LAter stages times

[Youngie]

I know i should see the glass half full, and focus on the positives, but does anyone ever get annoyed with the length a turn can take. Im referring to later down the line when you have like 80% of the map. I find that The building processes tend to get a bit more random or inconsistent as a result of sher volume. does this happen with everyone else. Are you fans of auto build.

[Martok]

I'm a fan of taking the minor victory when I've conquered 60% of the map -- I don't think I ever have conquered it completely.

[Youngie]

P.s I was surfing my way through stumble last night and came across this game. Sorry for the plug but it just bloody awesome. and if your a fan of the STW or Qin dynasty games this is a must.

It reminds me of the first few warcrafts that kinda style.

http://www.arcadepod.com/games/play....fg_battlefield

[Youngie]

I'm a fan of taking the minor victory when I've conquered 60% of the map -- I don't think I ever have conquered it completely.

Not even once, surelly you have not trully mastered MTW if you havent played it out in its entirity. im not tyring to say your bad, i thought the attainment of both of the two key objectives would have completed on numerous occasions by a award winning devoutist like yourself.

[caravel]

Not even once, surelly you have not trully mastered MTW if you havent played it out in its entirity. im not tyring to say your bad, i thought the attainment of both of the two key objectives would have completed on numerous occasions by a award winning devoutist like yourself.

Not necessarily, as completing any TW game is actually very tedious indeed.

Blitzing the last few provinces when you can't fail to lose anyway is both boring and unchallenging. I myself have only completed the game once as the Turks. I seem to remember that I had almost completed it another time as the Spanish but gave up. I've also gone to 60% on numerous occasions.

I usually do go beyond 60% and don't accept the victory but I doubt I ever go beyond about 80% in the course of a campaign.

I have actually done 100% on the VI campaign a few times, though never as the Picts, Scots or Northumbrians.

[Youngie]

I can see the logic in only going to 80%, but i cam never bring myself to accept the "Lesser" victory. Go for gold.

I have actually done 100% on the VI campaign a few times, though never as the Picts, Scots or Northumbrians.

The Northumbrians are my favoured in VI, but its far to easy a campaign, saying that it isnt easier than the irish. I define anyone to play as them and not be able to orchestrate a win out of them.

[Martok]

Not even once, surelly you have not trully mastered MTW if you havent played it out in its entirity. im not tyring to say your bad, i thought the attainment of both of the two key objectives would have completed on numerous occasions by a award winning devoutist like yourself.

caravel put it very well -- some MTW players don't have the patience to slog all the way through to a 100% victory, and I'm definitely one of them.

I find that my attention span tends to flag once I get near that "critical threshold" (where you've reached the point that you know you can't lose). If the circumstances are right, I'll often try to instigate a civil war at that point, particularly if my faction leader and/or his family isn't of the best quality. It makes for a much more interesting game that way.

I have completed a few VI campaigns, but that's probably because it's a smaller map and a (relatively) faster-paced game. Even then, I rarely go all the way, however.

[Tony Furze]

I usually sigh with relief when I get to 60 %- and I call it a day. Al though I "should" go on to complete some of my personal objectives. One is to get rid of the Pope, establish a Grand mosque in Rome and Mosques or Grand mosques , if possible , in key areas like Venice, Constantinople...

One can dream.

As for taking time later on:I m not sure you meant this, Youngie, but my computer actually takes ages to take its turn the longer I go. I just make up the reason that (like chess) he s considering my "cunning" moves.

[Heidrek]

The micro management to really get them most out of your provinces in the late game is lost on be. I'll usually just que up a bunch of military untis and a couple of building s and let them run for a while.

I've never gone for the full 100% domination victory, but after a while you start to think - whats the point? I can just keep pouring more and more troops into the target province, and auto calc my way to victory. God knows I cant be bothered fibghting every individual battle personally.

My Volga-Bulga high era campaign is approaching that point at present. I've taken Britain, Scandanavia, and all of estern europe from Pomerania and Prussia along to Lithuania and down through Kiev, Moldavia and Bulgaria and everything east of that down to Georgia.

I am slowly eating into French territory in heartland europe likie red acid as well, taking Normandy and Flanders. decades of war with the French have seen their provinces diminish and fall into Volga Bulgarian hands, but each battle is difficult, as is maintaining relaible sea connections.

Trade is near to non existant at present, due to the need to keep my navy concentrated. France remains a major force though, probably the other single biggest faction. I'm confident of my ability to eventually huble the French and dominate europe, but it will be a timely exercise.

[Roark]

I've only completed the Medieval map to 100% once. I too get extremely bored once I'm obviously the dominant power.

Like Tony, I usually roleplay personal objectives that have nothing to do with the game's in-built objectives.

[Heidrek]

I sometimes declare myself the winner before hitting 60% If I've broken the back of my only major opponent.

In my Scotland campaign, I had the largest army, navy and income, but the Crusader States had a huge standing army 19,000 strong concentrated in one province, the heart of their power. I mustered about 9000 defenders in the territory net door to bait them into the attack.

Attack they did. 19000 worth of knights, halbardeirs, crossbows/arbalesters, men at arms, foot knights and Order Footsoldiers. the battle was a bloodbath, and by the end of it, almost 12,000 crusader were killed or captured, and 3000 odd Scots. In one major battle I had crushed the vast majority of their forces, while my resources were still undepleted.

From that point on the outcome was inevitable, as i out earned and vastly outnumbered them, plus had control of the water so declared byself winner rather than slowly grind them down.

[macsen rufus]

Maybe because I don't auto anything in the game, I also tend to take the 60% victories, at least on the big map. In VI I usually push through to the 110% victory (ie take the Viking lands too, through subterfuge).

I have taken the main map 100% quite a few times, but generally by the time I'm up to 60% I'm hankering after a different faction to play, so cut it short and start up a new one. The last 40% is generally inevitable, and a slog, and a lot less exciting than starting a new campaign

[King Kurt]

I'm with Martok and most of the others here - I have played to 100% once but there is an inevitability about it all when you reach a certain size. I like to role play a bit towards the end and maybe set myself a few little goals to achieve before calling it a day. But once I start getting the you are the biggest army and you have the biggest income messages on a regular basis I know it is time to start thinking about the next campaign.
I think the first 15 or so years at the begining of a campaign are the most interesting and decisive - a bit like openings in chess. Get it right and you are set up - get it wrong then you have had it. This is the time you are most likely to loose - after that time, if you emerge with a resonable postition, then victory is assured providing you play the game right.

[Ravencroft]

Well, I've never played to a 100% victory(except maybe twice, by auto-calcing every battle) but I usually play GA, so there's no pressure on me to conquer the whole map.