Bi Fans Look Here! I Have A Question!

[Emperor Aurelius]

I have not got BI yet. However, I was kinda disappointed when i saw how much fewer provinces there are!

I have 2 questions:

1)does this factor make the game less fun to play or does it enhance it?

2)is anyone going to make any mods to bring back many of the old provinces or is it not worth it?

[Azi Tohak]

Anyway... to answer your questions:

1. That depends on how you look at it. Less money for the area, but also fewer garrisons. Should be more field battles, and to an extent there are, which is always more fun than sieges. Personally, the jury is still out for me.

2. Yup! I'm sure someone is going to mod it to add lots more provinces. Just have to wait a while.

Azi

[TinCow]

Fewer provinces is required for hordes to work properly. If there were more towns, the hordes would be slowly whittled away into nothing and their domino effect on other factions would not occur.

[Dorkus]

Let me second azi's comments. Fewer cities is definitely a good thing.

The siege AI is absolutely terrible (on both sides). And the game's pathfinding in cities, especially in the city square is incredibly aggravating.

[Bob the Insane]

It is odd...

I too miss having more provinces, but it appears that the AI is more directed with less settlements about... It also makes for more room for battles and it makes sieges pivitol events in a campaign...

I am not sure how well the hordes would work with more settlements...

But I am sure the modders will put out a more populated map soon...

[Grifman]

The number of provinces is fine - I really don't understand this obsession with uber number of provinces. More provinces can be a problem if the AI can't effectively deal with them, and I think the RTR mod went way overboard and added too many crammed in cities. BI is fine - the number of cities or lack there of is not an issue.

[Prodigal]

The only "bore" about lower prov's for me is that you have to trapse halfway over a province to kill the 2 revolting peasants. On the plus side, ambushes ~:)

[Garvanko]

. On the plus side, ambushes ~:)
And bridge battles.

I think the balance in BI is fine.

[dismal]

I'm pretty neutral on more versus less provinces. I think I'd say less is better bcause you can end the game earlier and still feel like you've conquered a big chunk of the world.

What I really miss is the lack of "strategically meaningful" provinces. In MTW your war plans would often revolve around capturing a certain province because it had iron, improved your border, or vastly improved your trade network. (Civ 3 also had this feature - you'd launch wars for oil or saltpeter because they were prerequisites for key units)

In vanilla RTW you sometimes went to war for wonders (Rhodes, principally) but mostly province value is just differences of degree.

[manbaps]

AI cant handle maps with lots of provinces its just gets confused in BI the AI is actually a mild challenge at times, taking more than 1 turn to get to a settlement is well good cus the AI, intentionally or unintentionally, sets more abushes cus its stops in the field and you can also initiate more field battles cus the AI has armies out of cities.

[Herakleitos]

What I really miss is the lack of "strategically meaningful" provinces. In MTW your war plans would often revolve around capturing a certain province because it had iron, improved your border, or vastly improved your trade network. (Civ 3 also had this feature - you'd launch wars for oil or saltpeter because they were prerequisites for key units)


I totally agree with you, I also miss the fact that provinces provide specific units with +1 experience or that certain units can be trained in a few provinces only...

[Captain Fishpants]

I have not got BI yet. However, I was kinda disappointed when i saw how much fewer provinces there are!

I have 2 questions:

1)does this factor make the game less fun to play or does it enhance it?

2)is anyone going to make any mods to bring back many of the old provinces or is it not worth it?

There's a common belief that 'more' equates directly to 'better', and that's not necessarily the case. In BI few means that each province becomes more strategically valuable. The game actually moves at a faster stategic pace thanks to the lower province count. Battles and sieges then become pivotal, rather than just another stepping stone to victory. Give it a try - you might just enjoy yourself. ~:)

I can't comment on question 2, for obvious reasons. However, the main campaign game has been balanced for fewer provinces, so modders will have to take care not to cause unintended effects should they start adding too many provinces.


I totally agree with you, I also miss the fact that provinces provide specific units with +1 experience or that certain units can be trained in a few provinces only...

Then you've missed the fact that some units are regionally recruited in BI, such as the Sughdians. And that some temples grant experience bonuses to troops trained in the same settlement.

[Slug For A Butt]

Fair points FP. Oh, BTW how weird is it that my cat is called HRH Fish the 3rd and my nickname for her is Fishpants? Hmm.... blatant cat plagiarism. See you in court CA. :charge:

[Kekvit Irae]

And that some temples grant experience bonuses to troops trained in the same settlement.

But you can build those temples everywhere. The uniqueness of a province for training units (in comparison to MTW) is lost. The only exception would be when you capture a province with a temple you could not build normally (though 95% of the time you will tear it down for something better).

[SigniferOne]

But you can also make buildings only buildable with certain hidden resources are in the area, thus effectively completing all the necessary requirements for a true regional recruitment.

Or having one building train different units, depending on the hidden resources available in the area. Same thing.

[lars573]

But you can build those temples everywhere. The uniqueness of a province for training units (in comparison to MTW) is lost. The only exception would be when you capture a province with a temple you could not build normally (though 95% of the time you will tear it down for something better).
Tying experience/morale bonuses to a province in STW and MTW was annoying, I never liked it. Dooling it out via temples is the way to go.

[AntiochusIII]

Tying experience/morale bonuses to a province in STW and MTW was annoying, I never liked it. Dooling it out via temples is the way to go.I rather liked the old system. It is more historically accurate, and, strangely, perhaps a psychological effect, "that" great province of "great +1 exp unit" (which actually isn't that much better from the ordinary ones) really makes me feel proud everytime I capture it. I guess the names of Venice, Constantinople, and Antioch make those provinces naturally attractive, but how can you explain the "attracting" effect this old system had in Shogun, where most people had no clue about which castles were supposed to be great or not, but the effective valour bonus system?

BI truly needs smaller provinces; the hordes wouldn't be half as powerful in the vanilla map; even though I prefer the RTR-style number of provinces myself.

Oh, and great game, CA. :bow:

But I suggest you bring back the critically acclaimed Glorious Achievements mode, and some other cool features lost from MTW in transition to the new engine, into your next Total War game, whatever that be.

[HoreTore]

I second that.

The glorius achievements were real fun, and it made for some pretty fun and challenging games(like frantically trying to capture a province before the time is up).

I also loved the exp bonuses tied to specific regions, though there's something I loved more: units only recruitable in a certain province. It made the game much more "real" to only be able to train for example Bulgarian Brigades in bulgaria, instead of being able to train them all over the place, and it made certain provinces really valuable, even if it wasn't worth anything financially.