Campaign "replayability"

[Tarkus]

Howdy all,

How much of the long-term flow of a campaign is truly random and unpredictable -- beyond, of course, the strategic conduct of the human player -- and how much is deterministic (i.e., scripted)?

In other words, if a player ran through two iterative campaigns with the same faction, and adopted a similar / nearly identical strategy between the two iterations, how different will his/her experience be?

I don't think too many people would do such a (crazy?) thing, but it's useful for me to think about such a scenario in evaluating the role of random vs. deterministic forces in governing the simulation.

Thanks!

[Landwalker]

Howdy all,

How much of the long-term flow of a campaign is truly random and unpredictable -- beyond, of course, the strategic conduct of the human player -- and how much is deterministic (i.e., scripted)?

In other words, if a player ran through two iterative campaigns with the same faction, and adopted a similar / nearly identical strategy between the two iterations, how different will his/her experience be?

I don't think too many people would do such a (crazy?) thing, but it's useful for me to think about such a scenario in evaluating the role of random vs. deterministic forces in governing the simulation.

Thanks!

Although I haven't run through a full campaign with any faction, let alone twice, from what I've seen there is a reasonable amount of variation on the AIs part in some spheres. In my Casse game, Pontos expanded pretty quickly all the out past Byzantion, and Rome from Rhegium to Massilia (Massalia?)--in my Epeiros game, Rome's barely expanded at all (Bononia and Taras, I think). I also see a lot of variation in how the Saka-Pahlava-Baktria triangle plays out. On the other hand, I've never seen Lussotana expand beyond the western coast of Iberia, I've never seen Carthage expand in Iberia at all (although they do slowly assimilate western Africa), I've never seen the Arverni or Macedon really expand... But then, I haven't played all the way through. Could be things will change down the road.

Cheers.

[fj62]

I've seen real differences in two Casse campaigns. Both times played on the same difficulty (H/H). First time Aedui where a major power controling all of Gaul and into Iberia, they demolished Arverni early. the Romans expanded a little bit into Gaul put Aedui and Sweboz were keeping them in check. Sweboz controlled a huge chunk of the map into Russian steppe.

Things were quite different in my second Casse campaign, Arverni controlled Gaul, Aedui was crushed. Sweboz was rather timid only expanded around their homeland. Romans dominated the alps and into Illyria. But the big surprise was Lusotana, who came out of nowhere with countless full stacks of Iberian Milites and Caetratii. and kicked the Romans, Arverni, and myself out of Gaul, it was crazy.

[Long lost Caesar]

Arche Seleukia.:furious3:

[Elminster12]

In my Getai campaign, the Maks are(were:laugh4: ) doing really well. They hung tough with the Epeirotes and KH(only lost Korinthos) and expanded into Asia Minor as far as Ankyra. The Sauromatae expanded to Kotais and is currently in a protracted war with the Hai...the difference being that they seem to have the advantage in this case. Carthage long ago consolidated itself in Africa and is currently at war on Sicily with Rome. The Arverni are beating up on the Aedui. Baktria is eating up the Seleukids in the east a little, the Saka are doing well, but the Parthians are stalled. Quite interesting. Perhaps I'll post some screens later.

[Tarkus]

Arche Seleukia.:furious3:

Huh???

[JMRC]

Howdy all,

How much of the long-term flow of a campaign is truly random and unpredictable -- beyond, of course, the strategic conduct of the human player -- and how much is deterministic (i.e., scripted)?

In other words, if a player ran through two iterative campaigns with the same faction, and adopted a similar / nearly identical strategy between the two iterations, how different will his/her experience be?

I don't think too many people would do such a (crazy?) thing, but it's useful for me to think about such a scenario in evaluating the role of random vs. deterministic forces in governing the simulation.

Thanks!

Only the first turn can be considered very predictable, although the outcome may vary anyway. This happens because the starting conditions are fixed, so the AI will take the same decisions most of the times. For example, the Saka Rauka usually conquer the nearby region in their first turn, because there's a Saka army outside the settlement and there are no walls and the defenders are inferior in number. However, I've seen a few campaigns where the Saka (for some unexplained reason) don't conquer that region right in the first turn.

Since the outcomes of all the actions in the first turn are usually different from one campaign to the other, which leads to different actions in the 2nd turn, this means we can consider the game unpredictable right after the 1st turn.