What is GAMEPLAY?

[hellenes]

I don't think that decision was based on a gameplay reason. It was a marketing decision based on wanting the game to have a certain visual apperance. It did affect gameplay because Egypt ended up with unit types that shouldn't be there such as chariots. There was a gameplay decision made about Egypt and that was it should be a very strong faction to balance out Rome in the later part of the campaign. This may actually be why chariots ended up being so powerful in the game.

Egypt balancing Rome?
I didnt know that CA cared about balance, a SP one for that matter...
But any decision against Historical accuracy CA is basing it on these clowded "gameplay" thing which sounds like a bizzare mixture of eye candy, dumbing down, and lowest common denominator...

Hellenes

[Ciaran]

Well, here´s my opinion:
Gameplay has nothing to do with graphics. There are a lot truly ancient games who wouldn´t pass muster in the graphic department anymore but that are still fun to play.
Gameplay also has not necessarily to do with historical accuracy. It´s about providing a challenging and enjoyable playing experience, by balancing strengths and weaknesses and providing an intuitive control interface, making it transparent which action will lead to which result.

[Puzz3D]

Egypt balancing Rome?
I didnt know that CA cared about balance, a SP one for that matter...

CA does try to balance the game, but, as MikeB recently said, they can't afford to spend the time required to balance it to the extent that some players want. The majority of players seem to be satisfied with a game balance that is considerably less than it could be.

[Jambo]

When you've got 10 or so factions, each with their own unit selection, it's not really surprising that balancing them against each other unit for unit wouldn't have been one of CA's top priorities and likewise a priority for the casual SP gamer.

For isntance, I don't mind that the Romans dominate the Imperial Campaign. If I go one of them I expect to see and be part of a tough civil war, after all, this is supposed to be the climax of the Roman SP game. Prior to this version I've managed to have only 1 decent civil war and that was me (Julii) versus the Brutii. Scipii were spread poorly over Carthage's North African territories and had stopped expanding for whatever reason. Needless to say I won in the end.

I'm pleased to say that in my current Scipii campaign both Brutii and Julii are doing well, with Julii in fact actually leading the race over myself and the Brutii who incidentally nearly succumbed to the Greeks in the early stages. Therefore, this one has the potential to be a real three way fight, which I'm looking forward to.

As for the other factions I like to see some degree of randomness in their expansion capabilities from one campaign to the next. I get bored by Egypt and Pontus dominating in the east and Britannia and Spain in the west. I still expect the Romans to dominate as the end goal is always to take Rome.

Without these factors in place properly, the end game becomes boring and anticlimatical and I find myself often losing interest in playing campaigns to completion. In previous versions the bugs in the game conspired to hinder these important developments, e.g. save/reload issues or broken naval AI. I'm hoping that 1.5 will finally give us the end game we were promised.