More cities?

[vonVince]

Whilst I have to say that the idea of having a regional capital with cities around it in the region it is located in is an interesting idea - the fact is that more cities would be needed. For one, you destroying factions can be simply too easy, as you only need to capture the regional capital city. Also, the fact that some factions completely lack the two ports (meaning that they cannot even have new coastal cities spawning) is problematic. Even Portugal has only one port with no chance of getting major warships without conquering territory.

[l33tl4m3r]

What I want to see;

You can take ANY settlement, even the capital, but until you hold them ALL, ownership of the territory does not change.

Now, I would also like to see an AI that takes advantage of this on the defensive as well as when assaulting.

But, as it is, taking one city and capturing the whole region and in some cases wiping out the faction is just too easy.

Does a faction have armies I don't want to fight? Just take his nation OUT. HAHAHA!

---

Anyhow, that is one thing I hope to see us able to do.

[average650]

well if you just made the area of control of armies larger, than you'd have to take on any armies in the area before taking the capital. It's to easy to just go right around an army.

[l33tl4m3r]

True that!

I wonder if we can give garrisoned (city or fort) armies larger zones of control and not armies moving on the campaign map...

Anyone tried? *adds another one to the list*

[gromda]

[quote=l33tl4m3r;4892192]What I want to see;

You can take ANY settlement, even the capital, but until you hold them ALL, ownership of the territory does not change.


---
That's a really good idea. It's crazy that a small principlaity like wurttemburg can knock over france by simply(?) capturing Paris. Did anything happen with this?