Number of turns?

[Martok]

Out of curiosity, how many turns (ideally speaking) would you like to see Empire have?


Personally, I'd still prefer to return to four turns per year (ala Shogun), as I feel that 200 turns isn't going to be nearly enough time for me. However, I'm also a big-time turtler, and I know that some players are more aggressive than myself. I'm curious to know what you guys think.

[Fisherking]

I voted four but you know I could do 12 no problem. That would just be a long, long game if you had to play to the bitter end.

[Wishazu]

I voted 4 as like Martok I am also a big-time turtler. Aswel as increasing the overall length of the campaign 4 turns per year would make the game follow seasonal changes which could affect certain decisions you have to make - Do I send a fleet across the stormy Atlantic in winter and risk losing my ships or do let my colonies fall to the French...

[Fisherking]

I said it elsewhere but I think four is minimum for weather at sea IMO. They haven’t seen it that way though.

12 turns would give you much better detail but it would make for a long game as I said.

I have a distinct impression, regardless of what the victory conditions are that you will be hard put to accomplish what may have been done historically.

[Megas Methuselah]

I, also, love to turtle. Although I will expand, it will be over a long period of time and well within reasonable bounds (i.e. not a Napoleon blitz). I love working together with the AI, maintain vassals, and just play it like a political tutorial, not a game.

4 turns. 200 turns is not enough. Hopefully we'll have the option to continue playing past the end date even if we handn't met the victory conditions...

[Dradem]

I would say 6 but it's not on there Martok could you ad it?

Reason why is 12 would be to much altough it will give a bigger impact in the game, they could even make it so that certain months would have heavier snow or colder etc.

4 would give you just the seasons, and is defintly better then 2 . But then you could say Oh it's december I'wont invade Russia because it's winter a bit to predicatable I think.

That's why I'ld say 6, you could have a winter peak already November, December but less in Jan and Feb. Just to give a example. Or droughts in certain summer months that would give bad crops or shortage of water for troops, and people. and just troop movement will be even more realistic.
It will be less of on impact for a to long gameplay then 12.

But I will be already a realy happy camper with 4

[Martok]

Hopefully we'll have the option to continue playing past the end date even if we handn't met the victory conditions...

I believe we will be able to, yes. However, there will be no more in-game events after 1800.

[andrewt]

2. I'd love to see all 4 seasons but if they did that, I might not see later tech units if only time unlocks them. I just can't play a ton of turns doing nothing but defending and killing brigands. It would bore me to death. Brigands, especially, are usually what persuade me to pick-up another game after playing some Total War.

[Megas Methuselah]

How did it work in Rome and Medieval?

Ugh. Rome had two turns per year, and Medieval 2 had two years per turn. The best approach to these was, "Don't think about it."

I want tos see seasons! That way we could have accurate seasonal weather. Rainy in Spring, sunny in Summer, etc.. It would also be nice to see Autumn leaves on the campaign map, as well as Winter snow drifts.

Personally though I really have no problem with even more turns per year, up to around twelve. I play the game for long term vaalue, I hate short campaigns. Even though I could steamroll the map after building up for a bit I never do, mostly because I just can't have fun with that.

From the perspective of roleplay, and 'putting yourself in the game' four turns is ideal.

A big, bold YES to everything written here.

[Rick]

Why wouldn't the game come with the option of choosing yearly, seasonally, or monthly turns. A player should have that option.

[TevashSzat]

Why wouldn't the game come with the option of choosing yearly, seasonally, or monthly turns. A player should have that option.

Well, then game balance would be off. Think about it, more turns means lower army movement and tax income and longer build times. Else, it might only pass for 5 in game years, but you conquered half the world already

[Polemists]

I do see the need not to mainstream it. Aka: Don't make the game just 4 turns per year. Yes you are right that would upset the people who like to rush and feel like time is against them.


However, Rick had the right idea, if there was a option to choose turns to be seasonal, montly, or bi yearly I think everyone would get what they want.

Would it be that hard for CA to implement? If a building took 2 years, and you choose seasonal, then yes it now takes 24 turns to complete. Then again some people just like looking at the map, relaxing , and sending out agents and doing little things, rather then big sweeping conquests.

[BeeSting]

Four turns per year for me.

[gollum]

Hi,
4 per year for me too, they'll never do it though, and perhaps rightly; the game is now huge in scope and abstraction than the Feudal Japan scenario, that had the harvest and seasonal weather. It will be very detailed f they did it that way and very hard to even deliver vanilla campaign balance.

The way things are 2 per year is the best middle ground.

Anyway, after BI they aim generally at about 200 - 250 turns limit, which is again a middle ground between SP hardcores that roleplay their characters as if they were alive in real time and the said casual gamer that serves as the TW compass eversince RTW.

!it burnsus!

[General SupaCrunk]

4 Turns

[Thermal]

6, but said 12 cause it wasnt there, if a hundred year perios that would be 600 turns, and i like to go slow-ish myslef, my dad wouldnt finish if there were 100000 turns though, he takes one settlement every 50 turns