Developing a longer game for more fun

[Zarax]

What i use is:

Small army, no more that 5 units for each buildable type except for garrison units (spears or UM)

Expanding only on rebel lands or through crusades

Auto governors with no replacement for bad vices

[Procrustes]

I sometimes play as the "Bad Catholic". I raise churches, murder priests and inquisitors, ignore the popes warning - attack him when I can, etc. Essentially invite crusades against me. It's fun.

Other rules - I severely restrict my use of inquisitors and assassins - I may have one or two around, but I don't spam them. Same goes for emmisaries and spies. And I come up with my own GA goals I try to meet - I'll pick a province for my government seat and try to build every damn upgrade I can, or I'll define some area of the map (like the Baltic) and decide to convert all the pagans to my religion. Oh, and I also limit each of my armies to only one stack - no reinforcements. And when I take an army out on a campaign I won't merge or rebuild any of the units until they get down to 50% strength. And I'll set my sights on some super-power and go after them - if the Byzantines are massive and have navies everwhere, then the challenge is figuring out how to take Constantinople, etc.

[Yoyoma1910]

Personally, I try to limit the amount of taxes I take in. It also seems to help the virtue of my rulers if I make them cut back on their peasant cyphering. It's rare for me to consider going above normal... unless it becomes necessary for the survival of my people.

And if I'm playing the French I tend to live the English on their island after I kick them off the continent. I find it helps to keep me on my toes with those pasty chested Brits still lingering about.

[Satyr]

If you are not also limiting the number of sea zones you are trading in then what is the point. The AI never trades well (unless you have loaded Medmod too) and if you build a mammoth trade empire it is still too easy to win. You have all the money and no one else does. Taking a long time to expand just means you are even richer before winning.

Personnally, I go the other way. I play with the same rules as trigger_on_vrb but I try to win as fast as possible. This means I am fighting battles when hugely under manned. I move the thrill of the game onto the battlefield. I get so over extended that if I lose a battle my whole kingdom might collapse. This seems way more fun to me and is definately more challenging. Now load Medmod 3.14 and live with the *homelands* restrictions and it gets even tougher.

[hr.oskar]

If you are not also limiting the number of sea zones you are trading in then what is the point. The AI never trades well (unless you have loaded Medmod too) and if you build a mammoth trade empire it is still too easy to win. You have all the money and no one else does. Taking a long time to expand just means you are even richer before winning.

Personnally, I go the other way. I play with the same rules as trigger_on_vrb but I try to win as fast as possible. This means I am fighting battles when hugely under manned. I move the thrill of the game onto the battlefield. I get so over extended that if I lose a battle my whole kingdom might collapse. This seems way more fun to me and is definately more challenging. Now load Medmod 3.14 and live with the *homelands* restrictions and it gets even tougher.

You're right about the trade - once you have trade fleets running from the Baltic to the Black Sea, you just can't stop the florins piling up, which gets boring after a while.

Trying to win as fast as possible is definitely worthy too - I should try it in my next game. How fast have you managed a 60% win? 50 turns? Less?