Victory conditions

[khelvan]

Ok guys, since we can adjust victory conditions, in general, how hard do you want them to be to achieve?

And what year would you like to see the average game end, given four turns a year and a start date of 272 BC? (We're not going to go far past 14 AD, so don't ask for it)

[Moros]

voted bartix since there's no gah! but seriously I'd think RTW's objectives were fine with me; a bit easier or harder is fine for me.

[Puppyonastik]

I chose the most difficult. Forging an empire to be proud of took a lot of blood and sweat. Hoping EB can cook up some great challenges.

And what year would you like to see the average game end, given four turns a year and a start date of 272 BC? (We're not going to go far past 14 AD, so don't ask for it)

I'm fine with the ending date being 14 AD. I think that 1144 turns is a good healthy amount. Though I'm happily open to what ever the team decides.

[Meneldil]

A bit longer than RTW wouldn't hurt.
BTW, couldn't you create new victory conditions a la GA mode from MTW thourgh scripting ? Such as building a given building in a given province, destroying a given faction, etc ?

[jerby]

i chose the longest..since when it's short one needs to quit very fast.
wiht the longest i can quit any time

[LorDBulA]

destroying a given faction

This is already done.

[jerby]

And what year would you like to see the average game end, given four turns a year and a start date of 272 BC? (We're not going to go far past 14 AD, so don't ask for it)

as long as Phyrus is in..ending doesnt matter

[Meneldil]

Awesome.

Another question : how will you remind the victory conditions to the players while the game is running ?

[khelvan]

Awesome.

Another question : how will you remind the victory conditions to the players while the game is running ?

Well, several ways I think. The leader should have a trait that displays the remaining victory conditions, if I recall correctly.

Remember, when voting, that we've added many new provinces; the map is much bigger now. Keeping victory conditions near vanilla means only 1/4 of the map need be conquered before you win.

Also, if you have things you would like to see specific factions achieve, post them here. We can expand our victory conditions.

On destroying other factions - certainly we can do that. Building a particular building? This I don't know...maybe. But come up with interesting ideas and we'll try to make them work.

[caesar44]

4 turns per year ? you can build an empire with in , let say 20 to 30 years ! so , Rome + 50 it's ok , but the time frame should be much shorter to make it harder . in vanilla you have only 568 turns , and now ? 1,136 !!!
272 bce to 90 bce = 728 turns , to much !
Let us follow the Romans , they build their empire from 275 bce to 43 ce , but , and this is a big but , from 146 bce they were the only empire in the western world with no true rivals but groups of "Barbaric" tribes .
272 to 146 = 504 turns . the bug is the Marian reforms...that started in 107-106 bce...

[the_handsome_viking]

i want the game to be much more difficult.


i really enjoyed playing germania and having to fight my way out of poverty in some icey forest ridden dump while getting attacked on all sides.

[Meneldil]

Remember, when voting, that we've added many new provinces; the map is much bigger now. Keeping victory conditions near vanilla means only 1/4 of the map need be conquered before you win.

On the other hand, I wouldn't like to have artificial conditions such as having the Sarmatian or the Greek trying to conquer Britain to win. If you can set different condition for different factions, I think you should not have a set amount (50) of provinces for each faction. Maybe the Roman would have to conquer the provinces of the Roman Empire at its peak, the Macedonian/Seleucid/Ptolemaic would have to remake Alexander's Empire, the Parthian the Persian Empire, etc.

On destroying other factions - certainly we can do that. Building a particular building? This I don't know...maybe. But come up with interesting ideas and we'll try to make them work.

Hum, I'm not that good at history, but surely some important buildings were built between 272 BC and 14 AD ? On the other hand, if your already having troubles with buildings and the governement system, screw up this idea.

[jerby]

well, liek you say it: they "should" remake Alexandros' empire. nah...
to need to choose wich way to go..as Macedon you coudl also choose to obliterate rome, not just staying focused on the East..

But seleucids shoudl destroy the ptolemoi. the baktrians need to capture a great part of the seleucids..

but dont make the conditions to specific, you just need to set the table: not scipt the history

[Malrubius]

Another question : how will you remind the victory conditions to the players while the game is running ?

The faction leader has a trait listing all the settlements that must be owned or must have been raided, or whatever else is required for victory. Also, the scripters have something they're working on that's a bit more dynamic...

[Conqueror]

The best possible condition would be just a generic "capture X provinces." That would be least restrictive to the player. The worst kind would be "you must destroy faction X." Taking specific provinces isn't much better. It just forces that every time you play the same faction, you must expand to the same direction and fight the same enemies

Of corse, that isn't really a problem if it's possible to ignore the conditions. Standard RTW campaign is actually very good in this sense, because Rome is almost guaranteed to stay in the hands of the Senate unless the player assaults it. Thus, you don't really have to worry about "losing", even if one of the AI factions gets to 50 provinces before you do. You can just do your own thing, attack those factions you want to attack, and declare yourself "winner" once you've achieved your own goals.

So if EB's way of handling the victory conditions doesn't put an end to the game if/when the AI factions achieve their goals, I'm fine with what ever conditions they come up with.

[Geoffrey S]

Large empires sounds good. Possibly another idea is to force the player to have sent an army in a certain direction at some point. So basically, the Romans could go all the way through Europe but a goal states that they must have sent an army over the Hellespont at some point.

[Kor Khan]

I think shorter is better. It might just be me, but my favorite part in any Total War game has been the beginning, preferably starting off with a very small empire. Just simply starting off trying to survive and then slowly expanding bit by bit is by far the best part of the game, IMO. After you've reached a certain number of provinces you're just epanding more and more, Just sending huge armies at enemy territories and dealing with annoying rebellions, there isn't so much of a "struggle" factor, as all you're doing is expanding more and more, it just takes ages until you finally win. This is the reason why I have only completed a full campaign a handful of times: I just don't find it exciting.

[Foot]

Yes, some less military type goals would be fantastic especially towards the end where money and superiorty mean that all you have to do is send in several stacks of units or buy cities from under your enemies.

Perhaps further learning across your empire: Build the highest academies (or equivalent) in every city in your empire (if you still have them that is).

Perhaps have different levels of victory conditions all in one campaign. So a Short campaign would only need to finish the short victory conditions. A Medium campaign would need to finsh medium and short victory conditions. A Long campaign would need to finish long, medium and short victory conditions.

Foot

[Geoffrey S]

What looks promising about EB is the way many rebel provinces will have proper, large armies, and that other factions have more room to expand before meeting the player. Essentially this means the game should be more varied throughout with many different enemies, which is why a longer game doesn't seem as bad to me as in the original RTW.

[Spitful]

You coul dhave extra provincial campaigns for teh different lengths of game wanted b users.

Anyway, i voted for very long campagins, but i suggest the following:

Kart Haddeshim (sp) -
1. Destroy outlive the following factions:-
a. Rome
b. Iberia
2. Capture/Hold seventy provinces.
3. Become master of North Africa

This forces them to fight there two major adversaries and expand and fight the other factions in that area of the map, Egypt and/ or Arche Seluekia

[GoreBag]

I suppose, then, that it's not possible to have multiple sets of victory conditions, a la short or long campain in RTW?

[Stuie]

I suppose, then, that it's not possible to have multiple sets of victory conditions, a la short or long campain in RTW?

I'm not doing any scripting for EB, but your idea is definitely possible. I'm doing something of the sort in The First Triumvirate mod - minor victory conditions and an ultimate victory condition. That way the player can decide if they want to go the distance or not.

As to what I'd like to see for victory in EB...

For Rome - they should control the territory equivalent to the Empire in 14AD.

The successor states should have to recreate Alexander's empire.

For other factions, it's hard to determine since they didn't really "win" historically. Well, I suppose the Parthians did to some extent by checking eastward Roman expansion when they defeated Crassus....

[vizigothe]

Kart Haddeshim (sp) -
1. Destroy outlive the following factions:-
a. Rome
b. Iberia
2. Capture/Hold seventy provinces.
3. Become master of North Africa

This forces them to fight there two major adversaries and expand and fight the other factions in that area of the map, Egypt and/ or Arche Seluekia

i like that, it also means you dont have to push towards rome and only rome, which got tedious

[Birka Viking]

I think that different levels of victory conditions all in one campaign is an exelent idea.

[Ludens]

Personally, I like the idea of having major and minor victory conditions. I have never played a full Imperial campaign to the end, so I voted the first option, but I would like there to be something more difficult than the short campaign.

[khelvan]

On the other hand, I wouldn't like to have artificial conditions such as having the Sarmatian or the Greek trying to conquer Britain to win. If you can set different condition for different factions, I think you should not have a set amount (50) of provinces for each faction. Maybe the Roman would have to conquer the provinces of the Roman Empire at its peak, the Macedonian/Seleucid/Ptolemaic would have to remake Alexander's Empire, the Parthian the Persian Empire, etc.

We have faction-specific conditions, with various things that need to be achieved. I'm trying to get a sense of relative scale, that's all. Number of provinces is a simple, if not very effective, way of gauging the interest of the fans.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I voted: About as challenging as vanilla - Rome + 50 provinces was just about right for me.

I think it should be more difficult than vanilla, but the province count should be smaller. On average that would mean about the same amount of hours per campaign as in vanilla, but more intense and perhaps slightly fewer provinces in order to win. Then on the other hand, I believe EB will counter the snowball effect of vanilla so good that the last 20 of the 50 provinces will be challenging to conquer, so 50 provinces is probably the best IMO. But judging from the province density on the EB map shown so far, slightly more wouldn't be boring either, but going much over 55-60 would perhaps be too much IMO.

[Steppe Merc]

More difficult. 50 provinces were too short, and Rome is pointless for all other factions.

[Moros]

except for Carthage and Aedui?

[jerby]

More difficult. 50 provinces were too short, and Rome is pointless for all other factions.

yeah..in EB. I'd liek to see Bactria get Rome...nice goal...