Bi Fans Look Here! I Have A Question!

[Prodigal]

The only "bore" about lower prov's for me is that you have to trapse halfway over a province to kill the 2 revolting peasants. On the plus side, ambushes

[Garvanko]

. On the plus side, ambushes

And bridge battles.

I think the balance in BI is fine.

[dismal]

I'm pretty neutral on more versus less provinces. I think I'd say less is better bcause you can end the game earlier and still feel like you've conquered a big chunk of the world.

What I really miss is the lack of "strategically meaningful" provinces. In MTW your war plans would often revolve around capturing a certain province because it had iron, improved your border, or vastly improved your trade network. (Civ 3 also had this feature - you'd launch wars for oil or saltpeter because they were prerequisites for key units)

In vanilla RTW you sometimes went to war for wonders (Rhodes, principally) but mostly province value is just differences of degree.

[manbaps]

AI cant handle maps with lots of provinces its just gets confused in BI the AI is actually a mild challenge at times, taking more than 1 turn to get to a settlement is well good cus the AI, intentionally or unintentionally, sets more abushes cus its stops in the field and you can also initiate more field battles cus the AI has armies out of cities.

[Herakleitos]

What I really miss is the lack of "strategically meaningful" provinces. In MTW your war plans would often revolve around capturing a certain province because it had iron, improved your border, or vastly improved your trade network. (Civ 3 also had this feature - you'd launch wars for oil or saltpeter because they were prerequisites for key units)

I totally agree with you, I also miss the fact that provinces provide specific units with +1 experience or that certain units can be trained in a few provinces only...