View Full Version : Crazy long Campaign requirements
lancelot
11-23-2006, 22:17
45 regions for the UK????? Er...what?
I have to say, this is completely ridiculous...granted it might be do-able in game terms (although I have to say I am one of those players who likes to expand my empire to the size it roughly was and fight with the resources that allows...mostly) but 45?!?
45 regions in MTW2 terms is probably larger than the 3rd Reich! Cmon CA...a teeny tiny bit of realism here would not go amiss.
Im certainly not a player who goes for a mad territorial land grab every game but this is what these requirements suggest. This also betrays quite a shocking mis-interpretation as to what the medieval period was 'all about'
I think this needs to be toned down a bit- and yes I know there is the short campaign- but I think this points to one glaring fact...this game needs Glorious achievements!!!
This offers much more in terms of the realistic desires of each nation in the game. This allows those smaller power to win 'in their own way'
Thank you. Opinions if youve got em...
Mailman653
11-23-2006, 22:28
Papal states require 100, in short campaign I think its 80. Pshh.....short of unleashing a blitzkrieg on Europe from Rome which is absurde, I think those requirements do seem a little ambitious, though perhaps not entirely out of the question for a really motivated player.
It can be modded though, I forgot what the file was called but I saw it last night so it's possible to tone down the #'s.
Yes, the massive land requirements of both RTW and M2TW have been a let down. I miss the glorious achievements victories. That made MTW so incredibly replayable. It even made the AI react so much differently. Being able to carve a victory your own way was one of the things that made TW great, you could expand, you could crusade, you could establish a strong home. All lead to victory, each lead to a very different game.
Yes, its not like the whole point of the series is to conquer the world or anything. Or the fact its called the Total War series.
I do not think CA have even vaguley pretended that the victory conditions are realistic, becasue they are not. And that is because you are doing a very unrealistic thing, and personally i love it.
Yes, its not like the whole point of the series is to conquer the world or anything. Or the fact its called the Total War series.
I do not think CA have even vaguley pretended that the victory conditions are realistic, becasue they are not. And that is because you are doing a very unrealistic thing, and personally i love it.
agreed!
I have some sympathy with Lancelot - the MT2TW victory conditions are rather generic and exhausting. After seeing the varied conditions in BI, I thought CA could have made the M2TW ones more GAish - more limited and faction specific.
I also hoped the missions might substitute for GAs but they don't. They are very incremental and short term - take that neighbouring town etc. I love the missions. But they are not generally the long term objectives that would shape your whole game
However, we can't protest too much - by and large, the MTW GAs were not that great, except for some early Catholic factions. But they did offer an opportunity that has not been followed through.
45 provinces + Jerusalem sounds broadly ok for a challenging game, though. I am on turn 90, VH/VH England and have only about half the required number of provinces, and have not set foot on the Holy Land. I've read of some people ending the campaign without managing to meet their goals, which is good IMO.
lancelot
11-24-2006, 02:08
Yes, its not like the whole point of the series is to conquer the world or anything. Or the fact its called the Total War series.
I do not think CA have even vaguley pretended that the victory conditions are realistic, becasue they are not. And that is because you are doing a very unrealistic thing, and personally i love it.
What a completely trite response to a real issue I have with the game...
Let me respond in kind...Conquer the whole world...world map is it?...off to geography class for you...
And more to the point, the requirement is conquer 45 regions, which isnt even the whole map, let alone world...did you even think about your response before you typed it?
Second, do you even know what the term 'total war' really represents? Coz it sounds like you dont. So off you go and google it...
Geez Lancelot, you need to kick back and do some Yoga or something.
Lusted has a point, and so do you. The game is unrealistic even if it was only about taking twenty regions for nations like poland or denmark. On the other hand, it's this taste of "what if" that gives the game a great flavor, and that has probably made it such a big success.
If you find that you can't act like an adult on the forum, refrain from clicking the POST button.
Zenicetus
11-24-2006, 05:53
My $.02... I'm okay with the campaign goals, given the nature of the game. The high number of provinces is probably aimed at establishing a clear winner by the end of time period CA wanted to cover. If the number were lower... like capturing 20 provinces or something... then it would be easier for the AI to win a victory condition before you ever saw the the Mongol event, the New World opening up, gunpowder, etc. A higher number of provinces also reduces the chance that two players (AI or human) would both hit the victory condition on the same turn.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing some alternative campaign goals, but I'm not sure it would change the feel of the game that much. For example, it would be fun if we could have the equivalent of a Tech Victory in GalCiv2... building up universities and research until we get a Newton or Galileo event, and then win the game that way. But you'd still need a large stable empire to divert that much money to research, inevitably involving warfare and territorial expansion. And you'd have to make sure you prevented AI factions from reaching the "normal" province number goal at the same time. So would the game really feel that different?
Glorious Achievements would have been nice. I mean really, what were the chances of Scotland or Hungary conquering all of Europe. Nothing against Scots or Hungarians, just a historical example.
Then again, what do I know.
What chance did city-states or tiny realms such as Rome, Macedon, of building empires? Slim, but it did happen, so it could have happened elsewhere. It's all a matter of having the right people, and Alexanders or Attilas don't grow on trees.
In TW series, that legendary conqueror happens to be YOU, so it all depends if you have the what it takes to pull it through.
By the way, did no one notice there happens to be a short campaign with faction specific objectives? Doesnt look like any of the whiners above did.
As for the great achievements systems in MTW, true it was fun at the time, but still felt a bit unfinished. I think it evolved into the current mission system, which I find richer and more rewarding. Very few countries in MTW had objective other than conquer a bunch of provinces.
Incongruous
11-24-2006, 06:44
Excellent point. Bravo.
Geez Lancelot, you need to kick back and do some Yoga or something.
Lusted has a point, and so do you. The game is unrealistic even if it was only about taking twenty regions for nations like poland or denmark. On the other hand, it's this taste of "what if" that gives the game a great flavor, and that has probably made it such a big success.
If you find that you can't act like an adult on the forum, refrain from clicking the POST button.
hey, what do you mean Poland? it was one of Europe's biggest countries during late medieval period...
hey, what do you mean Poland? it was one of Europe's biggest countries during late medieval period...
oh lordy... Did Poland ever equal Barbarossa or Napoleon's achievements? I don't think so (I might be wrong, but probably not). So when one makes an example to illustrate a point, then one has a bit of a liscense for creative freedom.
derfinsterling
11-24-2006, 08:09
I'd like to point out that you don't necessarily need to conquer 45 regions to achieve the goal of the campaign.
In my game with the Scots I control maybe 20 regions - but Spain, Denmark and Milan are may Vassals, adding another 19 or so....
Burakius
11-24-2006, 08:57
I find 45 not even that much..... hmmm maybe im the only one
lancelot
11-24-2006, 09:14
What chance did city-states or tiny realms such as Rome, Macedon, of building empires? Slim, but it did happen, so it could have happened elsewhere. It's all a matter of having the right people, and Alexanders or Attilas don't grow on trees.
In TW series, that legendary conqueror happens to be YOU, so it all depends if you have the what it takes to pull it through.
By the way, did no one notice there happens to be a short campaign with faction specific objectives? Doesnt look like any of the whiners above did.
Very few countries in MTW had objective other than conquer a bunch of provinces.
To your first point. Yes thats true but you seem to suggest that all societs across a large time period have the same goals. Medieval was a feudal system and could not fight like rome if it wanted to 99% of the time. It is an invalid comparison.
And as I stated already, GA mode made it about something other than plain conquering, if you so wished. Which made it a much more sensible depiction of the medieval world.
And yes I have already mentioned short mode...in my first 'whiney' post ~:rolleyes:
As to your last point...hardly. Some were limited sure, but many especially England and HRE had a fun list of things to do.
Yeah, capture 45 provinces and a particular city...haven't I played this game before?
Didn't I get bored of this game because of the idiotic victory conditions?
Oh thats right! I did!
Thats also why I'm only playing short campaigns.
Lord of the Isles
11-24-2006, 12:05
You could play till it's clear you are going to reach the victory conditions. Or till a faction reaches 30 or whatever. Or till a certain date and the leading faction in the graphs wins. Or play the short campaign.
:wall:
I'm a bit miffed that conquest is the only way to win the game, and I do feel they've missed a trick. I would like to see either Civ style multiple victory conditions or even an EU2 style points system that would make development, diplomacy and production contributing factors along with conquest.
That said, I'm still loving the game. However, I think that without Glorious Achievements or some equivalent it might lose a bit of re-playability.
chunkynut
11-24-2006, 12:24
Ok, seems like people don't like the idea that things are difficult to do ... there are other difficulty levels and you don't have to complete the game, only attempt to.
And it's not a linear game, you may try to expand in any way you wish, if catholic excom your way through with no thought to religion, god forbid you try a peaceful campaign defending your borders. Role play is not everyones cup of tea but you can still make a decision to play the game in a certain way if you wish.
In my campaign (first one) I think I have about 60 turns left to take 12 regions and Jerusalem (have antioch and adana in the middle east), I may well do it, especially if I can get a vassal or 2 but the damn mongols came south and took the whole of the levant.
Why is it necessary to complete the objective if you can't? There is not a specific advantage to doing so as you unlock the nations you conquer as you do so, not through victory conditions.
Darkmoor_Dragon
11-24-2006, 12:26
We'll probably find that they are in there, just turned off for now as they didn't have time to balance them all.
Expect a lot of things like that to turn up once the un-packer arrives.
Also bearing in mind the existing goal-based mission objectives that the potential for modding in much longer term goals, and very specific ones, is possibly enormous: there seems no reason not to assume that you can set a 100 year goal to capture X city, build a huge cathedral or convert all of Jerusalem to Catholicism (or all of England to Muslim).
Combine the short-term goal objectives of specific regions into a long-campaign and add in specific goals from the council of nobles )or whatever you decide to rename it, or even add a new goal setter using the Guild-goal options) and - Voila! - a FAR greater potential for modded options that MTW ever possessed in its wildest dreams.
Certainly the release version is lacking in many areas, but don't overlook the massive potential.
Wow - what a load of strong opinions. You know what?
If you don't like the whole "conquer 45 regions" thing then do a short campaign - or set your own victory conditions and role-play... crikey.
You don't have to have some screen come up and say "j00 are teh winnah!" to win at this game, you know. Play it how you want to play it and be happy.
Just a reminder to everyone - please post in a friendly manner. There's no point getting angry because you have different opinions on a game from someone else. ~:grouphug:
Ignoramus
11-24-2006, 13:03
I was disappointed with RTW's generic victory conditions. For every single faction it was conquer 50 provinces and control Rome. That was disappointing. I can understand that they wanted you to conquer Rome in order to achieve victory in Rome: Total War, because Rome manage to rule most of the known world at that time. But the "one size fits all" victory conditions ruined diversity in the game.
I enjoyed the whole style of Medieval: Total War's victory conditions. They weren't pushed into your face, but they did play a part in your overall strategy.
Ludivico Sforza
11-24-2006, 13:52
I agree with Lancelot. Glorious Achievements would have been great in M2TW and the current victory conditions are, to me, ridiculous.
That said, I'm not going to cry about it, I'll just play the game how I want to, and never actually 'win' a game.
It would however be great if when the time comes, GA can somehow be modded back into the game in some shape or form
SoxSexSax
11-24-2006, 15:31
I like it the way it is. Sure, they could add an option for GA victory, I wouldn't complain. But I also wouldn't use it myself...it was too easy in MTW and it'd be too easy now.
Frankly, the VH/VH campaign as it is now is too easy. I couldn't conceive of playing an even easier version.
Vladimir
11-24-2006, 15:40
oh lordy... Did Poland ever equal Barbarossa or Napoleon's achievements? I don't think so (I might be wrong, but probably not). So when one makes an example to illustrate a point, then one has a bit of a liscense for creative freedom.
Poland:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~polwgw/p1634.gif
Quick search and the map isn't very good. But the answer to your question is yes.
First lets do some hair-splitting: "Poland" (i.e. the different countries forming it) was one of the greater empires between the 15th and 18th century but could not be compared with empires build by maniacs like Napoleon or worse. And that's a good thing to say, isn't it?
Who/what is Barbarossa?
To topic: I never considered TW a game to win in the manner the game defines. I win the game when 1. I can see all the lovely warriors I'm able to build at all in the recruitment window and 2. I think the AI is at its end. From that on playing would be quite boring.
TW games -especially MTW and M2TW- are mainly arcade, you cannot ask for realistic winning conditions.
What a completely trite response to a real issue I have with the game...
How polite of you.
Let me respond in kind...Conquer the whole world...world map is it?...off to geography class for you...
I refer to the map in game as the world map as you are conquering a certain part of the world. Yes, it does not cover the whole world but it is the world in which the game takes place. I suppose i should have used the term map instead of world.
And more to the point, the requirement is conquer 45 regions, which isnt even the whole map, let alone world...did you even think about your response before you typed it?
Yes i do surprisingly.. 45 provinces is around half the map, but generally i play beuond that and go and conquer the whole map.
Second, do you even know what the term 'total war' really represents? Coz it sounds like you dont. So off you go and google it...
Total War refers to nations putting their entire effort into a war, so all production goes into a war, army gets massively expanded etc. But in the concept of the Total War series i believe it to refer to the fact you are at constant war, hence Total War.
vaultdweller
11-24-2006, 18:25
I think we can assume that Lusted is correct in his belief that the Total War title has nothing to do with the military doctrine, and everything to do with the constant warfare. Anyone long-time fans should find this quite obvious from the use of the phrase in the Shogun opening video.
Besides which, the TW games feature historical periods where the practice of total war was mostly non-existant. It's a doctrine of modern warfare, and the TW series is decidedly non-modern.
As for the Campaign requirements: my initital shock at seeing them was at how crazy short they were. Only 45 provinces out of more than 100? TW is all about long campaigns and domination of the map. Long campaigns are something I've loved about the series for more than half a decade, and I will start fire-bombing CA if they ever remove them.
Kobal2fr
11-24-2006, 20:46
I'd say both understandings of what Total War means would be correct... and that the ambiguity is intended.
The "doctrinal" view is true, since everything you can build, every action you can take in all TW games is centered around war, and while later games have expanded the choices, I don't think it's any less true of M2 than it was of Shogun. The only things not Total War-ish were, ironically enough, the Great Achievements (oh, BTW, bring'em back ! :idea2::laugh4: )
"Yeah right Kobal2, you ugly son of a cheese-eating surrender monkey. You can build sewers now, surely sewers don't have anything to do with war !" you say ?
But of course they do, when you build them explicitly to 1) make city pop grow faster, so it can churn out more/better soldiers 2) keep city from revolting so it can churn out more soldiers 3) re-route them to drip sewage down siege towers.
You can apply that same logic to every single part of every single TW game but the GAs : when all is said and done, factions and countries and agents and maps are nothing but means and backdrops to the building of armies, and the subsequent slaughtering of said armies in a variety of creative ways :yes:.
And of course, TW AI is sociopathic, so one can assume one will sooner rather than later be at war with the whole frickin' known world at once, hence the more litteral meaning applies too.
~:grouphug: !
lancelot
11-24-2006, 20:58
Besides which, the TW games feature historical periods where the practice of total war was mostly non-existant. It's a doctrine of modern warfare, and the TW series is decidedly non-modern.
So why the modern concept of territory conquest as No 1 priority in a non-modern series like TW?
Generally speaking, lets not get me wrong- I love the TW series of games especially STW & MTW1...however this CA obsession with territory conquest (which you could do away with in MTW if you so desired to a certain extent) is clouding what the medieval period is all about.
I suspect- cynic that I am- that the reasons for this have something to do with CA having to pander to new masters like Sega...however I digress.
Just look at the 100 years war...how many pitched battles were there? I think the answer illustrates my point.
Bottom line is- conquer 45 regions (love it or not) is absurd and boringly generic. GA mode offered a much more realistic depiction of the medieval period.
hey, what do you mean Poland? it was one of Europe's biggest countries during late medieval period...
And also one of the countries most lacking in unity - the Kings and nobles were always at each other's throats - not a situation conducive to conquering others.
The historian
11-24-2006, 23:52
I think it's fine want a fast game play the short campaign want a challanging one play the long campaign i actually made it with venice turn 95 true in the last ten turns all i was doing was taknig city after city to meet the mark as the game has goten boring in a way.In the end i took all of italy sides rome and everything from the pyrinees to the russian border and constantinopol of course and i remained at war with only the english and the russians i eliminated the germans and french poles byzantines hungarians milanese and sicilians.
A sort of italian third reich in 1340:laugh4:
If you don't like the requirements, change them. Can't see why you are whining so much.
Look at this file: data\world\maps\campaign\imperial_campaign\descr_win_conditions.txt
venice
hold_regions Constantinople_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Constantinople_Province
take_regions 15
outlive milan byzantium
sicily
hold_regions Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 15
outlive milan venice
milan
hold_regions Constantinople_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Constantinople_Province
take_regions 15
outlive venice hre
denmark
hold_regions Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 20
outlive hre
egypt
hold_regions Constantinople_Province Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Constantinople_Province Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 15
outlive turks moors
scotland
hold_regions Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 15
outlive england
aztecs
hold_regions Roman_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Roman_Province
take_regions 15
turks
hold_regions Constantinople_Province Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Constantinople_Province Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 20
outlive byzantium
france
hold_regions Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 20
outlive england
hre
hold_regions Roman_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Roman_Province
take_regions 20
outlive denmark milan
england
hold_regions Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 15
outlive france scotland
portugal
hold_regions Jerusalem_Province Granada_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Jerusalem_Province Granada_Province
take_regions 15
outlive moors spain
poland
hold_regions Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 15
outlive russia hungary
byzantium
hold_regions Roman_Province Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Roman_Province Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 15
outlive turks venice
moors
hold_regions Jerusalem_Province Toledo_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Jerusalem_Province Toledo_Province
take_regions 15
outlive spain portugal
russia
hold_regions Constantinople_Province Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Constantinople_Province Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 15
outlive poland hungary
spain
hold_regions Jerusalem_Province Granada_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Jerusalem_Province Granada_Province
take_regions 15
outlive moors portugal
hungary
hold_regions Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 45
short_campaign hold_regions ;Jerusalem_Province
take_regions 15
outlive poland hre
papal_states
hold_regions ;Roman_Province
take_regions 100
short_campaign hold_regions ;Roman_Province
take_regions 80
slave
hold_regions Roman_Province Tenochtitlan_Province
take_regions 100
short_campaign hold_regions ;Roman_Province
take_regions 80
Noaz - I think we are trying to have a discussion, not whine. But the issue has been kicked about a fair bit and seems to risk tempers fraying, so I am going to close this thread. Your illustration of how easy it is to mod the campaign requirements is a constructive way to conclude for now. No doubt the issue will come up again.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.