Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26

Thread: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

  1. #1

    Default How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    I'd like to generate discussion on how long it takes for a campaign to stop being enjoyable. This has consequences on gameplay experience if certain game mechanics take too long to achieve. Oftentimes (I speak for myself, but I suspect this may be the same for everyone else) I look forward to reforms and scripted events and enjoy a fun campaign trying to reach them, but should they take too long by the time they have happened the campaign has become a slog. My empire has become huge while working towards reform objectives and borders too many enemies. Every turn it's the same siege defense battles. Every turn I lose more interest.

    An example would be the Marian Reforms or the Sweboz and Lugiones Panoply Reforms. You would have to wait about 600 turns at the very least to access some exciting features, but by then you've either become burnt out or you're that rare 1% with supreme perseverance. Even the turn 200 Thorakitai Reforms is a little too late for my tastes. The solution may be to modify campaign_script.txt to allow for early activation of reforms if more difficult objectives than the on-time reform's are fulfilled. For example the early Thorakitai Reforms trigger could be prematurely triggered by the Hellenistic player owning 3 level 2 mines and fighting 11 large battles against the Romans or rebels in Eastern/Central Europe and Galatia. Of course this basically limits the early trigger to the Western Hellenistic factions, but it makes sense considering they would be closer to Roman and Celtic military influences. The goal is not to expedite the satisfaction of achieving the certain game mechanics, but to allow them to occur earlier so that the player would be able to play with his/her new toys for longer periods of time before losing interest.

    Another limiting factor is the complete lack of construction options late-game. Once all the buildings have been built by the player and AI, the entire administrative aspect of this game is gone. Perhaps 2.4 could dedicate some time for advanced construction options? Roma Surrectum II has a building tree for expensive but somewhat beneficial "monuments" buildings that provide a good money sink (and cultural flex option!) for the late-game player.

    Anyways, post your experiences in this format please:

    Average duration of campaign:
    [Number of turns]
    [Explanation]

    Exceptions
    [Number of turns and faction]
    [Explanation]
    [Number of turns and faction]
    [Explanation]
    [Number of turns and faction]
    [Explanation]
    ...

    I would like to just say that I really appreciate the work that the EBII team has put into crafting an immersive experience. This post is not to trash your work, but to foster ideas on how to prolong that experience even more.

  2. #2

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shoebopp View Post
    An example would be the Marian Reforms or the Sweboz and Lugiones Panoply Reforms. You would have to wait about 600 turns at the very least to access some exciting features, but by then you've either become burnt out or you're that rare 1% with supreme perseverance. Even the turn 200 Thorakitai Reforms is a little too late for my tastes.

    Can confirm that most of my steam for the Romani and Sweboz campaigns were lost by the time I reached their reforms, mostly because I rarely push a campaign to that height to begin with. But the age old adage "conquering an empire is easy, ruling it is hard" applies here.


    Another limiting factor is the complete lack of construction options late-game. Once all the buildings have been built by the player and AI, the entire administrative aspect of this game is gone. Perhaps 2.4 could dedicate some time for advanced construction options? Roma Surrectum II has a building tree for expensive but somewhat beneficial "monuments" buildings that provide a good money sink (and cultural flex option!) for the late-game player.

    I've had some discussion on the subject before. The cultural flex was not always for it's own sake, but also to reinforce the prestige and authority of an emperor. Perhaps then, the natural way to expand on this is to add mechanics to represent the challenges of ruling an empire (the quickest way of doing this might be to apply Seleukid Court mechanics, slightly altered, once you've reached a certain amount of territory.) Or funding the construction of a grand capital like Imperial Rome or Western Han's Chang'an.


    Anyways, post your experiences in this format please:

    Total Average: 428 Turns Per Playthrough


    By far 2.35 is the iteration of EBII I've spent the most time on...thanks to certain circumstances I've had much more spare time to play than I've had for a few years now. There are some playthroughs (such as the SPQR one) which I dub "click and forget," in these cases I put less thought into my turns or in manual battles I set up my formations and let the battle run while I do something else.

    In general I prefer playthroughs where I have wealthy targets that can quickly fuel further expansion. So I've spent most of my time on the Eastern Mediterranean and the Iranian Plateau.

    I should also mention that I suffer greatly from "Pokemon Syndrome." One of the things I strive to do in any EBII playthrough is to recruit elite units and unique regionals, then gild them. I often get disappointed when I can't do this.


    Exceptions: Boioi I, Hayastan I, Kimmeros Bosporos, Pontos, Seleukeia, SPQR, Sweboz


    Aruernoi: 271 Turns

    Not to knock the Gauls or fans of them, but for whatever reason the Aruernoi did not click with me as much as the Boioi did. Their starting position is much similar, though the Aruernoi position is marginally more difficult for having only one region to their name. Two factors contributed to the Aruernoi burnout is that the Vergorix is a meager upgrade from Confederation, and is not as impactful as the Boioi colonies in terms of expanding manpower. Secondly, the starting zone for the Aruernoi is more cramped than that of the Boioi, you have to compete with the Iberian factions, SPQR, Aedui, and the Pritanoi. Combine this with the lesser manpower available to the Galloi and the Aruernoi have to do more with less, with less impactful changes available.


    Baktria: 195 Turns

    Baktria is probably my most played campaign in previous versions of EBII, so it's been played out by the time I hit 2.35. The unique position of Baktria, it's need for colonists (that it can't provide on it's own,) pitting a pseudoHellenic roster versus a mostly nomadic roster, a unique Indian enemy close by, as well as the unique traits you can gain from India make Baktria a distinctive campaign. However the public order issues, nomadic warfare, and having your roster watered down between elite horsemen, light infantry, and a smattering of heavy infantry might prove taxing. They also lack several of the unique mechanics of a Seleukid playthrough, as well as lacking unique descriptions for their governments.


    Boioi Playthrough I: 912 Turns

    Now this is the big one. A challenging starting position, challenging nemeses in the Sweboz and SPQR that you can take a long term approach to, and having plenty of options to expand; while still being challenged by mediocre income of your starting regions and lack of armor in your immediate roster. The colonies add a dimension of larger strategy and empire building, and grant the Boioi the ability to bolster their roster beyond what the other Keltoi are capable of. Expansion into italy, Gaul, Thrake, and Galatia each bring in unique regionals and tribes into the Confederation. It is also in this playthrough that I've managed to create what is essentially an assembly line for FMs competent in warfare and governance, see my Faction Difficulty Rating (bottom half of the Campaign Section) for more.


    Boioi Playthrough II: 227 Turns

    Just figured I'd give the Boioi another spin. Ultimately I put enough time into the Boioi that another mega playthrough doesn't appeal to me (especially since I still have worthy foes to fight in Playthrough I.)


    Epeiros Migration\Syrakousai: 151 Turns

    In terms of started campaigns Epeiros might take the cake, but it doesn't qualify for most played as I usually use it to tinker around with tactics and strategy. Nor have I ever taken an Epeiros playthrough very far after Pyrrhos' death. In this case I've decided to take my tinkering to another level and RP as the Polis of Syrakousai, electing to merge it's current dynasteia with the Aiakids and forge a Koinon of the Poleis of the Western Mediterranean (never mind that in gameplay I brutally murdered Hiero and plopped Pyrrhos' heir in the Syrakousai.) Alas, maritime empires are more frustrating to forge than land empires in Total War, and it went a bit off the rails with Qarthadast losing all of Africa to the Massylians early on.


    Hayastan Playthrough I: 573 Turns

    Another one of the big ones. Hayastan has a unique position on the world map and roster balance. They also have more breathing space than other factions thanks to having positive income despite being a small faction relative to the other positive incomers. One of the driving goals I had that extended the lifespan of this playthrough was one of those "mythical homecoming" narratives similar to the Romans claiming Trojan heritage. This led me to expand into Baktria once the Seleukids fell, and brought me into further conflict with the easternmost factions of EBII. However, Hayastan receives no traits or AOR in Baktria, which makes sense, but is disappointing nonetheless. And it obviously did me no favors when Taksashila pressed their claim to the region.


    Hayastan Playthrough II: 158 Turns

    Hayastan but the speedrun version. Same reasoning for Boioi Playthrough II.


    Kimmeros Bosporos: 179 Turns

    Don't let the amount of turns here fool you, I've barely put the same amount of time and focus in this playthrough compared to the others. I struck an alliance early with the Sauromatae, and as a result I haven't had any wars with the big factions. I spent the entire time squatting on my corner of the Black Sea and building my poleis into worthy metropoli, it petered out due to a lack of action. May pick it back up if 2.4 is far off and I get another rush of spare time again.


    Koinon Hellenon: 221 Turns

    I have my bones to pick with KH, and the big upside of their tendency to become annoyingly powerful pre 2.35 is that I get to stomp them back into the dust. Nonetheless it's clear that Old Hellas has a plethora of historical evidence available for them, which can be seen by some of the most elaborate scripting in game with the Archon system, the Koinon reforms, and the various economic events which can morph KH's initial small holdings into an economic powerhouse. Between the various Hellenistic factions in the Eastern Mediterranean, KH is unique in their *lack* of factional elite heavy cavalry and don't start with doomstacks like Epeiros and Makedon. So their start is fairly unique. Revolts provide opportunity for expansion in Western Anatolia. I usually bail out when I dominate my corner of the world.


    Makedon Playthrough I: 371 Turns

    The Antigonides have a more challenging start then you would think, the disadvantages they have compared to Epeiros and KH and the amount of money you need to spend to rectify it might lead one to ragequit instead of seeing the campaign through. Some of their unique mechanics are interesting, such as the Loyal Antigonides trait and automatically renaming Antiocheia into Antigoneia once it is reclaimed, but they mostly put the player at a disadvantage. Once I seized Antigoneia, I waited around for the Thorakitai reforms, but they seemed to bug out, so that was the end of the playthrough.


    Makedon Playthrough II: 194 Turns

    It seems I really wanted to see those Makedon Thorakitai.


    Qarthadast: 368 Turns

    Hm...I should really get around to writing up Qarthadast in the Faction Difficulty Rating thread. Anyways, Qarthadast is one of the few starts where you are earning money instead of losing it out of the gate, but the issues of maritime empire will make themselves clear soon enough. You're surrounded by powder kegs on Africa, Sicily, and Iberia. SPQR is also seriously hankering for Sardim and Korsim. You also have to deal with an election system and a stricter version of Imperium, where the general suffers several penalties if they're not approved of by the army. Unlike SPQR, you're obligated to make extensive use of navies from the start, which adds to micromanagement. However, you do get rewarded sooner as the Qarthadastim are more suited to colonization. I had already achieved a 50 region empire by that time, compare this to my Makedon or Pergamon playthrough which is half that size. I suppose my biggest reason for bailing out is that expanding eastward seemed too inconvenient, the isle of Krete (which I viewed as an important stepping stone) became a ridiculous dogpile of stacks that would have been a slog to deal with.


    Pahlava: 316 Turns

    Another quick-progressing playthrough, I had also reached the 50-region empire in 300 or so turns. Thanks to the limitations of M2TW, it's essentially a matter of memory or going out of your way to record which lands belong to which clan, and this is an important element of the Pahlava faction. This dramatically shortened the lifespan of the playthrough, and I found getting the Indo-Parthian reform to be a bit inconsistent as well.


    Pergamon: 329 Turns

    Pergamon was one of those playthroughs where I built "Tall" and not "Wide," choosing to focus on city building at the 20 region empire mark, not the 50 that I usually do. This is also the playthrough where I was the first to construct a Huge City. It seems like I quit this one because I had other prospects and I was also faced with yet another fight with Arche Seleukeia, which was starting to get old.


    Pontos: 508 Turns

    Pontos is one of the more intricate playthroughs thanks to their unique take on Philhellenism and reforms adding the Satrapy and Hypobasileia. Nonetheless once I hit the reform I felt like I had already mastered the faction and was close to becoming the most powerful entity on the map.


    Seleukeia: 124 Turns

    But the age old adage "conquering an empire is easy, ruling it is hard" applies here.

    SPQR: 643 Turns

    Were I not able to take the SPQR playthrough easy, I might not have taken this campaign as far as I did. I also wanted to see the Marian-period Provincial Colonies, but as it turned out the amount of soldiers they offered were pretty small. By the time I ended the SPQR campaign I had taken on most of what Europa and the Mare Nostrum had to offer.


    Sweboz: 768 Turns

    Not much to say here. I wanted to see what the reformed Sweboz roster looked like, but by the time I reached it I had burnt out on the playthrough.


    Taksashila: 355 Turns

    While Taksashila is an interesting change of pace (especially the caste system and religious system,) the lack of descriptions and difficulties in getting the Cavalry Reform to trigger ultimately sank this elephant.

  3. #3
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar I am your sovereign now
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    14,489

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    While I think reforms could be triggered slightly earlier than at present, let's not get too ahistorical here, please. If you play as the Romans, you shouldn't be able to jump from the Polybian reforms straight into the Marian reforms within a decade of the Second Punic War ending. As a Hellenistic faction, maybe deliberately slow down your conquests until the Thorakitai reforms 200 turns into the game?

    Or better yet, if people want to play the game with these reforms already in place, someone should make a submod that begins around 168 BC instead of 272 BC. That way you can still play as a Hellenistic faction while Rome was just on the verge of conquering the Kingdom of Makedonia in northern Greece and the independent but admittedly weakened city-state of Carthage still exists in North Africa. I think 146 BC would be far too late, the year Rome destroyed both Carthage and Corinth, cementing its power in the Mediterranean. Then again some SPQR faction fans might love that as a starting date.

    Average duration of campaign:
    ~750 turns
    I am not like most players. I actually do enjoy playing long campaigns that stretch into the early 1st century BC. The only reason I stopped playing a Makedonia campaign at around 500 turns earlier this year was because I was itching to play a Gondor campaign for the MOS of TATW. I ended up playing a 475 turn campaign for that submod before returning to EBII and begin a new Koinon Hellenon campaign.

    Exceptions
    SPQR, 1000 turns
    I literally played as the Romani for 1000 turns last year, something I had never done previously for any other faction. Since the Marian reforms kick in at such a late date, I deliberately did a very slow conquest of the Western Mediterranean and Western Europe until the second half of the 2nd century BC. When the reforms kicked in around 600 turns into the game, I went into full gear steamrolling the massive Seleucid Empire that had already taken over most of the eastern portion of the campaign map. I played until 1000 turns just to say that I achieved what most other players had not. By then I was already in control of the entirety of the British Isles, turning the Pritanoi of Northern Ireland into a client state vassal, and had conquered most of Germania. For the last 150 turns or so I was simply playing minor defensive sieges and border skirmishes against the Lougiones who controlled northeastern Europe.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Turn 1000.jpg  

  4. #4

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    Wow BailianSteel, your commitment blows mine's out of the water. I like your quote on how managing an empire is harder than conquering one. How you managed to manage an empire to the tune of 600+ turns is beyond me. I'm guessing that my focus is just really bad and that most people can get hundreds of hours from each campaign.

  5. #5

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    @Roma_Victrix I definitely agree that spending a few dozen turns cultivating the empire and family members is a good way to pass the time while waiting for reforms. However, if doing that for the Numidian Reforms has taught me anything, it's that it's dreadfully boring yet stressful at the same time. Clicking End Turn nonstop while praying that the Carthaginians do not backstab me until turn 140 (the scripted earthquake at Sigan does not help) was not a fun experience. Yeah, if I ever have the free time I would script and test a submod that lax the reform requirements.

    Looks like I'm in the minority of players' dedication to a campaign. I barely ever reach the Thorakitai Reforms in my campaigns, yet most other people still find enjoyment in this mod without being motivated by future reforms. I'll try to spice things up a bit in the future...

  6. #6

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Or better yet, if people want to play the game with these reforms already in place, someone should make a submod that begins around 168 BC instead of 272 BC. That way you can still play as a Hellenistic faction while Rome was just on the verge of conquering the Kingdom of Makedonia in northern Greece and the independent but admittedly weakened city-state of Carthage still exists in North Africa. I think 146 BC would be far too late, the year Rome destroyed both Carthage and Corinth, cementing its power in the Mediterranean. Then again some SPQR faction fans might love that as a starting date.
    Hell, I'm down for trying to survive as 3rd Punic War-era Qarthadast or Koinon Akhaion. CA has a bad habit of trying to make every Faction's start as similar as possible, regardless of how little sense that makes. Made TW Troy age like milk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shoebopp View Post
    Wow BailianSteel, your commitment blows mine's out of the water. I like your quote on how managing an empire is harder than conquering one. How you managed to manage an empire to the tune of 600+ turns is beyond me. I'm guessing that my focus is just really bad and that most people can get hundreds of hours from each campaign.
    Haha, I guess I do like to play hard. And I wouldn't sell your experience short, it looks like you've played more of the EBII nomadic experience than I have. The only real nomadic campaign I have under my belt is a Saka Rauka one, that I played for only 20 turns and got that far because of cheating.

    I'd say my Pokemon Syndrome also plays a role in my commitment to empire management. I like conquering important cities and building them up to spec. While I figure the cult buildings are more representative than literal once you get far away from the zone of your starting culture, I still prefer to have a variety of temples throughout the empires I build.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shoebopp View Post
    Looks like I'm in the minority of players' dedication to a campaign. I barely ever reach the Thorakitai Reforms in my campaigns, yet most other people still find enjoyment in this mod without being motivated by future reforms. I'll try to spice things up a bit in the future...
    IIRC, some of QuintusSertorius' comments indicate that your position is closer to the majority.

  7. #7
    Antiokhos Euergetes's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Antiokheia
    Posts
    3,583

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    I do not tire of a campaign. I may for one reason or another get distracted, yet I will return to one of only several campaigns. If for again any reason they are lost due to unforeseen circumstances. Well, that is okay. Because, rather like the Iliad and a good bottle of wine, these campaigns are beloved and set in my mind. So I can recall the story and start the campaign fresh with just as much enthusiasm.

  8. #8

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    I typically play up to 400 - 500 turns. This is a tonne of time, because I play every battle. I agree that the latter part of the game turns boring. I think this is because the ultimate objective is a simple landgrab - which is no fault of EB.

    Recently, I've been playing an old 2004 game - Knights of Honor. In many ways I wish they had the TW engine for the battles. It is quite engaging. What makes KoH interesting for me is that the army leaders are limited in number (max. 9) As a result, it is difficult to achieve a snowball effect, and you must think how much provinces each general can control effectively.

    In addition, the King and his family may not have children. With no direct heir, if public order is not super high, the empire splits into several principalities. When I experienced this the first time, I was so shocked I was keen to calling the game developers to complain!

    In order to win in KoH, you need at least one large vassal to vote for you in an election of an Emperor.

    I think that to make MTW 2 a more engaging game you need the following: huge improvement in diplomacy, limit on the number of generals, and an ultimate objective which goes beyond an arbitrary province count. An empire breakup can also bring up the adrenalin along the way. And a battle AI which can actually win against the human player on any level of difficulty.

    I am really puzzled by the poor quality of TW AI. In an era where AI is predicted to eliminate millions of jobs and performs quite complicated tasks, their AI is tragically lame.

  9. #9
    Grimmy's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Where I'm at.
    Posts
    785

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    That's almost as hard to answer as the question "how many licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop"

  10. #10

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by nickygg View Post
    I think that to make MTW 2 a more engaging game you need the following: huge improvement in diplomacy, limit on the number of generals, and an ultimate objective which goes beyond an arbitrary province count. An empire breakup can also bring up the adrenalin along the way. And a battle AI which can actually win against the human player on any level of difficulty.
    Those are great suggestions for extending the enjoyment of a campaign. The problem is the amount of time and effort it would take to write faction-specific scripts that add spice to a campaign. To address your suggestions specifically:

    1. Most of diplomacy is hard-coded unfortunately - the modders can only adjust some variables
    2. There is an agent limit feature in the campaign - perhaps there could be one for family members as well?
    3. These "ultimate objectives" could be script related. The EBII team has already simulated some interesting scenarios through scripts. Let's take the Ptolemaic Empire for one: the Ptolemaic player can restore a Spartan king back to power if Pyrrhus takes Sparta, or try to maintain Syracusan independence should the Carthaginians intrude. Making those two missions required (along with fallbacks if the player initially fails) would make for an interesting campaign. Borrowing from these two missions, perhaps future objectives could be restoring the ownership of faction-owned provinces back to their original owners or maintaining the independence of certain rebel provinces. This is hard to script and test though
    4. Roma Surrectum II has the SPQR faction experience a HUGE empire breakup deep into the game. Few players had managed to claw their way back into supremacy after losing their most valuable provinces and armies. This would be an excellent "final boss" - the infrastructure and military you've built up will now be used against you - could you prevail against the ultimate challenge? From the top of my head I'm guessing that this script is generic enough to be added easily

  11. #11
    Lusitanio's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,474

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shoebopp View Post
    4. Roma Surrectum II has the SPQR faction experience a HUGE empire breakup deep into the game. Few players had managed to claw their way back into supremacy after losing their most valuable provinces and armies. This would be an excellent "final boss" - the infrastructure and military you've built up will now be used against you - could you prevail against the ultimate challenge? From the top of my head I'm guessing that this script is generic enough to be added easily
    The empire breakup feature was awesome in RSII. Honestly, it's one of the campagins I will never forget. Had soo much fun in it. Half my empire lost including Italy, Greece, Africa and parts of Hispania. Had to fight my way against equally hard armies (and some of those armies were commanded by my previous once great generals).
    However, in RSII they used a faction slot for that, which is something that we simply cannot afford in EBII. The closest we can do is doing a rebellion with lots of rebel armies and some re-emerging factions. For example, some months ago I tested a Carthaginian civil war and lost around half my provinces + the Romans re-emerged and had lots of rebel armies to fight. This is the closest we can get.

  12. #12

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitanio View Post
    The closest we can do is doing a rebellion with lots of rebel armies and some re-emerging factions. For example, some months ago I tested a Carthaginian civil war and lost around half my provinces + the Romans re-emerged and had lots of rebel armies to fight. This is the closest we can get.
    I think that what you describe could be an elegant solution. For example, if a player with Baktria has wiped the Saka and taken over all their homeland provinces, in an event of breakup the Saka faction can reemerge with full control of its entire homeland. Retaking these provinces and wiping them again would be quite a challenge. Especially if during this breakup some core Baktrian provinces have rebelled as well. Besides, doing so is part of the original victory objective.

    One additional thing, though, in my opinion the breakup should not be fixed to a date but to certain conditions that the player should have the opportunity to manage and avoid - so that the breakup is not 100% certain, but rather a possibility. As Shoebop described his Numidian experience in a previous post, even the most boring part of the game could be unnerving if you are not sure what will happen when you press End Turn.

  13. #13

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shoebopp View Post
    I'd like to generate discussion on how long it takes for a campaign to stop being enjoyable. This has consequences on gameplay experience if certain game mechanics take too long to achieve. Oftentimes (I speak for myself, but I suspect this may be the same for everyone else) I look forward to reforms and scripted events and enjoy a fun campaign trying to reach them, but should they take too long by the time they have happened the campaign has become a slog.

    I have to admit, I've been playing the game in a spate recently, and it's usually somewhere between 70-120 turns. For me, it's less about the micromanaging and more about the momentum. Once I get too strong to stop, and I know my empire is too big and strong to stop, then I start to lose interest. Ironically, I don't really look forward to the reform events all that much. Hell, my last Rome playthrough I conquered huge areas by turn 110, and that was never declaring war on anyone unless an ally asked me to (which happened a grand total of once). If I can crush everyone before me with the Camillian legions, who really cares about the Polybian ones, let alone the Marian ones?

    I suppose I could try one of the tiny little factions, but I have a suspicion it'll be the same thing, just with a longer lead-up time before I reach critical mass. Also, a lot of the tiny factions are barbarians, and I admit, I don't have a lot of patience with the whole kingetoi system. Goddamnit, I'm confident of my ability to crush the computer on the field of battle in any event, I want bureaucrats, not warriors.

  14. #14
    Lusitanio's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,474

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by nickygg View Post
    One additional thing, though, in my opinion the breakup should not be fixed to a date but to certain conditions that the player should have the opportunity to manage and avoid - so that the breakup is not 100% certain, but rather a possibility. As Shoebop described his Numidian experience in a previous post, even the most boring part of the game could be unnerving if you are not sure what will happen when you press End Turn.
    One of the best features about the next release is that horde factions will now have also chances of re-emerging. Which means that even if you already destroyed them, they might very well appear again if the time is right x)

  15. #15

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitanio View Post
    The empire breakup feature was awesome in RSII. Honestly, it's one of the campagins I will never forget. Had soo much fun in it. Half my empire lost including Italy, Greece, Africa and parts of Hispania. Had to fight my way against equally hard armies (and some of those armies were commanded by my previous once great generals).
    However, in RSII they used a faction slot for that, which is something that we simply cannot afford in EBII. The closest we can do is doing a rebellion with lots of rebel armies and some re-emerging factions. For example, some months ago I tested a Carthaginian civil war and lost around half my provinces + the Romans re-emerged and had lots of rebel armies to fight. This is the closest we can get.
    I think that the Empire Break-up feature could be triggered by a combination of factors which are managed by the player. Here are some ideas:

    1. Could be triggered by having too few family members and too many provinces. For example, if the family members (not counting Allied Generals) manage fewer than 75% of the province count. Such a trigger could keep the player from expanding too quickly.

    2. Could be triggered by family members who are disloyal. For example, if half of the family members have loyalty of 3 or less. Such trigger may encourage the player to purge the family of undesireable characters. However, if too many are purged, then the "too few family members" trigger could be pulled... So, the player would have some stimulus to purge, but this may lead to limitation on expansion.

    Ideally, these two triggers could work together. As a result, the Break-up would depend on how the player expands the provinces and manages the family. It may be avoided altogether, but would require some work and attention. Besides, this sounds realistic.

    On a separate trait note - perhaps the Faction Leader can get a bad trait malus if a certain number of family members (excluding Allied Generals) die in battle or "accident at sea" over a certain period of time. It is a sign of bad leadership afterall Conversely, there could be a positive trait if the family increases in number over a certain period.

  16. #16

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    Around 220-200 bc i tend to lose interest but it mostly boils down on how i can make a story out of it because if i can't or lose interest i quit.

    And also managing my money to be less than 100.000 and keeping emergence faction city happy because they very easily can break my momentum in my campaign

  17. #17

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    IMO, there are several interesting opinions here. I wonder, if you would like to comment several suggestions to improve the late game and make the management of a big empire more fun. That said, take into account that we are working with a hardcoded engine, so the suggestions should be realistic, unfortuantely, we can't create a Victoria II-like game.
    Last edited by Trarco; February 05, 2021 at 04:55 AM.

  18. #18
    Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AEnima City, USA
    Posts
    1,594

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    I've been playing a Makedon campaign on and off for maybe three or four years now I think, at a good stopping point on turn 801, a nice round 200 years in at 72 B.C. Coincidentally, my 10 army invasion force just reached home ports on this very turn after conquering the british isles over the past few years (70+ enemy stacks, 50+ huge battles, it was glorious). The thing is, I'm still not convinced this campaign is over... there's a whole juicy EAST.


  19. #19
    Lusitanio's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,474

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    I'm always amazed at how far you guys can go on your campaigns. That's true commitment right there. And yes, there are a lot of juicy targets in the east, I don't even understand why you didn't conquer it, you're Alexander heir, get his Empire back!

  20. #20
    Razor's Avatar Licenced to insult
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Deventer, The Netherlands
    Posts
    4,006

    Default Re: How many turns of a campaign do you play before you lose interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shoebopp View Post
    Those are great suggestions for extending the enjoyment of a campaign. The problem is the amount of time and effort it would take to write faction-specific scripts that add spice to a campaign. To address your suggestions specifically:

    1. Most of diplomacy is hard-coded unfortunately - the modders can only adjust some variables
    2. There is an agent limit feature in the campaign - perhaps there could be one for family members as well?
    3. These "ultimate objectives" could be script related. The EBII team has already simulated some interesting scenarios through scripts. Let's take the Ptolemaic Empire for one: the Ptolemaic player can restore a Spartan king back to power if Pyrrhus takes Sparta, or try to maintain Syracusan independence should the Carthaginians intrude. Making those two missions required (along with fallbacks if the player initially fails) would make for an interesting campaign. Borrowing from these two missions, perhaps future objectives could be restoring the ownership of faction-owned provinces back to their original owners or maintaining the independence of certain rebel provinces. This is hard to script and test though
    4. Roma Surrectum II has the SPQR faction experience a HUGE empire breakup deep into the game. Few players had managed to claw their way back into supremacy after losing their most valuable provinces and armies. This would be an excellent "final boss" - the infrastructure and military you've built up will now be used against you - could you prevail against the ultimate challenge? From the top of my head I'm guessing that this script is generic enough to be added easily
    Quote Originally Posted by Lusitanio View Post
    The empire breakup feature was awesome in RSII. Honestly, it's one of the campagins I will never forget. Had soo much fun in it. Half my empire lost including Italy, Greece, Africa and parts of Hispania. Had to fight my way against equally hard armies (and some of those armies were commanded by my previous once great generals).
    However, in RSII they used a faction slot for that, which is something that we simply cannot afford in EBII. The closest we can do is doing a rebellion with lots of rebel armies and some re-emerging factions. For example, some months ago I tested a Carthaginian civil war and lost around half my provinces + the Romans re-emerged and had lots of rebel armies to fight. This is the closest we can get.
    I must confess that I haven't played EB2 a whole lot (not quite my cup of tea), so I can't speak about EB2 specifically, but instead I will speak about M2TW (and mods) in general. I always keep on playing until it's pretty obvious I'm unbeatable, or until the game becomes a clownfest with full stacks all over the place, turning the campaign into a grind.

    What I feel is missing is what Shoebopp and Lusitanio and a number of others are saying: there's not really an endgame challenge and once you're powerful enough, you can basically steamroll your way to victory and in the worst case, you have to grind your way through countless numbers of stacks, because the map has been split between a handful of superfactions.
    I'm put off seeing a campaign like Dooz's where Macedon has an empire consisting of North Africa and all of Europe. Such an empire would (and IMO should) be inherently instable (because of: cultural/ethnic differences/identity, politics, geography and limitations of logistics and communication). Now, I don't mind something of a superfaction existing at some point, but once a faction-wide event occurs (for example, the current faction leader dies), it would be nice to see a drop in public order, break-up of its territory and dead factions re-emerging in regions that are not considered core territory of that faction. Empires such as the Roman Empire or the Seleucid empire suffered lots of break-ups and rebellions and the risk of new ones happening after overcoming previous ones was ever-existing.
    I know EB2 has implemented re-emerging factions, but to be honest I don't know to what extent and I have no clue if they prove to be an actual challenge.

    So in short: instead of factions being too big to fail, a system should be put in place where factions are too big to succeed. This way the player will always have be on edge and should never take the conquest of territory for granted (like: job done, remove from to-do list to achieve victory).
    Last edited by Razor; February 19, 2021 at 01:01 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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