filling other playstyles but if not enough people go for it it becomes badly spent development time.

    The point there is this type of thing isn't going to hold people to keep playing through hours of nothing to reach it.

    Which is already done, we have people who rush and quit early on and have plenty of gameplay that lasts well past even 200 turns.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,454
    Commisar said:

    It is in CA's hands to create victory achievements which are engaging which they have done, for example the later WH2 DLCs had some fantastic ideas in there including RPG characters with decent story narratives, set piece battles, objectives to make those battles easier. Even Slannesh's Realm was a great idea for me, the idea of tempting the player of the correct track was a great idea. So to me, the ideas are there and if they add them to a cohesive game then there's nothing to stop them creating a game that suits all play styles.

    I'm not sure where you're getting your figures from in terms of short and long victory goals? I'm also sure more people would engage with long term victory goals if there are more reasons, like endings, rewards and Steam Achievements. Personally though I've seen no evidence or proof concerned with how many turns a player goes up to as I could get to turn 300 without even completing a short term victory due to playing my own way.

    As I've said, I believe some of the goals beyond the main game has been well received and the idea of how 'exciting' something is could be seen as quite subjective and possibly not even useful. Feelings of enjoyment or fulfilment aren't necessarily connected to excitement. Maybe I'm more laid back than most but I rarely feel excitement while playing a game or it's not a great measure of how much I like it.

    No, I still think as a basis, a large, well plotted, interesting game set around the way 3K plays with RPG elements running through will make for an entertaining game. I don't see any evidence that a majority wouldn't be interested in a choice of short, medium or long term gameplay.

    Sorry for the delay, not been very active over here lately...and this section of the forums are still where WH threads get sent to die lol.

    Can't really comment on the WH system as I haven't tried it. Don't think it rubbed off much on 3K though, but again in general it doesn't seem a huge focus for most players and I think being only really tied to achievements. I think opening it up is a good move and having multiple paths for the different play styles is best.

    But that's the point, currently if you want to play you can keep playing as many turns as you want, CA just designs the content for the 200 turns that the majority play. They still on average aren't getting the victory conditions and as I've said a number of them aren't well written so yeah people wont be that interested. We can also see in most games players don't get any of the victory conditions before moving on, so if they don't get the easiest ones there's not much point investing in the later ones other than filling other playstyles but if not enough people go for it it becomes badly spent development time.

    The point there is this type of thing isn't going to hold people to keep playing through hours of nothing to reach it.

    Which is already done, we have people who rush and quit early on and have plenty of gameplay that lasts well past even 200 turns.
    The later WH2 mechanics wouldn't have rubbed off on 3K as they came out later, that's not to say they won't rub off on future games, as 3K elements certainly rubbed off on WH3.

    We don't know how many turns the majority play, we also don't know why people play the amount of turns they do. It would be difficult to even say whether people play because they want to play a certain amount of turns or the game is designed that way. There used to be limits on turn times in TW games but, that was scraped due to players wanting to take their time. If the victory conditions are not that well written or designed that doesn't prove that people prefer short games, as I have longer games without playing the long victory conditions.

    People will play around what interests them, if current conditions don't then they won't try to achieve them. This doesn't impact in anyway a timeline based on how many years or what time period should be played out on a map.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,125

    The later WH2 mechanics wouldn't have rubbed off on 3K as they came out later, that's not to say they won't rub off on future games, as 3K elements certainly rubbed off on WH3.

    We don't know how many turns the majority play, we also don't know why people play the amount of turns they do. It would be difficult to even say whether people play because they want to play a certain amount of turns or the game is designed that way. There used to be limits on turn times in TW games but, that was scraped due to players wanting to take their time. If the victory conditions are not that well written or designed that doesn't prove that people prefer short games, as I have longer games without playing the long victory conditions.

    People will play around what interests them, if current conditions don't then they won't try to achieve them. This doesn't impact in anyway a timeline based on how many years or what time period should be played out on a map.

    But it still doesn't seem to have been that popular even in WH2. Might continue on as they've already built it though.

    We do from what CA them selves have said. We can get some idea of why people don't continue past that point by looking at the state of the game at that point and what people say. Again it's not a unique issue to TW but most grand strategy games, by the late game you've experienced that faction so it's getting old and are big enough that there's not a challenge. No, the metrics tell us that people don't want to play TW that long.

    It does when all the unlock requires is taking provinces, building the main chain and researching techs to unlock it, basic game elements. If people aren't playing long enough to accrue enough of those 3 to unlock it they aren't playing that long. It does impact what CA will spend their time and money on. If people aren't playing past 200 turns it's pointless making content that only appears on turn 1,000.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,454
    Commisar said:

    The later WH2 mechanics wouldn't have rubbed off on 3K as they came out later, that's not to say they won't rub off on future games, as 3K elements certainly rubbed off on WH3.

    We don't know how many turns the majority play, we also don't know why people play the amount of turns they do. It would be difficult to even say whether people play because they want to play a certain amount of turns or the game is designed that way. There used to be limits on turn times in TW games but, that was scraped due to players wanting to take their time. If the victory conditions are not that well written or designed that doesn't prove that people prefer short games, as I have longer games without playing the long victory conditions.

    People will play around what interests them, if current conditions don't then they won't try to achieve them. This doesn't impact in anyway a timeline based on how many years or what time period should be played out on a map.

    But it still doesn't seem to have been that popular even in WH2. Might continue on as they've already built it though.

    We do from what CA them selves have said. We can get some idea of why people don't continue past that point by looking at the state of the game at that point and what people say. Again it's not a unique issue to TW but most grand strategy games, by the late game you've experienced that faction so it's getting old and are big enough that there's not a challenge. No, the metrics tell us that people don't want to play TW that long.

    It does when all the unlock requires is taking provinces, building the main chain and researching techs to unlock it, basic game elements. If people aren't playing long enough to accrue enough of those 3 to unlock it they aren't playing that long. It does impact what CA will spend their time and money on. If people aren't playing past 200 turns it's pointless making content that only appears on turn 1,000.
    There’s plenty of evidence. The newer mechanics were very popular, that’s what made WH2/ME so popular. There was often excellent feedback from mechanics they got right including RPG elements especially.

    It’s hard to comment when you don’t have a specific reference. We see info about people finishing campaigns but we certainly don’t know over how many turns it takes to finish campaigns. I can easily get to turn 300 due to my defensive play style. Looking at the short victory or the long victory there seems to be little reason to achieve long over the short due to a lack of difference in the outcome. I would certainly play last a certain amount if terms if there was a mechanic like ‘America’s located’, ‘gunpowder created’ or ‘Roman military reforms’. Again, the map is big enough to use the 3K system which generally keeps the game challenging due to there always being 2 major enemies. Considering the size of iE this could be made more so.

    Inreference to the original ideas of having the timeline over many years this is simple, each turn can be done over a month, year or 2 years, so a length of time in years over a particular historical period isn’t a real issue. I also don’t remember anyone suggesting 1000 turns.

    The point is if CA can spread out a long historical period over a number of turns selected by the player I can’t see an issue, it comes across like content denial rather than dealing with anything real.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,125

    There’s plenty of evidence. The newer mechanics were very popular, that’s what made WH2/ME so popular. There was often excellent feedback from mechanics they got right including RPG elements especially.

    It’s hard to comment when you don’t have a specific reference. We see info about people finishing campaigns but we certainly don’t know over how many turns it takes to finish campaigns. I can easily get to turn 300 due to my defensive play style. Looking at the short victory or the long victory there seems to be little reason to achieve long over the short due to a lack of difference in the outcome. I would certainly play last a certain amount if terms if there was a mechanic like ‘America’s located’, ‘gunpowder created’ or ‘Roman military reforms’. Again, the map is big enough to use the 3K system which generally keeps the game challenging due to there always being 2 major enemies. Considering the size of iE this could be made more so.

    Inreference to the original ideas of having the timeline over many years this is simple, each turn can be done over a month, year or 2 years, so a length of time in years over a particular historical period isn’t a real issue. I also don’t remember anyone suggesting 1000 turns.

    The point is if CA can spread out a long historical period over a number of turns selected by the player I can’t see an issue, it comes across like content denial rather than dealing with anything real.

    *looks at WH3* seems they learned from that well lol.

    That's you and me, I tend to play past 200 turns but the the metrics cover pretty much everyone who plays the game.

    Yeah I agree there's not much point in the long victory conditions in R2/A. Made sense with Empire where it was tied to the campaign chosen.

    But it wouldn't be. There wouldn't be any other faction left unless you chose to leave them to be a rival. If you haven't bothered to conquer the land already available then it's pointless blocking other land behind a time-gate. It also doesn't make sense for there to be such a mechanic in the Medieval setting, closest would be using the coalition type system but that's still limited use.

    If you want it less than multiple years, you are asking for over 1,000 turns. I did explain earlier, A game starting in say 1066 with it being 4 turns a year to cover the seasons, and have the look for Americas unlock in 1466 that would be 1,600 turns before you can start to try and find the Americas. Similar for gunpowder but it's 800 turns.

    I can. It being far less interesting and more boring for the player base as there's ultimately less for each turn.
  • bli-nkbli-nk Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,839
    edited May 27
    Yep, ideally turns would be fast enough or simply limited what you could do in certain seasons as most medieval armies did not march in the winter.

    Making it a simple winter/summer 2 turns per year with armies moving and fighting in the summer (special faction bonus could allow a stance that gives winter movement at the cost of attrition) and structures being built and agent actions during the winter.

    The problem is even in a very simple 2 turns per year as described above if the start date is 1099 (Jerusalem captured to allow Crusader states) then only going even to the Fall of Acre in 1291 = 384 turns.

    If the end date allows more famous battles like Agincourt in 1415 that would be 632 turns.

    So then the choice is to move the start date back, perhaps starting in 1290 so players could try and prevent the Fall of Acre and playing until 1415 or a bit later which gives at least 250 turns which is actually very manageable considering that is the 'designed' end date where the final tier of techs begin and players can continue playing if they want.

    There would be no more unlocked content past the 15th century as far as techs/emergent factions.

    I like 1290-1453 (326 turns at 2 turns per year) because it avoids Americas and European wars of religion but allows Timur as a mid-late game threat and spans the Reconquista, the northern Crusades where Lithuania converted to Christianity in 1387, and covers most of the 100 Years War, as well as the rise of Delhi Sultanate in the east and the emergence of a Grand Duchy of Moscow powerful enough to challenge the Golden Horde. This is also the Golden Age in Africa that had kingdoms that might concievably have challenged neighboring powers outside of Africa.

    Various DLCs could focus on the smaller powers of the era while adding new mechanics. Hospitallers of Rhodes and Venice giving trade routes/piracy mechanic and 4 new factions (Hospitallers, Catalan Company, Barbary Coast, Venice).

    2nd DLC would be focused on mercenary companies of which the most famous are; The Swiss, White Company, Knights Errant (representing various people all over, including Italian and Ottoman gunners in India, Turkic warbands everywhere in the east, and a few European knights who fought for African Muslim dynasties).
    Post edited by bli-nk on
    Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society.” Mark Twain
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 20,454
    Commisar said:

    There’s plenty of evidence. The newer mechanics were very popular, that’s what made WH2/ME so popular. There was often excellent feedback from mechanics they got right including RPG elements especially.

    It’s hard to comment when you don’t have a specific reference. We see info about people finishing campaigns but we certainly don’t know over how many turns it takes to finish campaigns. I can easily get to turn 300 due to my defensive play style. Looking at the short victory or the long victory there seems to be little reason to achieve long over the short due to a lack of difference in the outcome. I would certainly play last a certain amount if terms if there was a mechanic like ‘America’s located’, ‘gunpowder created’ or ‘Roman military reforms’. Again, the map is big enough to use the 3K system which generally keeps the game challenging due to there always being 2 major enemies. Considering the size of iE this could be made more so.

    Inreference to the original ideas of having the timeline over many years this is simple, each turn can be done over a month, year or 2 years, so a length of time in years over a particular historical period isn’t a real issue. I also don’t remember anyone suggesting 1000 turns.

    The point is if CA can spread out a long historical period over a number of turns selected by the player I can’t see an issue, it comes across like content denial rather than dealing with anything real.

    *looks at WH3* seems they learned from that well lol.

    That's you and me, I tend to play past 200 turns but the the metrics cover pretty much everyone who plays the game.

    Yeah I agree there's not much point in the long victory conditions in R2/A. Made sense with Empire where it was tied to the campaign chosen.

    But it wouldn't be. There wouldn't be any other faction left unless you chose to leave them to be a rival. If you haven't bothered to conquer the land already available then it's pointless blocking other land behind a time-gate. It also doesn't make sense for there to be such a mechanic in the Medieval setting, closest would be using the coalition type system but that's still limited use.

    If you want it less than multiple years, you are asking for over 1,000 turns. I did explain earlier, A game starting in say 1066 with it being 4 turns a year to cover the seasons, and have the look for Americas unlock in 1466 that would be 1,600 turns before you can start to try and find the Americas. Similar for gunpowder but it's 800 turns.

    I can. It being far less interesting and more boring for the player base as there's ultimately less for each turn.
    I didn’t claim CA will learn every lesson immediately, if you’re claiming I said CA will never make mistakes then I’m not sure where you’re coming from.

    No, there’s no information that gives how many turns people play the game over, only short and long victory conditions which doesn’t answer that question. We do not know.

    I have no idea what you’re arguing here because there’s already been limitations in travel (M2 - America) which worked fine. You also can’t discuss the exact limitations of coalitions as 3K showed a huge improvement and there’s no reason to suspect that won’t happen again.

    Why are you suggesting it must be 4 turns per year? I’m saying the player could decide this based on their own play style. Why limit it to suit a particular type of player? There’s a clear reason why CA ended time limitations on campaigns.

    I don’t know how you’re arguing against a system that lets the player decide how long the want the game to last. If a player decided they wanted to play the game over 100, 400 or 800 turns then that’s their choice, you can’t speak for them in reference to how much they would enjoy it. Less for each turn? No.

Sign In or Register to comment.