Victory Conditions

[Armenum]

Sometimes when I play I completely ignore the victory conditions. For example, I was playing as Britain and had conquered all of North America and had taken over all of Northwest Europe thanks to a stubborn France who refused to surrender. It's 1773 and I have about 37 regions. However, in order to "win" I have to conquer some regions like Egypt, and India. Thus I will have to declare war on countries which I have good trading relations with. Do people just play for the fun, instead of the entire goal being just to fulfill those conditions? I find this system of "victory" a little too rigid, because obivously in my condition right now where my wealth is 130,000 +, and my technology is very advance that wouldn't be a loss.

[eXistenZ]

Well that's the reason there are different types of victory. a domination victory would be more your type i think for the game you're having now.

But hey, you still have 30 years, are you going to let your army sit around doing nothing?

[busboy999]

Sometimes when I play I completely ignore the victory conditions. For example, I was playing as Britain and had conquered all of North America and had taken over all of Northwest Europe thanks to a stubborn France who refused to surrender. It's 1773 and I have about 37 regions. However, in order to "win" I have to conquer some regions like Egypt, and India. Thus I will have to declare war on countries which I have good trading relations with. Do people just play for the fun, instead of the entire goal being just to fulfill those conditions? I find this system of "victory" a little too rigid, because obivously in my condition right now where my wealth is 130,000 +, and my technology is very advance that wouldn't be a loss.

Take a look at your victory conditions before you begin the campaign. Personally I'm with you, and I don't like being required to seize regions when it would be more profitable to trade with them.

For folks like us, the prefered victory conditions are domination (own 50 territories including your home territory) or prestige (have the highest prestige at the end of the game). In the case of the latter, you could win based on your ability to manage a profitable and enlightened empire as much as your military prowess.

[medieval76]

the victory conditions blow lol i just play for fun its not like a i get anything out of playing thru a campaign and being victorious like the old total war games. i really don't like being told what to do and were to conquer cause it gets to the point u play it thru and u win and u play again its going be the same regions, same enemies time and time again really no replay value there unless u make ur own rules

[irish437]

Its your game, play it how you want. Victories are made on the battle field on not determined by a logorithm.

I think it would be fair to have to capture a certain amount of regions or amass a certain amount of wealth. But how and where you do it should be up to you. I also think there are key home provinces that you should hold. The King wouldn't have it any other way.

[gluteus maximus aurelius]

Victory conditions are just there as something to aim for, so you don't just piss about doing bugger all. Personally I just invade whoever I want and laugh as their Empire smoulders in ruins. But then again, I AM a megalomaniac, mwahahahahahaha!

[Armenum]

When I play, I don't play to conquer, I play to sustain a stable, wealthy, and advanced empire. Doing this however through only diplomacy is impossible so I do have to conquer (especially when the AI refuses to sign peace treaty!).