How to make the game more interesting

[salemty]

hi everyone, ive been playing RTW for about 2 years and M2TW for about 1 year and in all that time i have NEVER, EVER COMPLETED A LONG CAMPAIGN. i always seem to get really bored after ive got about 12 provinces and just can't continue playing no matter how much i try to. anyone got some tips or advice to help me keep the campaign interesting.

[coldpolar]

you have the same issues as me where you draw most of ur excitement from the initial birth of the empire and when it get to a certain size you lose interest- maybe even start to plot how another fledgling kingdom could rise? one way i've staved it off is to set a grand objective- so if everything is calm at home gather 3 or 4 elite armies and fleets and head for the holy land to become the ultimate crusader -sounds like you could be on gladiators after that! anyhoo u could style yourself the defender of the free world against the mongols nothing sweeter than reviving the french market for horse meat! :whip:

[part_time_player]

Do you play any mods? There are several which keep the core gameplay intact but update it just enough to refresh the whole experience and provide a new challenge or even new factions etc.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Go and try to conquer all capitals in the worls. It will be tricky one becuase after you conquer one another will become capital. :clown:

Or just head to Holy land and create your Empire there.
If playing muslims then head to Scotland and form an Empire there.

:clown:

[PBI]

TBH I've found that this phenomenon of the challenge and interest decreasing rapidly as you expand your empire to be a problem stretching right back to Shogun, and in fact pretty much every strategy game I've played since the original Civ. I guess it's a Catch 22; the game is most fun when your back is against the wall, whereas when you are stronger than your opponent it always feels like you won through simple brute force. But playing the game successfully inevitably leads to a situation where you are stronger than your opponent. Unfortunately I suspect this is a problem fundamental to the very nature of strategy games. There are a few things you could try though to spice up the late game a bit.

When waging an aggressive war against a weaker neighbour, I quite often try, rather than sending my entire overwhelming force against them, sending only one powerful stack to attempt to take their cities one by one. This can get quite tricky, facing off against similar sized or larger forces and assaulting well defended settlements but needing to not only win but keep your force mostly intact in order to continue the campaign. It also has a bit more of a narrative campaign feel to it rather than taking every city on the first turn with a separate stack, which feels like a massacre rather than a war.

Here's another idea I'm considering trying but haven't gotten around to yet; if your empire expands more or less radially, one of the reasons why a large empire is so vastly strong compared to a small one is that there is a big economy of scale in it's defense: To defend it efficiently, you only need to garrison the settlements on the circumference, but all the cities in the empire are producing money, so a large empire will be able to defend at a much lower cost per city. In short, the financial output of your empire increases at least as the square of the radius, while the cost to defend it increases only linearly.

My idea would be to expand your empire in such as way that every province would need to be defended. The way to do this would be by only taking provinces which do not already border one of your existing provinces; for instance, if you hold Nottingham, then London, Caernarvon and York would all be off limits, but Edinburgh would be fair game. Thus you would end up with a patchwork of isolated provinces, each responsible for its own defense. You could expand to acquire quite a large empire this way, but it would be a large empire without all the economies of scale that normally make large empires so overwhelmingly strong; all of the cities would need a proper garrison, there would be no "safe" hinterland that could be left with minimal defence; it would be impossible to maintain a strategic reserve to ferry to hotspots due to their isolation; expanding cheaply would be hard since it would be impossible to do so without leaving undefended borders, and it would be difficult to specialise settlements as "cash cow", "cavalry training center", "siege weapon factory" etc since every settlement would need to be an all-rounder to some extent.

Plus, it would bring all whole host of extra challenges; your income would be almost entirely dependent on trade with foreign factions, meaning good diplomatic relations would become an actual necessity rather than a luxury. Also, sharing so many borders with so many factions would be pretty much an enticement for everyone to attack you sooner rather than later.

I'm still trying to think of a snazzy name for this campaign, maybe "the Patchwork Campaign" or perhaps "the Four-Colour Campaign" in honour of the related mathematical problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem)

[HopAlongBunny]

Nothing wrong with playing 'til you reach your limit.

I forced myself to finish a Grand Campaign with each faction in RTW; just to do it. Now I play 'til the tedium of managing my "empire" is greater than my enjoyment from expanding it. Not needing to sack my own cities from time to time is certainly an improvement in M2 over RTW:balloon2:

Note: I have yet to try any of the major mods for either game (I do use FactionHeir's tweak with VanillaMod); hmmm, given that I like Vanilla better than the unmodded game maybe the road to happiness lies in a more drastic revamp:idea2:

[Mount Suribachi]

1) See the Ironman thread.

2) Set your faction a goal - Playing as HRE? Try to recreate the Roman Empire. Playing as a Muslim? Try and unite the Islamic world under your rule. Playing as the Mongols? Try to get to Paris and settle there.