Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Victory conditions for Military Victory (Rome) are too lax

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    antred's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,103

    Default Victory conditions for Military Victory (Rome) are too lax

    I've just won the Roman campaign through Military Victory even though I hardly conquered anyone. My Roman Empire consists of little more than Italy, Cisalpine Gaul, Massalia, Cathage, Illyria, Noria/Raetia, Sicily and Sardinia/Corsica. Except for a single province, the whole rest of the map are either client states or allies. Except for a few minor peripheral wars, I never even got to fight much.

    The problem is that it's way too easy to amass client states. Once your empire has reached a certain critical mass (i.e. military and economical power), other factions are far too eager to become your client states. For instance, a few turns ago, one of my largest allies, the Nervii, declared war on another one of my allies. I opted to join the side of the defender and, in the same turn, offered the Nervii peace in exchange for becoming my vassal. They accepted the deal without blinking.

    Could the AI be made a tad less willing to sign away its sovereignty without good reason? And maybe the victory conditions should be changed, too? At the moment, it is sufficient to control 90 settlements through client states / alliances. I think it would be a good idea if mere alliances didn't count toward achieving your victory conditions. Client states should be the minimum requirement.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Victory conditions for Military Victory (Rome) are too lax

    Yeah, I think it's very silly that alliances count as controlling settlements...

  3. #3

    Default Re: Victory conditions for Military Victory (Rome) are too lax

    I wish nations weren't so diplomatic to begin with.


    I spend a lot of time clicking "no" to diplomatic requests when cycling through the different faction turns.

  4. #4
    spartan117's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    707

    Default Re: Victory conditions for Military Victory (Rome) are too lax

    I like it because it doesnt necessarily require one to conquer the entire map. One can be a merchant empire rather than coloring the entire campaign map.

    Quote Originally Posted by BooBooLovesAll View Post
    I wish nations weren't so diplomatic to begin with.


    I spend a lot of time clicking "no" to diplomatic requests when cycling through the different faction turns.
    It is certainly better than past total war games where diplomacy was essentially nonexistent. lol

  5. #5
    antred's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,103

    Default Re: Victory conditions for Military Victory (Rome) are too lax

    Quote Originally Posted by spartan117 View Post
    I like it because it doesnt necessarily require one to conquer the entire map. One can be a merchant empire rather than coloring the entire campaign map.
    Well, there's another type of victory condition for that style of playing: Economic Victory (though the requirements for that type of victory have escaped me). For a Military Victory, though, you should at the very least have to control the regions in question through client state treaties. Having an alliance with a faction does not equate to controlling their provinces.

  6. #6
    FlashHeart07's Avatar Praepositus
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    5,869

    Default Re: Victory conditions for Military Victory (Rome) are too lax

    So if you just changed the victory conditions to not include military allies but only client states and/or satrapies.
    Dont know the exact changes but there is a mod Harder Diplomacy that might help with the passive CAI.

Posting Permissions

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