Unfair victory conditions

I have only played extensively the faction of epeirus but it seems to me that some factions have "unfair" or i should say extremely difficult victory conditions.
For exampe epeiros which has a rather difficult starting positions has to eliminate the romani,arche seleukia,ptolemaioi,macedonia,koinon and maybe getai to achieve victory.
On the other hand karthadastim which is rich and powerful has only to take out the romani and lusotanians.
Of course one can set his own victory conditions and many including myself,like difficult factions but this is a question i had for some time so i had to ask:beam:

Heh. Sorry but I think Romans have to the hardest win conditions since they pretty much have to fight everyone, heh. Which makes considering the player is tasked with recreating Rome's historical conquests.

Meh. Have you seen the territory-requirement map for Pontos ? :shocked2: Their theme song should be Peter Gabriel's Big Time...

The Pahlavas' isn't the most forgiving either.

Check out the Sauromatae VC and you can't be expected to only hold those few provinces from the AS you either cripple them or you get choked every turn by armies.

They're based on what the goals of the factions would have been, not on gameplay 'fairness'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

They're based on what the goals of the factions would have been, not on gameplay 'fairness'.

---

Right. Woever said war is fair? Live or die (glorious)!
Defeating Rome should be in every VC because you have to prevent the Roman Empire ^^

Eh once you control your general area as a small faction you become pretty much unstoppable anyway - unless your a steppe faction. Or saba.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

They're based on what the goals of the factions would have been, not on gameplay 'fairness'.

---

WELL FREAKING SAID!!!!:2thumbsup:

Fellas remember this is EB not RTW. EB = Historical Accuracy

--So with that in mind IF you see an issue with gameplay fairness and balancing and you want to post a recommendation. PLEASE make sure you bring up supporting historical references to your recommendation. Oh and it has to be more than wiki. :yes:

on this subject I've always felt that makedonia's victory condidtions are suprisingly modest, given thier past succes and how they felt about themselves. All the other succesors have toconquer the bulk of alxenanders empire, but the Makedonian's just need sryia, the asia minor, megale hellas and hellas itself.

I agree with you.But maybe it would be boring and time consuming to try conquer every eastern province and india although historically accurate:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Meh. Have you seen the territory-requirement map for Pontos ? :shocked2: Their theme song should be Peter Gabriel's Big Time...

The Pahlavas' isn't the most forgiving either.

---

Speaking of the Pahlavâ and their victory conditions... I'd say you start perfecting the horse archer and cataphract combo, because things sure ain't going to look any easier ~:joker:

The Parthians will demand only the cream of the crop. Most should fail to recreate it. Those who think that they will succeed are in for one hell of a ride, if not immediately mistaken about their prospects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

Speaking of the Pahlavâ and their victory conditions... I'd say you start perfecting the horse archer and cataphract combo, because things sure ain't going to look any easier ~:joker:

---

Perfecting? I didn't think it was that hard to use. :inquisitive:

Hell the only time I lose as Parthia, is when I run out of Arrows and after that I can just run away. :yes:

The victory conditions are quite reasonable, and if you don't like them, who says you have to follow them. The campaign should be done when you feel it's done; so make your own conditions if you feel unsatisfied with how they.

Pyrrhus was a bit of a megalomaniac, so wanted to take it all :whip:

What about carthage's? they seem really expansive.

That's grabby plutocrats for ya. :toff:

Actually, where do you get your sources/infer your ideas about VCs? About the only one that I can think of that would seem easy to decipher is the Romani, since they actually achieved theirs. Most of the Diadochi VCs seem reasonable, even if some seem a little more ambitious than others. Some, like the Pahlava, are based on how far the actually expanded plus what they tried to conquer, right? But what about ones like the Sweboz or the various Celtic factions? Outside of Gaul, would they really have had ambitions to where they are required to conquer? I'm curious and ready to be enlightened by the EB team :-P. Especially for a faction like the Sauromatae, whose VC seem to stretch WAY beyond their aspirations, but then you guys would know better than me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesus_saves

What about carthage's? they seem really expansive.

---

Indeed. I kind of expect them to have wanted to conquor the Mediterranian, being Phonecian and all. That's a what ahm'a aimin' to do.