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.


Dynamic Start Positions and how they could save the game

ArneSoArneSo Posts: 3,593Registered Users
We all agree that CA needs make the turn times in ME shorter. But furthermore most of us also want a bigger map and full continents.

So CA needs to decrease the turn times somehow. The reason why they are so long is the number of factions and not the number of regions.

So instead of cutting the Map CA should cut/merge factions.
How is that possible without destroying the game?

Every playable faction has a starting enemy faction. Empire Secessionists, red spears, Templehof and more.

These starting enemies should only be on the map when you play a certain faction. If not their regions should be owned By their enemy Major faction.

The Empire Secessionists should only be part of the map when the player starts as Reikland.

Red Spears should only show up when the player starts as the main Dwarfs or main GS faction.

Templehof should only show up when the player starts as Von Carstein our VC.

This way CA could easily remove 10-20 factions from the map. Factions that are only important for a handful of major factions controled by the player.

I really want CA to expand the map further South and West, but I agree that they also need to keep an eye on turn times and the number of factions.
With DYNAMIC START POSITIONS we could get both and everyone would be happy.

What do you guys think about that idea?


  • JycceJycce Posts: 200Registered Users
    I thought it was already implemented (at least for the Empire - I remember I read a patch note a while ago about that). But expanding the idea would be great.

    However, one of the main problem is not the number of factions but the number of armies and settlements owned by one faction (the more options a faction has the longer the turn times are - all is about processing the possibilities). For instance, in ME the turn times are slower at the end whereas many factions were destroyed/confederated.
  • RiskafishRiskafish Posts: 494Registered Users

    I like this idea a lot.

    People also complain a lot about the late game being to easy so giving AI a boost would also help them be more of a challenge later on.

    What people don't seem to realise though is that turn times are serial calculations so really can't be shortened. Multi-threading can help but only if the factions don't interact with each other.
  • sieahsieah Posts: 606Registered Users
    Not interested.
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 5,748Registered Users
    edited November 2019
    You don't understand because I guess your PC is good but the main problem is not the number of factions, it's the number of settlements. It's actually worse when large factions are present rather than many small ones. This is because large factions take more time to load what they're doing than a lot of minor ones who's actions are straightforward.

    As long as there are a lot of settlements to occupy they will occupy them and increase end turn time.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Posts: 10,405Registered Users
    Empire secessionists shouldn't e part of the map anyway... at least not with Helmgart in their grasps...
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN!"

    CA hates the Empire confirmed. The FLC LL for the new Lord Pack is Gor-Rok. Meaning the Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. And no, moving Balthasar Gelt from Reikland, where he should be, DOES NOT COUNT. If they wanted a LL in the Southern Empire: Marius Leitdorf of Averland or maybe Elspeth von Draken in Nuln...

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him?

  • ArneSoArneSo Posts: 3,593Registered Users
    Might be true, it’s not the final solution to solve the turn time problem but it would be a step into the right direction.

    The aspect of boosting the AI is also a good point to make the campaign more interesting.

    Well the secessionists only make sense when playing Reikland. It’s an early chance to fight some battles and gain money and EP. But for every other faction they have no reason to be in the game.
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 5,748Registered Users
    ArneSo said:

    Well the secessionists only make sense when playing Reikland. It’s an early chance to fight some battles and gain money and EP. But for every other faction they have no reason to be in the game.

    Not even for the Empire, actually. Such secessions aren't really that common an occurence and intro for Reikland has you deal with Greenskins. It's a remnant from game 1's Regional Occupation system, nowadays it would make sense to change the Secessionists for a GS faction.
  • ArneSoArneSo Posts: 3,593Registered Users
    Also agree, GS instead of Secessionists would be better.

    But those starting enemy factions in general are only there as a punching ball for the Player to get an easy start into the game. The AI often is simply to stupid to beat them. AI Vlad rather goes directly into the Empire instead of completing his province first.

  • ItharusItharus Senior Member Posts: 8,022Registered Users
    This would work, but only if you:

    1) nerfed AI econ bonus
    2) nerfed AI growth bonus
    3) nerfed AI's ability to magically support 2-4 stacks on a single settlement.
Sign In or Register to comment.