would you pay for a glorious achievments expansion?

[Callahan9119]

i would like maybe 10/15 dollars, want it desperately...was the only thing i played on mtw1 other than multiplayer

doing conquer gets mind numbing after you have done it once, and other than self imposed rules it becomes a rather joyless affair

throw me a bone ca and i'll give you a few bucks :sombrero:

[Callahan9119]

vote

[Orda Khan]

There is a similar question in the MP forums. My answer is simple. NO. Not a chance and I really would like to know why I should even consider this? Decent MP and SP is something we once had, new graphics really have offered very little and I for one would gladly return to sprites if it meant previous features would continue

........Orda

[Lorenzo_H]

There really ought to be a Gah! option for those who:

Don't care.
Don't know.

[Xehh II]

i would but only if it was really cheap, like $5NZ.

[JCoyote]

Personally, I think it should have been in the game from the beginning. Of it was part of an inexpensive expansion. If the expansion had a handful of new units, some minor gameplay tweaks, and a GA mode, that would be cool. I'm thinking under $10 US, or $15-20 if there is a new map to play on too. Doesn't have to be a big map. Doesn't even have to be a real map. I'm not interested in fantasy units/swords and sorcery bull, but a bit of fantasy geography could be used to create interesting strategic situations.

Given potential multiplayer campaign, alternative maps would be nice to have. A couple ideas: a "shrunken" map, where it's the same locales as the current but distances are all shorter... good for reducing multiplayer game length and forcing conflict. A "Bottomlands" map, inspired by a Turtledove story where the Mediterranean Sea didn't exist and was instead a vast desert from Gibraltar to the Red Sea... that would have an impact on play. Or a completely made up geography, maybe all nations are separate islands? Things like that could be fun, they'd add depth and replayability to multi and single player campaigns.

But yeah, Glorious Achievements is sorely missed. Glorious Achievements combined with missions could be VERY cool.

[Callahan9119]

have they ever explained this glaring ommision from m2?

maybe we should do an email campaign :smash:

mini mp campaign map sounds cool

[Barry Fitzgerald]

It should have been in the game from the start.

As it is CA have hamstrung it into a single track mode...aka you must wage war.

Less time spent on graphics would have helped no end.

No I wouldnt pay for it........

[Dutch_guy]

I think it would add an interesting new dimension to the game, as it did in the first Medieval Total War. Conquering is fun, but I did also enjoy the casual game where I'd just turtle, and only use force if I needed to. So I'd be pleasantly surprised if they'd manage to get this feature back in an expansion, I'd pay for it.

:balloon2:

[anders]

just set your own glorious achievements goals and fullfill them, why do you nedd the GAs to be integrated in the game.

I understand the wish for GAs, because one of the downfalls of TW games as grand strategy games are that you inevitably end up conquering the whole world an entering war with everyone in a way that is totally unrealistic in a medieval setting, and kind of ruins the immersion. But then, the original point of TW was never grand strategy, but a grand stragtegy frame for tactical battels. Try EU3 instead.

[Callahan9119]

incorrect sir, it WAS a part of the series, otherwise we wouldnt be discussing it now

[Whacker]

Voted absolutely not. Not now, not ever.

Please see my lengthy post here for the reasoning: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1465878&postcount=70

This is in the MP forum, but it applies to this as well.

Respectfully

:bow:

[RoadKill]

I would buy it if it was 100 yen meaning No i would not buy it.

[Callahan9119]

Voted absolutely not. Not now, not ever.

Please see my lengthy post here for the reasoning: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1465878&postcount=70

This is in the MP forum, but it applies to this as well.

Respectfully

:bow:

i played mmorpg's since 2001, what i am talking about and what you are is very dissimilar. the time, energy, recources, creativity, maintenence and content of a mmorpg is the reason there is a monthly fee


i bought the additional content for oblivion on x box 360, was worth it to me...try to keep this semi on topic if possible and not venting against industry or capitalism :inquisitive:

[Philippe]

It should have been part of the original game. Conquering as a sole option is extremely unrealistic.

I wouldn't necessarily pay for an expansion that just had glorious achievements, but I would pay for an expansion that did a better job of modeling the Middle Ages.

Failing that, an expansion filling the gap between Barbarian Invasions and the current M2TW would be nice. Featured events could include the rise of Islam and the conquest of Persia, most of the Middle East, and North Africa, the rise and disintegration of Charlemagne's Empire and the ravaging of Europe by Magyars, Saracens, and Vikings (I think there may even have been a place that was raided by all three).

What the M2TW really needs is small campaigns that can either be played to the end of the next period or to the monstrously long end of the grand campaign. If you broke M2TW down into four periods (the three from MTW and one starting in 1492) the game could revert to one turn = six months without forcing people to confront a thousand turn campaign.

[TinCow]

CA is one of the few companies out there that consistently makes games I love. No matter how many problems there may be with the Total War games, at worst they are still some of the best games that I have ever played. I will buy pretty much anything CA makes simply to support their work.

[Midnight]

It was there in the original Medieval, and IMO was one of the best features that was dropped for no apparent reason - it gets boring holding vast empires after a while, and GA provided a welcome change. I certainly wouldn't pay just to get GA back - they should never have left.

[Whacker]

i played mmorpg's since 2001, what i am talking about and what you are is very dissimilar. the time, energy, recources, creativity, maintenence and content of a mmorpg is the reason there is a monthly fee


i bought the additional content for oblivion on x box 360, was worth it to me...try to keep this semi on topic if possible and not venting against industry or capitalism :inquisitive:

I'd appreciate it if you're going to comment on what I contribute, that you actually read it and not respond in an insulting, condescending, self-righteous manner. What I said in that post I linked to is directly relevant to what is being discussed here, nor is it a "rant at the industry".

My point is exactly what you posted originally, that I am trying to convince people why it is not a good idea to offer to pay for content that in many's view should have been part of the original game. My point is that people should reconsider what their expectations are of software publishers and the products they produce, and to keep them both realistic and high. My point is that people should not "lower their standards" arbitrarily. My point is that there are numerous proven examples that subscription or episodic/piecemeal content fee models are not required to delivery a complete quality product.

I'm not going to debate MMOs as this is the SP forum and the topic is paying for additional content. In terms of additional SP content, using the Oblivion example, as I pointed out in the other post I completely and totally disagree, and I think the nickel and dime tactic is utter garbage. Thankfully it would appear that this tactic was not warmly received by the community and not nearly as successful as Bethsoft would have wanted it to be. If personally you found those to be worthwhile, then so be it, that is your rightful opinion and by definition is not wrong. If I can convince you and others otherwise through the discussion as presented then I've accomplished what I set out to do. Perhaps some of it had to do with the fact that you bought them on the Xbox 360, which the only mods you can get for it are those that you pay for to download. The PC has a myriad of extra content available that users can install which is free, and incidentally why I would never buy a game like Oblivion of Quake 4 for the console. Also I'm going to take it as a given that you have a PC beefy enough to play M2TW, which would in turn mean that you also meet the specs to play Oblivion and not have it look like garbage. If the extra content is that important to you, why didn't you get it on PC where you'd have the ability to add all that extra free stuff, AND fiddle with the game as you choose when you don't have that option on the Xbox? Just something to consider.

Perhaps my stance on this is largely a result of my personality type; I tend to be very demanding of the products and services that I purchase. It is my general perception that society seems to be much more receptive and lenient on poorer quality these days. Too often have I seen my friends and strangers have their food served cold, cook wrong, or not to their order, and instead of requesting that the situation be resolved, they just eat it and say nothing. Too often have I see people over billed or incorrectly charged for services such as their home utilities, cellular service, phone service, etc, and instead of taking steps to correct and resolve it, they simply pay it in lieu of the small yet worthwhile effort to fix it. Sure these aren't games, I'm simply using these as examples to illustrate my point.

Respectfully

[econ21]

I always played MTW in GA mode. The thing I really liked about it were the non-conquest objectives. They added flavour and direction to the game. But to be honest, there were precious few of the things. Basically, there were the crusades for Western Catholics in the early period and that was about it (Krak de Chevaliers, wool trade etc were notable exceptions). I think M2TW has done vastly better in adding non-conquest objectives through its missions and this is one area where the game scores over previous TW games. I also prefer the mission mechanic of making it time limited, with a reward and/or a punishment to further add direction.

By contrast, having to get a set number of GAs or conquer a set number of provinces to win the game has never really bothered me. I pretty much never finish TW games - I give up when it gets too easy or repetitive, so what I formally have to do to "win" does not concern me much. (The only exception may be the awesomely demanding Romani victory conditions in EB which loom like an Everest before me that I feel I must climb.)

All that said, I think the M2TW victory conditions may be pretty good. The number of provinces required for victory and the shorter number of turns in the game mean that it may actually be feasible for me to finish a TW game, something that I can't recall doing with STW and MTW outside of PBMs as played solo they were just interminable. I'm just waiting for the patch so I can get back into this game - I keep reaching turn 100 or so, when the need for a patch stops me playing it (needed first patch to fix passive AI; need second to fix shields and 2H weapons).

[Callahan9119]

content such as the oblivion extras were made after an already GREAT game had been released, m2tw got an average in the high 8's, pretty good game at initial release as far as the critics and sales indicate


whacker, i agree in essence previous posers and your opinion that it should have been included in the m2tw release, but alas is wasnt...so i look forward

i enjoyed ghost recon desert siege, battlefild 2's special forces, rome barbarian invasion and countless other company produced add ons

i would be thankful if they added it to the new expansion map and made it backwards as well, to allow it to work with the original map, as i know i have 0 interst in napoleon or americas campaign

econ use carls mod, its like night and day, i dont agree about the missions though...it doesnt change the fact that you still need to destroy everyone, which is a glaringly unrealistic approach to a true medival campaign. nobody at this time had even close to the recources to do such a thing

it was possible in the time of rome, so this could pass, not now

[_Aetius_]

I'd rather there were different periods than GA, having early, high and late periods greatly expanded the longevity of MTW IMO. The positions and dominance of factions could be totally different, there were new challenges and strategies you had to come up with to survive.

GA were good, but the different periods is what made MTW a game I have never tired of, M2TW would of be alot better if you could choose what period you wanted to start in.

[econ21]

... but the different periods is what made MTW a game I have never tired of, M2TW would of be alot better if you could choose what period you wanted to start in.

Interesting point that - remember MI introduced different periods to STW; maybe a M2TW expansion could do that. I can understand CA dropping that feature for M2TW on release (the game is complex enough to design and balance as it is), but adding it back on to an expansion would probably be rather low cost.


it doesnt change the fact that you still need to destroy everyone, which is a glaringly unrealistic approach to a true medival campaign. nobody at this time had even close to the recources to do such a thing

You have to get 50 or so provinces, don't you? I don't know how many provinces are in the game, but it does not equate to destroying everyone. I think as England I calculated I needed to conquer: France, Scotland, Milan, HRE, Spain, Portugal + Crusader kingdoms. Maybe Scandinvaia too. Ahistorical yes, but not conquering everyone. Conquest was part of the GAs too - I can't recall how much England would have to conquer in MTW GAs, but I suspect it was not far off the M2TW requirement. If it was far less, I'll concede the point but as I say, the victory conditions don't matter too much if I can never attain them (due to player fatigue).

[Callahan9119]

yeah i always am waiting for guns and other fun stuff, but i always start in early anyways

lets me make a nice base with great upgrades for the christmas morning of gunpowder :smash:

econ, your splitting hairs :laugh4:

you know you want it :laugh4:

diplomat

[Whacker]

whacker, i agree in essence previous posers and your opinion that it should have been included in the m2tw release, but alas is wasnt...so i look forward

We should always be looking forward, and on the some token we should also always be clear when something doesn't or didn't meet our expectations. If one doesn't speak up in the first place, then the issue will never be known.


i enjoyed ghost recon desert siege, battlefild 2's special forces, rome barbarian invasion and countless other company produced add ons

My apologies, perhaps I am misunderstanding your intent with this thread, or I'm just confused. You just mentioned several full blown Expansions to the original games, which I agree are almost separate products and as such see no problem with paying $10-20 or so for them. Now if I go back to the thread title, you mentioned "Glorious Achievements" (expansion). Glorious Achievements was a feature in the original MTW. Depending what your intent was, there's two ways that I view this. One, you meant "will you pay for this feature to be included in a later pay-for-patch". To this my response was "Not at all", as indicated above. If your intent was "would you pay for an expansion that included, among other things, a Glorious Achievements feature?", to which I would response certainly, as I'd expect the same amount of content as was in BI, VI, or the other CA expansions. An "expansion" with only Glorious Achievements or really anything with less scope and content than BI/VI/etc isn't really an expansion in my view, it would be just more of the nickel and dime nonsense that Bethseda is doing with Oblivion. In short, I'll gladly pay for a good expansion to M2TW, I will NOT pay for nickel and dime additional content a la Oblivion.

:bow:

[Callahan9119]

thats your right as a consumer

[lars573]

No. The refined mission system in M2TW is leagues better than the stupid GA points system. I'm glad it's dead, I never want it back.

[JCoyote]

No. The refined mission system in M2TW is leagues better than the stupid GA points system. I'm glad it's dead, I never want it back.

It's a different system. The GA system gave you point toward victory. Missions merely give you small short term reward, and you're still forced to win by some out-of-character conquering.

[_Aetius_]

Interesting point that - remember MI introduced different periods to STW; maybe a M2TW expansion could do that. I can understand CA dropping that feature for M2TW on release (the game is complex enough to design and balance as it is), but adding it back on to an expansion would probably be rather low cost.

I can understand it not being included in the original release, but i'd definately buy the expansion if it offered the 3 different periods or even a 4th since M2TW goes further than MTW, you instantly triple the number of scenarios you can play in. True some factions will remain similar in size throughout, but in the cases of the decline of Byzantium and the rise of the Turks, the presence of the Mongols as an established faction on the map, the switching of ascendancy between England and France in the hundred years war, the independant rhelms within the HRE and the map can be a whole different affair later on.

It's something CA should definately consider for an expansion IMO.

[HoreTore]

No one conquered the world in the middle ages? Uhm, Mongols, anyone?

Charlemagne had a great empire before, the ottomans after...It could have been someone else who did it.

On the topic however, I'd be more than pleased if the current mission system is expanded. What GA did was only steering my conquests towards certain provinces anyway.

I believe you will have more fun with Civ if you're not too keen on conquering the world...

[_Aetius_]

No one conquered the world in the middle ages? Uhm, Mongols, anyone?

Charlemagne had a great empire before, the ottomans after...It could have been someone else who did it.

On the topic however, I'd be more than pleased if the current mission system is expanded. What GA did was only steering my conquests towards certain provinces anyway.

I believe you will have more fun with Civ if you're not too keen on conquering the world...


No, nobody conquered the world in the Middle ages, how much of America did the Mongols conquer? How much of Africa? They didn't even conquer the known world nevermind the whole world, not even close.

[Foz]

No one conquered the world in the middle ages? Uhm, Mongols, anyone?

Charlemagne had a great empire before, the ottomans after...It could have been someone else who did it.

On the topic however, I'd be more than pleased if the current mission system is expanded. What GA did was only steering my conquests towards certain provinces anyway.

I believe you will have more fun with Civ if you're not too keen on conquering the world...

No, nobody conquered the world in the Middle ages, how much of America did the Mongols conquer? How much of Africa? They didn't even conquer the known world nevermind the whole world, not even close.
While you may be technically correct _Aetius_, I think you've missed the main thrust of HoreTore's post. The point HoreTore seems to be getting at is that empires of or at least near the size of the M2TW victory requirements did exist in history. Factions seem to mostly have about 50 regions required for victory, and according to Carl (from another thread) the campaign map consists of 100 such regions. So, in general you're required to conquer half the map. Is that realistic? Perhaps, or maybe not. One thing is for certain - it's far more distant from ridiculous than some people here are claiming, and it honestly seems far more absurd to hear people saying that in a span of 400+ years some faction couldn't have taken over half the known world.

[_Aetius_]

While you may be technically correct _Aetius_, I think you've missed the main thrust of HoreTore's post. The point HoreTore seems to be getting at is that empires of or at least near the size of the M2TW victory requirements did exist in history. Factions seem to mostly have about 50 regions required for victory, and according to Carl (from another thread) the campaign map consists of 100 such regions. So, in general you're required to conquer half the map. Is that realistic? Perhaps, or maybe not. One thing is for certain - it's far more distant from ridiculous than some people here are claiming, and it honestly seems far more absurd to hear people saying that in a span of 400+ years some faction couldn't have taken over half the known world.

Meh, I was being picky I know.

[HoreTore]

Well, as I'm quite sure you understood and as Foz' pointed out, I wasn't talking about taking over the world literally. I was talking about taking over the world like the Romans claimed they did... Naturally, they didn't take over the whole world, but as they saw it, they did.

[Callahan9119]

creating a huge empire in europe is very different from marching your horses all over the barren flatland of asia destroying everything and not really settling down till the empire was pretty fractured

if this was a game made around the mongols, or japan it wouldnt be a problem to only be able to conquer to "win"

and i am not a believer that the missions are better, they are just something to do, or not do...they dont change anything about the end result, 45 regions

[lars573]

It's a different system. The GA system gave you point toward victory. Missions merely give you small short term reward, and you're still forced to win by some out-of-character conquering.
Not in the least. For most factions in MTW (beyond Denmark and Aragon) you had to conquer around 30 provinces to win in GA mode. In other words both systems require you to conquer many provinces to win. Both give you small short term goals along the way. M2TW system is better because everyone has more or less the same objectives (45 provinces and Jerusalem/Constantinople and 15-20 provinces plus eliminate your rivals). And the small goals seem to have more of a place. They aren't the same every single time.

[Callahan9119]

yet it all leads to the same conclusion, your hand is still forced...if you like missions or not you must concede this. i dont remember needing to take 30 regions in mtw1...i may be mistaken, but i always did well turtling, i know you got nice points for taking lands


WOOT for glorious achievments :smash:

how hard can it be to make a score for money, development, etc and areas taken through war...i dont need anything fancy, throw me a bone CA. so my braincells do this :gathering:

[ByzanKing]

Sorry, never played GA in MTW, so I would probably pass on it.

[HoreTore]

creating a huge empire in europe is very different from marching your horses all over the barren flatland of asia destroying everything and not really settling down till the empire was pretty fractured

if this was a game made around the mongols, or japan it wouldnt be a problem to only be able to conquer to "win"

and i am not a believer that the missions are better, they are just something to do, or not do...they dont change anything about the end result, 45 regions

Uhm....Barren flatland? You believe that the mongols didn't get any resistance creating their empire? Taking over china and korea alone gives them a VERY huge empire. Then you can add all the tribes and minor kingdoms(tibet, etc), and finally, the persians(Khwarezm) and the various caliphates.

A map of the various kingdoms before the mongol invasion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ayyubid.png

And a map showing their kingdom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mongol_Empire_map.gif

Conquering asia is certainly no easier task than conquering europe.

As for european empires, the turks got quite big. Their empire would easily classify as the 45 provinces required to win. Ditto with Charlemagne. Who is to say that a new roman empire couldn't have risen, if fate wanted it? That it didn't happen doesn't prove that it couldn't have happened. Was it really any easier to create an empire when Hitler, napoleon and the romans created theirs, than it was in medieval europe?

[IrishArmenian]

If we paid for it, that would start us on a long, terrible path of being robbed for every little thing we liked in past games.
Aetius, the Mongols did forge an empire larger than Rome within twenty years.