EB II as a strategy game

[V.T. Marvin]

I have come across an insightful article on what makes a strategy game interesting and deep. I think that you might find it equally interesting. Although its main focus are mainly space-oriented 4X games, I think its relevance is more general.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how well does the EB II respond to the three basic questions posed by the author:

1. What am I doing right now?
   
2. Why am I doing it?
3. And what am I NOT doing because of that choice?”

Please discuss!

[Jurand of Cracow]

I think there's an additional essential question for the EBII players:
4. Is it historical / realistic / conforming to my view on history?

Concerning the topic of the thread I find very enlighting this Sid Meiers talk, especially on the suspention of disbelief.

[Hummer]

Often I only build to the maximum in the build tree in specific settlements. Historical capitals or important places. Not every city gets everything even if I have enough money for it.
I also try to build historical armies though I may not always be successful. I try to imagine myself in the past and role-playing and as a result I often build units that would not specifically be beneficial to my upcoming battle but I realize that that may be all that was available historically. The historical armies thought was heavily influenced by QS posts in the past. These 2 ideals really improved the immersion of game-play.

[parthian8]

There are two "problems" with EB2 and with strategy games in particular.
The first is that whatever you do in social development, the only ultimate dividend is to afford more and better armies and conquer more territory. All of the reforms, in the end, are about accessing better and prettier troop types. There is no benefit per se of investing in the Musion. It is merely one route to making regions more able to afford more armies. And that's how the logic of the game works. Your goal is not to make your civilisation the intellectual envy of the world, the master of trade, the most peaceful and secure, the best fed. It is not, as has been most usually the overriding case, to secure the future survival of your regime or your family. It is to conquer 50 cities. This strikes at the very logical core of the historicity issue. Did the Pritanoi "aim" at any point to conquer 50 cities?
The second is this. If you sit down to play a game of chess, your overriding concern is to win. Because the real jeopardy involved is that you will, in fact, lose.
The vast majority of complaints I see about strategy games, including EB2, is not that people can't win. They expect to win. What they complain about is that they aren't allowed to win as quickly as they would like.
And they perceive anything that prevents a trouble free progress to victory as a fault in the gameplay that needs addressing.
In that sense, many modern gaming experiences are not "games" at all, in the sense that previous generations have understood the rules (you either win or lose.)
"Gameplay" has come to mean "means by which I achieve effective suspension of my disbelief in the process of achieving victory."
Someone was complaining the other day that EB2 isn't like a game, but like an "interactive history book."
I rather like it being like an interactive history book. I wish there was even more of it. But history, even for good governance guys like the early Ptolemies, was full of real jeopardy.
I think those who wish it was more of a game could be rewarded with a mechanism that says, "ok, you've played really rubbish, and you've LOST!"

[QuintusSertorius]

Given our recent playtesting with the new situation in Greece, it's definitely possible to lose. Especially if as Epeiros you try to hold on to everything you start with (Taras, Ambrakia, Pella and an army on the precepts of Sparte), rather than prioritising.

[parthian8]

So, what's Macedon's starting position? At the time what Antigonus actually held is difficult to replicate. He needs more Gauls in his starting army.

[QuintusSertorius]

So, what's Macedon's starting position? At the time what Antigonus actually held is difficult to replicate. He needs more Gauls in his starting army.

They have Korinthos and Demetrias, and Antigonos has a large stack (replete with mercenaries) in the south of Makedonia, poised to strike Pella. Pella is held by a scratch garrison of mercenaries. But Pyrrhos is about to strike in the Peloponnese, putting Korinthos at risk. Korinthos being the only place with any decent recruitment available to it, Pella and Demetrias are both depleted.

KH meanwhile doesn't have any major buildup of forces, but they have a lot of FMs and could raise a mercenary army right away.

[parthian8]

Well, I'll have HIM out of Pella in no time!

[BHL 20]

Total war in general I think is better played as an RPG rather than a strategy game. When you play it as a purely strategy game, you just end up abusing AI exploits and it ruins immersion.

[badass7]

I think the issue is that the Total War series is just that: Total War. It was made for having the large scale battles, and the campaign and empire management added to give the battles some meaning. Compared to something like EU or Civ where you can win in a variety of different ways, the battles have always been the main point of the series. Not that I'm complaining, as those are what got me into the series in the first place.