Prestige (The New Way to Win) Discussion, Opinions, Wildly Innacurate Speculation

[Sir Beane]

I noticed there hasn't been a lot of discussion about the new Prestige system being introduced, nor anywhere to discuss it. So here you go.

Prestige is the new way to win in Empire. When the campaign reaches the Year 1799 a winner is delcared based on who has the most prestige. Basically you win because you are full of (awesome, win, epic success, other internet meme)

This should mean some changes for the campaign and how we play it. I've tried to think of a few talking points to get things off the ground.

* Conquest is no longer the only way to win, we can now achieve victory through trading, research, social progress, industry AND conquest. You still have to take over a few places though, the game is called Total War after all.

* The campaign may have to be played through to the end for a winning faction to be announced. This is purely speculation based on revealed victory conditions. You can probably still win by taking a certain percentage of the map.

* Certain things can be researched to increase your prestige. Abolishing slavery is the only example of this so far, but I am willing to bet there will be others.

* Prestige will probably affect other factions perceptions of you. Warring with a prestigious faction may have harsh consequences.

* It gives smaller factions more interesting ways to win. It hasn't been confirmed by CA but I think that there will be a system were accomplishing certain goals set for your faction gives you a reward in prestige. That way each faction has its own unique goals and challenges, with suitable reward. If there isn't a system like this then there damn well should be! (excuse my French) Also veteran playes will realise what I suggested is essentially Glorious Achievements from Medieval the first.

* If prestige has no hard-coded upper limit then collecting as much prestige as possible in one game may become a new metagame similar to 'fastest blitzer competitions'. It might even be a way to have a 'best turtle' competition.

*Attempting a prestige victory with as little conquest as possible will be a nice way to give yourself an interesting challenge.

So there are a few talking points, there are more I'm sure, so lets get discussin'.

[Sol Invictus]

I was very happy to hear that CA has included this Prestige victory condition. I have always hated the "paint the map my color" mechanism. I hope that blitzkrieg type conquest is almost impossible in ETW. We really need something more subtle. It seems that each Faction will be given specific missions that are tailored for them and this will make playing each faction a somewhat unique experience. I feel confident about what increases Pestige, but I wonder what decreases it. I assume backstabbing an ally and loosing battles does, but I wonder by how much. Failing missions? Revolts and Revolutions?

[Gustav II Adolf]

It is nice with a broader take on the game giving you more possibilities to have a great experience. However i'm more of a conquest kind of player so i will try to conquer. I never liked games that ends at a certain date just to ad up scores. It is much more satisfying to change history in more powerful ways.


G

[Sir Beane]

I imagine backstabbing allies and generally being horrible to people will probably lose you prestige. If the option is in to sack towns and execute prisoners I imagine these options will carry penalties to.

Overusing rakes and gentleman (agents) may also have penalties.

[Zarky]

Well I imagine using them doesn´t hurt anything, but getting caught will hurt alot. Good system could be diplomatic declarations of war (perhaps even without needing diplomat), where you could state what is your aim and this way your prestige hit wouldn´t be so great as declaring war out of the blue by starting siege at every city of theirs, like AI did to me in M2TW

[Sheogorath]

I was very happy to hear that CA has included this Prestige victory condition. I have always hated the "paint the map my color" mechanism. I hope that blitzkrieg type conquest is almost impossible in ETW. We really need something more subtle. It seems that each Faction will be given specific missions that are tailored for them and this will make playing each faction a somewhat unique experience. I feel confident about what increases Pestige, but I wonder what decreases it. I assume backstabbing an ally and loosing battles does, but I wonder by how much. Failing missions? Revolts and Revolutions?

Theoretically, it should simply be impossible to raise the amount of troops in the amount of time required for a blitzkrieg style game.
Armies up until Napoleons time tended to be fairly small and, while larger than the 16th/17th century armies, people still had some of the 'it's about outmaneuvering your enemy and forcing them to retreat, not killing them' idea in their heads. After all, soldiers were expensive buggers, since you had to give them uniforms and stuff.

Napoleon was pretty much the one who forced the idea of massive armies and fighting pitched battles on a common basis.

And the political nature of Europe would have prevented a successful blitz anyway. Because the moment any one of the great powers got too powerful, all the other ones would have started beating them back into line. At least, once they realized their position. See what happened with Napoleon. Much as I hate to say it, the old MTW 2 mechanism where the AI started hating you no matter what if you got too powerful SHOULD be applied (in a limited fashion, IE: To the other top four AI players) once the player gets to a certain level.


Now, as to Prestige, I feel it should be keyed on the things people felt were important in the 18th century. That would be battles, titles, monuments, kicking smaller countries asses, putting down revolts, impressive scientific advancements (so you just invented vaccination, huh? Pffft, check out my explosive cannon shells.), and being part of successful coalitions.

I ALSO think Prestige should gradually decrease over time, to represent people gradually forgetting things. It should be quite slow in the case of major achievements (people thought of Russia as THE great power in Europe almost up until the Crimean War after the defeat of Napoleon).

In order to slow this down even more, you should be able to build monuments. Obviously people are going to be slower to forget about your grand achievements if you put a triumphal arch in the middle of their city. And more impressive monuments should be a source of prestige themselves.

Being the 'best of' something should also give prestige. Most territory, largest military, greatest fleet, most income, all that.

Maybe leader traits that give slight boosts to prestige?

I know, for example, that Alexander I (of Russia) was regarded as quite handsome (possibly the 'best looking' ruler in Europe at the time...not that that's saying much) and that it generally helped with Russia's diplomatic relations. That and the fact that he had developed some significant acting skills in order to deal with pressures from his father and grandmother (IE: Paul and Catherine), who hated each others guts and probably attempted to enlist him in various plots to murder each other.

Great authors, poets, scientists, musicians, and all that should help as well. Or, at least, help your leaders along in that aspect.