Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 125

Thread: Why politics and power is terrible

  1. #21
    General Maximus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Bhopal, India
    Posts
    11,292

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    I have to add, they could've added a primitive family-tree of sorts for monarchy/empire governments...yet they didn't. It is still the lame "Great King Ptolemy Soter is succeeded by random Meneptah dude that joined the game 3 turns ago" thing. They could've at least allowed party members to have their kids off-map. Also, they again missed a large opportunity for increasing immersion and flavour by not allowing renaming of factions based on their government. Going from Roman Republic to Roman Empire, or turning into Peloponnesian League after conquering Greece as Sparta...there would've been much more. Especially with mods. I also don't like this "Administer" mission, since it is only temporary public-order modifier and you cannot appoint a person to be a true, working governor of a province like in Attila. Given CA's record, the people sent off to provinces for the administer mission won't even get traits or ancillaries based on their location (i.e. sending a senator to govern Syria turning him religious, or a man sent to administer Greece acquiring a great teacher, etc.). Rather lazy in my opinion. Still, it is far better than what we have right now, and infinitely ahead of the atrocious travesty that was Rome 2's politics in 2013.
    सार्वभौम सम्राट चत्रवर्ती - भारतवर्ष
    स्वर्गपुत्र पीतसम्राट - चीन
    महाराजानाभ्याम महाराजा - पारसिक

  2. #22
    Welsh Dragon's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,064

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by General Maximus View Post
    I have to add, they could've added a primitive family-tree of sorts for monarchy/empire governments...yet they didn't. It is still the lame "Great King Ptolemy Soter is succeeded by random Meneptah dude that joined the game 3 turns ago" thing. They could've at least allowed party members to have their kids off-map. Also, they again missed a large opportunity for increasing immersion and flavour by not allowing renaming of factions based on their government. Going from Roman Republic to Roman Empire, or turning into Peloponnesian League after conquering Greece as Sparta...there would've been much more. Especially with mods. I also don't like this "Administer" mission, since it is only temporary public-order modifier and you cannot appoint a person to be a true, working governor of a province like in Attila. Given CA's record, the people sent off to provinces for the administer mission won't even get traits or ancillaries based on their location (i.e. sending a senator to govern Syria turning him religious, or a man sent to administer Greece acquiring a great teacher, etc.). Rather lazy in my opinion. Still, it is far better than what we have right now, and infinitely ahead of the atrocious travesty that was Rome 2's politics in 2013.
    CA addressed Family Trees on their Facebook Page

    In feature terms, there are much stronger candidates for overhaul in ROME II than adding a nice way to visualise your dynasty. We chose to overhaul politics as it had the potential to bring so much more to the game, and that’s what we’ve done. Politics now has more nuance, greater tangible consequences, and offers many underhanded (or indeed high-handed!) ways to affect your campaign game. You can erode an opposing political party to a point where it has no teeth. Or you can deliberately goad it so far through your actions that it breaks away in a secessionist fashion and declare war on you; effectively engineering your own civil war for fun and profit. And there’s a great deal more you can do besides. This provides substantially more gameplay, intrigue and consequence, so please don’t mistake it for a ‘poor substitute’ – it’s actually a much better one.
    Actually makes a lot of sense to me. They only have finite resources, and I feel they are better spent on this new politics overhaul than on a family tree. I don't think applying a family tree to a game designed not to have it would be that easy or inexpensive to do, especially considering the familial connections between characters may not even exist in the files.

    Renaming factions based on Government Types is an interesting idea, and something that is probably possible (given it already happens for Confederations.) Maybe suggest it on the official forums?

    I see Administrator more as sending in a firefighter to put out a public order fire. They aren't going to be around long enough to really make a lasting difference, but they're good in a pinch.

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    I do not want to sound like nitpicking your post, but I think this is a non-existent problem used by CA to cover their lack of competency (or care) in AI programming. Lots of strategy games have "minors", as TW does, and minors can have restricted rule sets to prevent them being demanding computing-wise. Ex: there is no need to give minors internal factions or anything other than basic skills, i.e. building and recruitment, and actually TW does this in some areas. This would also help the problem of historical major factions disappearing from the game quickly. Ideally, you'd roll a dice for minors at the start and have them (like 1 in 10) play like majors, to increase diversity. So you'd have, I don't remember the real number, say 12 majors, 8 minor-majors by dice roll, the rest would be fairly streamlined minors. CA should learn more from other strategy devs, like Paradox, rather than half-implementing trendy features. But I doubt CA has a real interest in making a strategy game.

    CA has also been increasingly brazen in dismissing user feedback. Otherwise they would've contact well-established modders, and would fix the darn pikes and phalanx already. I'm okay with mods getting broken with the patch, that's the order of the things and it's nice they're giving the option to downgrade, but still, CA could've implemented many fixes the modders came up with. I mean that wouldn't even be hard, just give the modders a dlc for free and let them work with you.

    About the family tree issue, I agree that it may be inefficient use of resources, if implementing that would've required lots of resources&time (that may not be the case though, seeing how Attila ad R2 are similar, but I'm no expert on this). Yet, here arises the old debate: why they didn't implement it in the beginning? Although titled "Rome", marketing and publicity placed an emphasis on being able to play as any major faction of the era, not just Romans, and many players like me prefer that. Yet an important part of the game is just not working for those factions, it is utterly ridiculous to not have a family tree when playing as a monarchy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Welsh Dragon View Post
    I do agree that it would be nice if the other factions also had internal politics and used Statesmen, but I understand why they don't. (AI probably wouldn't handle it, and it would probably lead to longer turn times as 100 different factions all do their internal politics.

  4. #24
    LestaT's Avatar Artifex
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Campus Martius
    Posts
    3,877

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Same people still here, hating the gane still?

    Wow.

    I downloaded the beta. I like the game but having played over 800 hours I guess it's maybe the time to say goodbye.

    Afterall, hellcannons are more fun now than ballistas and catapults.

  5. #25
    eXistenZ's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    7,939

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    If you want to save on turn timers, you could always remove the abilities of agents to stop entire armies..... (so socuts being only scouts, rather than mass poisoners and murderers, champions only interacting with their own armies)


    Also, no hate. I was perfectly happy with the game until this lazily designed udpdate came along.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    The new system is still inferior to MTWII and RTWI family trees and ancillaries system in term of representation.

    I mean just take a look to what EBII team and some other teams did on old MTWII engine... That facebook dude is defending his new product no problem with that, what to expect from him? Myself I'm not hating CA, I'm just objective, Attila new system ported on Rome II would have been better. Period.

    Edit: for the sake of being objective, I want nevertheless salute them for allowing peoples to play on Patch 17 and hence enjoy mods that won't be updated.
    Last edited by VINC.XXIII; November 20, 2017 at 04:06 AM.

  7. #27
    Welsh Dragon's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,064

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by balparmak View Post
    I do not want to sound like nitpicking your post, but I think this is a non-existent problem used by CA to cover their lack of competency (or care) in AI programming. Lots of strategy games have "minors", as TW does, and minors can have restricted rule sets to prevent them being demanding computing-wise. Ex: there is no need to give minors internal factions or anything other than basic skills, i.e. building and recruitment, and actually TW does this in some areas. This would also help the problem of historical major factions disappearing from the game quickly. Ideally, you'd roll a dice for minors at the start and have them (like 1 in 10) play like majors, to increase diversity. So you'd have, I don't remember the real number, say 12 majors, 8 minor-majors by dice roll, the rest would be fairly streamlined minors. CA should learn more from other strategy devs, like Paradox, rather than half-implementing trendy features. But I doubt CA has a real interest in making a strategy game.
    Sorry, but I really don't see how what I said is a "non-existent problem." It stands to reason that the more the computer is having to work out and keep track of each turn, the longer the turn times. Also not sure how this is "half-implementing trendy features" or how you conclude that you "doubt CA has a real interest in making a strategy game."

    Quote Originally Posted by balparmak View Post
    CA has also been increasingly brazen in dismissing user feedback. Otherwise they would've contact well-established modders, and would fix the darn pikes and phalanx already. I'm okay with mods getting broken with the patch, that's the order of the things and it's nice they're giving the option to downgrade, but still, CA could've implemented many fixes the modders came up with. I mean that wouldn't even be hard, just give the modders a dlc for free and let them work with you.
    I don't see how CA is dismissing user feedback. They listen to it. They have people whose whole job is to gather users feedback and pass it onto the developers. They don't always implement it, but considering half the stuff suggested seems to be at odds with the other half it's hardly surprising. Something that may seem like a simple thing to do isn't always the case, or has unintended consequences. But they do implement a lot of it. e.g. Look at the amount of things from the Patch 16 Data Typos mod that made it into Patch 17.

    I'm not actually sure what the pikes and phalanx issues are you're talking about, but when I just did a quick skim of the mods to try and figure it out, it seems like various mods that claim to "fix" issues with pikes and phalanx also introduce new issues. And whilst they may not have addressed pikes and phalanxes, they have addressed a number of other issues, like 4K scaling, grain settlements making food a non-issue, Historical Battles which were basically impossible, various bugs with units, crash causes etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by balparmak View Post
    About the family tree issue, I agree that it may be inefficient use of resources, if implementing that would've required lots of resources&time (that may not be the case though, seeing how Attila ad R2 are similar, but I'm no expert on this). Yet, here arises the old debate: why they didn't implement it in the beginning? Although titled "Rome", marketing and publicity placed an emphasis on being able to play as any major faction of the era, not just Romans, and many players like me prefer that. Yet an important part of the game is just not working for those factions, it is utterly ridiculous to not have a family tree when playing as a monarchy.
    I think they decided to do it differently, with a politics system that would work for everyone. Maybe they didn't quite achieve that goal, (though I think Power & Politics comes very close,) but I don't really see how a Family Tree system would have been any better. As you said, the emphasis is on playing any major faction, and as a variety of different government types existed back then, applying a Family Tree to all of them would be just as problematic.

    Quote Originally Posted by LestaT View Post
    Same people still here, hating the gane still?

    Wow.

    I downloaded the beta. I like the game but having played over 800 hours I guess it's maybe the time to say goodbye.

    Afterall, hellcannons are more fun now than ballistas and catapults.
    Warhammer just doesn't have the appeal for me (and gives me a splitting headache,) while Rome 2 I just keep coming back to. Also, I'd rather have ballistas and catapults.

    Quote Originally Posted by eXistenZ View Post
    If you want to save on turn timers, you could always remove the abilities of agents to stop entire armies..... (so socuts being only scouts, rather than mass poisoners and murderers, champions only interacting with their own armies)


    Also, no hate. I was perfectly happy with the game until this lazily designed udpdate came along.
    I'm beginning to get the impression you really don't like agents. While I have no issue with the way agents work in Rome 2, there is something to be said for them being more specialised. Maybe not to the extent you suggest, but maybe not quite as broad as they ended up being. Maybe something like: Scouts = Scouting and single target assassination, Champions = Friendly Army buffing and Enemy Army nerfing (e.g. dropping their morale,) and Dignitaries = Settlement/Province buffing and nerfing.

    Still don't think this update is lazy, but ah well, we all see things differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by VINC.XXIII View Post
    The new system is still inferior to MTWII and RTWI family trees and ancillaries system in term of representation.
    I do miss having long lists of traits gained through gameplay. Never been a fan of the RPG like skill trees, but it seems like enough people called for more control over how their Generals developed that they went that route. I hear Warhammer has more of a compromise between the two, so perhaps that may be the way forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by VINC.XXIII View Post
    I mean just take a look to what EBII team and some other teams did on old MTWII engine... That facebook dude is defending his new product no problem with that, what to expect from him? Myself I'm not hating CA, I'm just objective, Attila new system ported on Rome II would have been better. Period.
    Not sure you're being quite as objective as you think. Which political system is better (Rome 2 or Attila) is really a matter of personal preference, so it's kind of hard to categorically state porting Attila's over would have been better. Better for you, sure. Better for everyone, including those that don't like Attila? Not so sure about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by VINC.XXIII View Post
    Edit: for the sake of being objective, I want nevertheless salute them for allowing peoples to play on Patch 17 and hence enjoy mods that won't be updated.
    Yeah, that's a good policy and I'm glad they seem to be making it standard.

    *

    Wow, seems like this discussion about Politics in game has become almost as complicated as the real thing!

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    If CA ever do a family tree or a visual representation of your faction they should put it behind a paywall for example in a Alexander or Wars of the Diadochi campaign. This dlc should fund work that is of a higher priority.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by Welsh Dragon View Post

    Not sure you're being quite as objective as you think. Which political system is better (Rome 2 or Attila) is really a matter of personal preference, so it's kind of hard to categorically state porting Attila's over would have been better. Better for you, sure. Better for everyone, including those that don't like Attila? Not so sure about that.
    No, its factual, Attila has family trees and office system, Rome II hasn't. We had titles and family trees since Rome 1*, it impacted a lot immersion, gameplay, well finally, historicity of the game. You cannot properly represent ancient dynasties without the family tree, its something basic.

    *I don't remember Shogun 1

  10. #30
    Welsh Dragon's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,064

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by VINC.XXIII View Post
    No, its factual, Attila has family trees and office system, Rome II hasn't. We had titles and family trees since Rome 1*, it impacted a lot immersion, gameplay, well finally, historicity of the game. You cannot properly represent ancient dynasties without the family tree, its something basic.

    *I don't remember Shogun 1
    That Attila has those features and Rome 2 hasn't is Objective Fact. Anyone can start up both games and check that fact. It's independently verifiable.

    That Rome 2 would be "better" with those features is Subjective Opinion. It relies on an individual making a judgement call about the importance of the feature, how useful they find it, how it impacts other areas of the game, whether they like it or not etc. There's no way to independently verify that the game is "better" with or without it, because there's no universally accepted measure of this sort of thing. You only need look at the Wikipedia Page for Attila to see quotes from two reviews that criticise Attila's politics system.

    I know I may sound like I'm being a little pedantic, which I'm not trying to be. Just trying to highlight that objective facts are hard to come by, and even with the best of intentions it's easy to be subjective.

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.

  11. #31
    eXistenZ's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    7,939

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    I also don't like the AI being in forced march way too often, or starving when its not necessary. Or having to cather to petty pieves of factions without getting something in return. Not terribly unreasonable i would say

  12. #32
    Welsh Dragon's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,064

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by eXistenZ View Post
    I also don't like the AI being in forced march way too often, or starving when its not necessary. Or having to cather to petty pieves of factions without getting something in return. Not terribly unreasonable i would say
    Fair enough.

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by Welsh Dragon View Post
    That Attila has those features and Rome 2 hasn't is Objective Fact. Anyone can start up both games and check that fact. It's independently verifiable.

    That Rome 2 would be "better" with those features is Subjective Opinion. It relies on an individual making a judgement call about the importance of the feature, how useful they find it, how it impacts other areas of the game, whether they like it or not etc. There's no way to independently verify that the game is "better" with or without it, because there's no universally accepted measure of this sort of thing. You only need look at the Wikipedia Page for Attila to see quotes from two reviews that criticise Attila's politics system.

    I know I may sound like I'm being a little pedantic, which I'm not trying to be. Just trying to highlight that objective facts are hard to come by, and even with the best of intentions it's easy to be subjective.

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.
    Right, its getting abstruse.

  14. #34
    The Wandering Storyteller's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    I wash my hands of this weirdness!
    Posts
    4,509

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by Welsh Dragon View Post
    Fair enough.

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.
    Would you agree that lighting in battles need to be improved? W2 and Attila/Shogun 2 have great lighting environments. I can't stand in rain/winter/night where the lighting is so bright - it ruins the immersion. Anything on that CA could do to change?

    Would you be okay for the total war campaign of RII to have a night mode?(It'd look pretty cool!)





















































  15. #35
    Welsh Dragon's Avatar Content Staff
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,064

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by San Felipe View Post
    Would you agree that lighting in battles need to be improved? W2 and Attila/Shogun 2 have great lighting environments. I can't stand in rain/winter/night where the lighting is so bright - it ruins the immersion. Anything on that CA could do to change?
    I don't really have any issues with battle lighting. But bear in mind I probably don't use typical settings because I have issues with light-sensitivity and migraines, so I have to keep things turned down pretty low in most games.

    Quote Originally Posted by San Felipe View Post
    Would you be okay for the total war campaign of RII to have a night mode?(It'd look pretty cool!)
    It's definitely an interesting idea.

    All the Best,

    Welsh Dragon.

  16. #36

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by Welsh Dragon View Post
    Sorry, but I really don't see how what I said is a "non-existent problem." It stands to reason that the more the computer is having to work out and keep track of each turn, the longer the turn times. Also not sure how this is "half-implementing trendy features" or how you conclude that you "doubt CA has a real interest in making a strategy game."
    What I meant was CA could have make minor factions less resource demanding placeholders, and instead work on making majors more detailed, which would've take up same resources in the end, like you'd see in a Paradox game. Don't take me as a PDX fanboy, I criticize their games to hell and back, but at least they manage to have 100+factions with a decent AI in real time without demanding ultra-expensive computers. And if CA claims that today's computers are unable to process 10 Rome-like factions (meaning, with real internal politics) and even 100 fairly streamlined minors, they're lying*. That's the non-existent problem, what I asked is by no means beyond the capacity of today's average computer, it just requires thoughtful design and optimization.

    "Half-implementing trendy features" was a nod to technology and events&decisions mechanics, the latter a staple of PDX games, but poorly implemented in TW. I tried to keep it short so as not to derail the topic, so I understand your criticisms about jumping to conclusions. But still, I don't think there is much need to expand the latest part, CA could've gone in the path of adding strategic depth to their games, but instead they preferred to have eye-candies. There hasn't been any substantial improvement, in a decade, to diplomacy in CA games, and city-building is in some ways worse than what was available in Rome 1, lack of population mechanic is especially outstanding. Instead we have totally overblown agents that clutter the map so as to give an impression of depth, where there is none.

    I don't see how CA is dismissing user feedback. They listen to it. They have people whose whole job is to gather users feedback and pass it onto the developers. They don't always implement it, but considering half the stuff suggested seems to be at odds with the other half it's hardly surprising. Something that may seem like a simple thing to do isn't always the case, or has unintended consequences. But they do implement a lot of it. e.g. Look at the amount of things from the Patch 16 Data Typos mod that made it into Patch 17.

    I'm not actually sure what the pikes and phalanx issues are you're talking about, but when I just did a quick skim of the mods to try and figure it out, it seems like various mods that claim to "fix" issues with pikes and phalanx also introduce new issues. And whilst they may not have addressed pikes and phalanxes, they have addressed a number of other issues, like 4K scaling, grain settlements making food a non-issue, Historical Battles which were basically impossible, various bugs with units, crash causes etc.
    Sorry, but I can't agree with you on this one. While it's nice they're doing their job in fixing crashes etc., their record on AI&battle issues is not good, and they don't address them unless they cannot be ignored. The problem with pikes&phalanx has been reported on forums (here and CA) from the day one, and it is actually part of the problem with units breaking formation, which is linked to lack of guard mode&existence of matched combat silliness. What I can agree is that, yes, mods more often than not break more than they fix. Because that shouldn't be their job in the first place, you can't expect a modder to fix issues that is beyond the reach of modders' tools. Another issue which CA kept their silence on was the gimped detection rates which made AI fight with blinders, also uncovered in DeI forums, and a mod regarding that seems to be very popular on the workshop. I cannot see anything in the patch notes that would suggest BAI was improved. I will add the links reporting these bugs if I come upon them.

    I think they decided to do it differently, with a politics system that would work for everyone. Maybe they didn't quite achieve that goal, (though I think Power & Politics comes very close,) but I don't really see how a Family Tree system would have been any better. As you said, the emphasis is on playing any major faction, and as a variety of different government types existed back then, applying a Family Tree to all of them would be just as problematic.
    What is promised with their marketing was that all the systems available in game would work for all the majors, and this normally includes politics and internal factions. Leaving my obvious animosity to CA aside (I really am biased, I admit that), I cannot really say they delivered this. I'm not arguing for a strictly historical game, which would be a mistake. What I ask for is a believable abstraction of historical reality, which is necessary anyway because we do not and cannot know all the facts regarding these times. Yet, politics for any non-Roman faction plays in a way that is so far removed from historical feasibility, it is just not working. It could've been problematic to account for different ways of government (though I strongly think they could've been modeled into the game through abstraction), but then they should've stated that the game was meant to be played as Romans only. Applying a model that is barely working for Romans to others was just lazy design, and this overall laziness plagues the entire game. All that said, getting into real debates rather than inflammatory posts is nice, and I respect your demeanor.

    My best regards


    *there was a very humorous exchange between Paradox and CA devs, yeaars ago. I believe it was around the time when TW:Empire was released, PDX was much much more smaller company then. I guess it was a dev diary on AI at Paradox' forums, someone asked about implementing some AI features from TW, and PDX lead designer simply said "I didn't know CA games had an AI, or a team working on it". After a CA dev diplomatically complained about this, he elaborated his point, since CA had many times of the budget PDX had, and their games utterly lacked a working AI, he assumed they had no-one working on it. Years later, it is sad to see his point still holds. That's why I'm very cynical when CA says something is/was beyond their capacity, as one of the largest firms of the genre, they should be the ones setting the terms for industry. At best, they are lagging behind.
    Last edited by balparmak; November 21, 2017 at 06:27 AM.

  17. #37

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    I kind of like the new screens and the options changes. For once they actually seem to help game play. The old ones were kind of clunky and were not much help. I avoided the as much as possible.

    I'm not much on family tree stuff so I'm glad they didn't do the Attila thing.
    "The trouble with facts is that there are so many of them." - Samuel McChord Crothers

  18. #38
    ashbery76's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Rugby.England.
    Posts
    643

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Family trees in all TW games apart from Atilla had little political gameplay meaning and is more about fluff.This system in vital in gamplay.This is called good design.

    In an ideal world they would have used the Atilla system with this added but sales.

    Not sure what the point would be if the A.I used improved statesman diplomacy relations on the player,heh.I think this is great little politics system they added.Much better than the rubbish before and it's free.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    Quote Originally Posted by ashbery76 View Post
    Family trees in all TW games apart from Atilla had little political gameplay meaning and is more about fluff.
    Are you including Medieval Total War I civil wars? The mix of family tree+proper ancillary/trait systems had huge consequences there. That system is unmatched actually, best civil wars ever, close to Paradox games level.

    Typical stuff that happened:
    -Your faction leader was weak(low influence, bad traits, large kingdom/empire)
    -A general with low loyalty though featuring good traits+belonging to your blood(concretly one guy from your family tree, a potential faction heir)

    = guaranteed civil war WITH actual territorial splitting, not mention your other generals could eventually join the usurper or defending your side(depending their loyalty and some random factors)

    When the rupture occured, you were able to continue with your actual king, OR to play as the usurper.

    There was also a mechanism that allowed you to send an agent against any general, to sue him for treason, depending some factors, the general was executed or the mission failed.

    I don't know if you played MTWI, but some peoples tend to forget how some 2005 mechanisms have been trashed for unknown reasons.

    Edit: I know there some new features like Purge or Assassinate generals, thats not bad btw.
    Last edited by VINC.XXIII; November 22, 2017 at 01:31 PM.

  20. #40
    Yerevan's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,504

    Default Re: Why politics and power is terrible

    I also believe that family trees are the best way to mimic power plays in monarchic/clientelist systems. (it also create emergent narrative gameplay). I mean , most of those were dynasties ! R2's faction members rising from nowhere would fit better to a contemporean democratic system simulation (and yet....). We all can see what paradox has achieved in terms of power and politics gameplay with family trees. Not that I would like something as complex for TW, but Attila was a nice compromise and on the good path. But... it's a debate we already had here and I guess, everything have been said already.
    Last edited by Yerevan; November 22, 2017 at 02:38 PM.
    " Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! "

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •