Printable View
OK - this is a thread for all those little things that just get on your wick.
For example - I am the Western Emperor, I have all my starting lands and a few other bits and pieces - my AI allies keep attacking my Puppet States.
It's irritating, and stupid because they end up being Puppets themselves.
Somewhat similar, and equally annoying, is the inability to demand that a faction stop fighting one of my allies. "You want peace? I'm totally fine with that...as long as you make peace with my allies as well" seems a perfectly reasonable condition. Would be a lot easier for ERE to help keep WRE afloat with that diplomatic option (which...maybe that's a major reason why it isn't there...).
Yes, this is one (of many) things that Paradox's Europa Universalis (and their related titles) does way better. There you have alliance blocks and alliance leaders. Truce can be negotiated either among alliance leaders or, if you are a minor member of an alliance, directly with the opposing alliance leader. Truces among alliance leaders result in universal truce for all involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bramborough
I keep hearing a lot about this Europa Universalis thing (almost always good). One of these days I'm going to have to get around to trying it...
Heres one. Im curb stomping faction x. They are down to their last 2-3 settlements. They sue for peace. BUT the want ME to pay THEM for it. Uhh no kids if you want peace cough it up or die
This is all total war games
Often the AI's try to see if they can sucker you into such a deal especially if they see your treasury "straining your coffers". If they really want the peace, they'll accept for free or even paying to you. But you have to do the counterproposal to see if it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamakazi
I do the counters and they never want it so I just kill them off
My main annoyance is the victory conditions, a Total War trait that seems to be getting far worse over time.
The victory conditions in the first Total War games were perfect for me. Control X territories and you're considered a winner. Then just do your own thing.
In the latest titles one is supposed to jump through some absurd hoops for no sensible reasons. When I look at them, I keep thinking of the game designer tasked with creating something original and ending up with this absurdity.
In my current Geats campaign, I've known right from the start that I won't even achieve minor victory, even though I intend to eliminate the Huns and become the dominant power in Europe. The reason is that I have no intention of doing some of the things the game designer decided I should do. For instance: Loot or sack 4 different settlements and Earn the following income from trading: 5000. I don't loot, sack or raid. I occupy. I'm not running a gang of muggers. I'm building an empire. In Rome II, you were often required to hire dozens of mercenary units to win, just because, even though I could get much better and cheaper regular units. I'm supposed to have X naval units, even if I have no use for so many. I'm supposed to own this province, even though I want my allies to have it. I'm supposed to build this building even though it doesn't serve my needs in any way. I'm supposed to run off with a girl name Susie on a Thursday while it's snowing, and the pointless list goes on.
My favourite games company (and Creative Assembly really is), can take these requirements and shove them. (But they're still my favourite.)
^ totally agree with you there
Not being able to move capitals.
This begs the question then. If you are an empire builder and not the leader of a gang of thieving thugs. Why then are you playing a faction designed to be a gang of sea born muggers? All the Nordic factions are BTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cazbol
Oh God yes, particularly potent for the WRE where the starting Capital is Milan but you get points for building up Ravenna.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Also - inability to gift settlements.
I chose a Nordic faction because I find it appealing to play as my ancestors. The fact that they have bonuses for something, doesn't mean I have to make use of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
No, but when I play as my Geat Ancestors I'm going to terrorise everyone. If you're going to play as your ancestors you should play *as* them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cazbol
Another one - units that look uber-armoured by aren't - and vice versa. I get that CA has to balance the game but they have this whole layered system for gear - if you're going to give unarmoured cavalry 18 armour would it kill you to give them a leather breastplate on the model?
Some of my ancestors raped a pillaged, whereas others were less into that. But the former were more likely to be remembered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Many Nordic men also tried to make it big, fell flat on their face and died miserably in the mud. I suppose I could also try to play as them, for historical accuracy. We might also see it as a victory condition in an upcoming title.
What we're saying is, if you're going to be the Geats attacking SPQR, you need to hang those Romans for the glory of Woden so his ravens can feast on their entrails. If you want to stay home and plough the frozen earth and worship Thor, sure, but then Banished might be a better game to play than Total War.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cazbol
On the other hand, if you want to build a hige, prosperous, peaceful and just Empire that benefits all it's citizens... well, really you should play the Greeks in Rome II... but failing that I'd plump of the Byzantines, and if I want to throw back the Huns and slaughter every God damned one of them, gonna play the WRE.