Anyone Ever Try This?

**Irish King** · September 02, 2011, 09:06 PM

Today I started a campaign as Egypt and made one of my house rules that I can only capture a settlement when the council of nobles tells me to. It makes me slow down alot more and focus on my domestic stuff. Its actually been really fun, I'm filthy rich and one of the strongest factions and I control the whole Holy Land + Adana. I was just wondering if anyone has done anything similar?

**PrestigeX** · September 02, 2011, 09:35 PM

Does that exclude the initial rebel settlements near by ?

Or litterarly no expansion what so ever unless directed by the council of nobles?

I usually find it very enjoyable to complete the missions during the beginning stages of a campaign, but later on they start giving you missions like "blockade this port, halfway around the world for 3 turns for some units or for 2,500" - simply not worth the trouble.

I wish the missions would be more like how it is in the beginning -- annexing close by settlements, or blockading neighboring ports etc....

the worst missions are "acquire merchant, and guild will give you 1,000" -- even tho it'd cost like 5,000 in merchant recruitments and failed attempts to succeed... silly.

**Irish King** · September 02, 2011, 10:02 PM

It's strictly what the council tells you to do. I know you're most likely not going to win, but its still fun. You just have to be patient. and I've found that the council can give pretty good missions f you dont conquer every province nearby.

**ChivalrousKiller** · September 03, 2011, 04:56 AM

Sounds cool. A military democracy

Think I'm gonna have to try that idea

**Fireright** · September 03, 2011, 07:11 AM

Interesting idea but sounds painfully slow progress-wise and not my cup of tea. I like to go get stuck into everyone sharpish

Some of those mission rewards are a waste of time too, 'do this, do that and you will be rewarded with some military units'....

2 merc cogs aint gonna win a full-blown campaign

Cheapskates.

**eXistenZ** · September 03, 2011, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by ChivalrousKiller

Sounds cool. A military democracy

Think I'm gonna have to try that idea

democracy sucks, like the mongols would have gotten that far through voting :p

**Irish King** · September 03, 2011, 02:45 PM

Most of the time I keep myself busy with fighting rebels in my territories (mjakes you rlly appreciate watchtowers) and preparing myself for the inevitable crusader invasion. I also try to focus all of my attention on the econjomic development of my cities.

**Shasqua** · September 03, 2011, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by eXistenZ

democracy sucks, like the mongols would have gotten that far through voting :p

They did vote. Granted, it wasn't everyone, but rather a few nobles. Still, it is voting...

**TWWolfe** · September 03, 2011, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Shasqua

They did vote. Granted, it wasn't everyone, but rather a few nobles. Still, it is voting...

Actually, Voting is the only reason the mongols didn't conquer the whole of Europe. when Ogedi Khan died, every single general/commander had to go all the way back to elect a new Khan. this happened right after they crushed the poles and the Hungarians, and the Mongols never managed to regain their momentum

**eXistenZ** · September 03, 2011, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by TWWolfe

Actually, Voting is the only reason the mongols didn't conquer the whole of Europe. when Ogedi Khan died, every single general/commander had to go all the way back to elect a new Khan. this happened right after they crushed the poles and the Hungarians, and the Mongols never managed to regain their momentum

like i said, if they hadnt voted, we would all be speaking mongolian now :p thats democracy for you

**ChivalrousKiller** · September 06, 2011, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by eXistenZ

democracy sucks, like the mongols would have gotten that far through voting :p

Well, I'm done playing this game just for the sake of winning

**AJStoner** · September 03, 2011, 03:44 PM

Actually, where ever you look in history--the more democratic a society is the more prone to aggression it is. The Athenians, the Viking, the Iraquois... Even Rome was far more expansionist in the republc period then once the emperors took over.

**AJStoner** · September 06, 2011, 09:09 AM

California is an excellent example of what can happen with too much democracy. California has, for the last several years, experimented with "direct democracy" meaning they put pretty much everything to a referendum. It has been an unmitigated disaster because everyone has fallen into the trap of:

1) Give me more stuff
2) Lower my taxes

Democracy was invented to work on a city level--adapting it to a massive nation-state requires things be handled in a more circumspect fashion.

**Veliky Kaiser Theos** · September 06, 2011, 09:15 AM

It's great fun doing that as a Roman faction in RTW.

**tudor93** · September 06, 2011, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by J.Philp

It's great fun doing that as a Roman faction in RTW.

no it's not, I tried doing that as the Julii and the stupid Senate always wants me to conquer a settlement in the middle of Gaul when I have only like the 2 starting cities and Segestica (or whatever the name is)