Age of Generals Following Lore

[Pooploop]

Guys, I know this topic has probably been discussed so many times. Yes, it is impossible to set different ages for each race, so a compromise of 150 years was reached, maybe also influenced by the fact that the game has a time limit of 150 years. However, I plan on making personal modifications on the campaign that will allow longer game-time. So, a few questions:

1. If I increase the number of turns left, or in other words, set the end-date further into the future, will ctd's crop up? I'm using the Divide and Conquer submod, so are there events that force a faction to end by the preset end-date?

2. My workaround to allow characters to age as in the books is based on the fact each general or agent has a "race" trait (e.g. dunedain, dwarf, etc.). I'm going to set the age limit to an extremely high number, like 1000 or more, and then, create events that trigger for each race at a specific age. In other words, I mean to create custom old-age death events. So men will get an event at 70 or more triggering their end, Numenorian men at 150 above, dwarves at 300 above, I hope you get the picture. Elves and dark lords like Sauron or the Nazgul don't need to have those events to showcase their immortality. To balance this longevity, I will add fertility deductions to long-lived races. So, the question to all the event and trigger modders out there, is this possible? Or has this been thought of before but failed in the implementation?

3. Finally, a question regarding my motive. Is there any need to have the game become a 500 year thing or more? Is 300 turns all that is required to have a satisfactory campaign in Divide and Conquer or Third Age Total War?

Thanks for any responses...

[Ngugi]

1. Ask in the DaC thread for specifics on their content; otherwise no, no camapign ends with the end date, it only determine whether you face a 'Game Lost' or 'Game Won' video, nothing more; people can continue to play as usual after it, so it's mainly a matter of emotional reaction and whether the game makers want to set a challenge or be a pure sandbox.

2. The idea has been raised before, but no one found a way to manage it. You can't kill random characters, nor make them more likely to die randomly or be more likely to survive age-death.

3. See answer 1. The only ones who would need 500 instead of 300 turns, in a game designed to provide a resonable challenge to reach the goals within 300 turns, are those who want to conquer the entire map, turtlers and newbees.
The first group do not actually care for the game's intentions anyway so why please them (they are a vocal group no doubt, but actually a small minority)? The second group makes it harder for themselves on purpose already, or do not care for the goal. And the last group needs to improve their skills, not get the game made easier. As noted, the game do not end because the end date is reached.
Equally, it will decrease the feeling of achievement for the rest. Solving the goals and getting a Victory-video at turn 250 of 300 will feel more like an accomplishment than solving the goals and getting a Victory-video at turn 250 of 500, the latter will feel easy since you know there was no sense of pressure or urgency.
All that said, some people like the sandbox mode, that's perfectly fine. Everyone plays for their own entertainment.