What if victory was actually a competition with the AI?

[Greasy Dave]

I just finished my first campaign - Jutes, VH minor victory. I enjoyed it. But it felt a bit dry by the end.

I play a lot of 4x games - and I'm used to playing with a "race" to victory, ie competing with the AI to get the conditions first. I know all the historical enthusiasts will hate this idea - fair enough. But there comes a point playing all TW games, even this one, when I no longer feel I'm competing with the AI. It comes later with Atilla - the family tree, climate change and general aggression of the AI set me a challenge. But by 420 AD I was coasting and I have no intention of playing that campaign further.

It struck me, that to become interested in playing beyond that point, I need either, some new mechanics and game features that would bring depth and interest to the late game - which would be awesome but CA have never done it in the past, so I don't expect them to do it now. OR an AI who was also approaching some kind VC and who I would need to terminate and beat to the VC. True, CA have never done that in the past, and I don't expect them to start now. PLus they'd need to seriously work on the CAI to get it to work. But I can't help feeling it'd add some extra impact to the game if your spies told you that the Sassanids were close to achievement X and winning glory.

I know history fans will tear me a new one and hate on the idea. I've no problem with that - but I thought i'd throw it out there anyhow.

[BigHairyMelon]

I remember this in medieval 2 and I'm pretty sure it was in Rome 1. The AI had its own victory conditions and it would notify the player when they were close. Can't remember ever losing out to an AI though.

[The Dude]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I never actually go for the victory conditions the game sets me, because I don't feel like they are representative of victory. Hold X and Y region in year ABC, and also do this or that? No thanks, I have a world to conquer and a dynasty to found. I'm not stopping until Gothic warriors march across the Kwarazmian plains.

[Fredrin]

I agree. Victory conditions are just an arbitrary distraction from the main focus of your campaign in their current form.

Racing against the AI would be problematic because I can't think of one AI faction that will still top you in the strength ranking after about year 430, so it would require the CAI to be set to a much more aggressive/expansionist setting, which might have bad implications for campaign balance in general.

I think the key is adding complexity and interest in the empire that you've fought so hard to establish. Historically rulers were presented with a whole host of difficulties in maintaining a stable and flourishing empire. I'm sure that these could be translated into some interesting gameplay mechanics with enough imagination from the devs.

[r3dshift]

I agree with the OP in the regard that in Rome 1 and Medieval 2 it was actually quite the stress (and hence, fun) to make sure the AI doesn't win before you do. I kind of miss this aspect in latter TW games.