i liked the setting for shogun [sengoku japan] the best out of the 3 settings. i also liked the fact that most every building and unit had a specific military function. you built churches to get guns, not just for the population control function. a geisha killed enemy leaders as well as spied. it seems like the later games are bringing in more and more concepts that have less direct military applications. i.e. VnVs in medieval and squalor in rome but along with these concepts is lesser understanding of how they interact and why things are happening. i.e. why did all my provinces suddenly revolt in medieval [king is isolated] or why does rome feel like riot police total war at times? 1. as toranaga keeps saying, better documentation. i would like the manual to specifically say, as cities grow, you need to destroy building x and build buildings y and do z or civil riots will be a serious problem. because the amount of time i spend on adminstration in these later games in contrast to troop movement and battles is huge compared to the previous games. if i have to spend time on management, i'd rather spend it on logistics which has a direct military purpose [troops suffer attrition as they move, food supply issues etc] than on acting as police in cities. the campaign map is huge and detailed and lovely but in some sense a waste of resources because most players are still only going to go from city a in province 1 to city b in province 2 along the roads. so it might as well be a province to province map like it was in medieval with maybe an abstract calculation for chance of ambush. how many players are actually going to places on the map with no direct baring to cities, or how many have even fought against the amazon city of themiskyra? i think that campagin map is a huge effort and obviously a labor of love but most of it will be underappreciated and underutilized because a lot of it doesn't directly affect gameplay.