palmtree
12-09-2008, 12:59
One part of EB that I was a bit disappointed by was the victory conditions, in particular the "destroy or outlast..." ones. The conquer and raid conditions seem to do a good job of representing victory conditions for a faction while the destroy condition can get plain bizarre.
For instance, why would the Lusotannans care about destroying the SPQR down to every last province, be it in Greece, Egypt or wherever. Or why would the Baktrians feel the need to send armies out in the plains to wipe out every last Saka horse nomad?
Considering the unpredictable nature of how other factions expand, the destroy condition can really drag out a game for much longer than necessary and I am hoping you would be a bit more restrictive with it in EB 2. This doesn't mean that I think "destroy or outlast..." is useless. It has it's place. Rome vs Carthage, Macedons vs Epeiros vs Greek cities, or Aedui vs Arverni comes to mind. But in general I'd much rather see a focus on territorial and economical ambitions, represented by provinces and raiding, than on quasi-genocidal focus on dominance.
For instance, why would the Lusotannans care about destroying the SPQR down to every last province, be it in Greece, Egypt or wherever. Or why would the Baktrians feel the need to send armies out in the plains to wipe out every last Saka horse nomad?
Considering the unpredictable nature of how other factions expand, the destroy condition can really drag out a game for much longer than necessary and I am hoping you would be a bit more restrictive with it in EB 2. This doesn't mean that I think "destroy or outlast..." is useless. It has it's place. Rome vs Carthage, Macedons vs Epeiros vs Greek cities, or Aedui vs Arverni comes to mind. But in general I'd much rather see a focus on territorial and economical ambitions, represented by provinces and raiding, than on quasi-genocidal focus on dominance.