Wanted: some limits to expansion

[x-dANGEr]

Man.. "Limiting" yourself is really not we ask for.. I never micromanage anything in RTW campaigns, and I still get away with a victory after what..? 50 turns! (50 turns aren't long at all btw.. I just move that army, and click end turn)

[iwantmyaccountdeleted]

I hated the WRER and ERER. They were pathetic. I even let them rebel, gave them five turns to build up then attacked them with small armies. I crushed them without even retraining or pausing to consolidate.

Several points about rebellions

-They should be a faction living in that region, not rebels
-Rebel factions (if they are included) should not be a different colour clone of the original faction
-Dead factions can appear
-Rebels should not have gold chevrons in a large town. Or gold armour. Or gold weapons. Or be cataphracts. Limit the rebels to what can be trained there. For gods sake, I'm being tired of being eradicated by Kydonian rebels when they rebel against the Greeks (who retook it) kill them, and kill my invading army taking about 3 losses. (How'd they get full stats on a large town?)
-Rebel factions should appear in neighboring factions, not spread out across the whole empire. I simply pause in my stride, wipe them out in one turn, and carry on...

Several Points about LOTR

-It is a great game but it is not TW. Don't try to make it TW. Don't try to make TW it. If I want to play LOTR, I'll play it, not M2TW.
-I don't like the idea of making weapons etc. Maybe on a global scale, have that sort of choice for your economy, but it sounds suspiciously like more micromanagement to me.
-LOTR can teach M2TW some things. I think a reasonable blend of the two games - including a lot of existing MTW material - could just work...

I'm kinda skeptical about house rules, but to each his own

Signing off,

Stormie

(The relative newb)

[gunslinger]

I'm amazed at how many people compare MTW to Lords of the Realm II. Until I came here, I thought I was the only person in the world who remembered that old game. The "campaign map" part of the game was very good for such an old game, but the "battle map" part could be mastered by a six-year-old.

I've said this before in another thread, but the thing that really kept LOTR II interesting was that you were on a comparatively small strategic map, and once you had conquered it, you started over on a more challenging map (I never did play them all). This would never work in a TW setting which uses a realistic map of the medieval or Roman world as a stage.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

MTW was capable of throwing you amazing strategic challenges. In my current campaign the Italians attacked, destroyed my fletts and struck in four seperat provinces. As a result I lost my conection to Outremer which caused a mass rebellion in the Holy Land and my reliance on naval trade threatened to bankrupt me. Had they done it ten turns earlier it would have been dangerous. Unfortunately I had full stacks on every border, which meant my only problem was the Holy Land.

The AI isn't that stupid, it just doesn't see the big picture. Its individual moves are usually good. They just don't add up. The retaining thing is a serious handicap and CA need to fix it.

[cannon_fodder]

Some of those things are already present in RTW (notably the healthy populace one). I think the concept could and should be expanded, but perhaps not too much. Having more good resources and attributes is better than having too few, and that should be reflected in the game.

The main source of challenge and limit to expansion once you have a large empire should be more powerful enemy empires to fight, which was the case in RTW.

[screwtype]

I've said this before in another thread, but the thing that really kept LOTR II interesting was that you were on a comparatively small strategic map, and once you had conquered it, you started over on a more challenging map (I never did play them all). This would never work in a TW setting which uses a realistic map of the medieval or Roman world as a stage.

The version of LOTR II that I mostly played was the Amiga version, which is considerably superior to the PC version. And the Amiga version had only one map - the map of Britain, excluding Scotland. But I can assure you I played that one map over and over again! So the LOTR II system certainly isn't inappropriate for "a TW setting" using a single realworld map.

[rory_20_uk]

The thought of a game where I need to micromanage food, birth rates, resources, etc etc doesn't thrill me. I can play Civ 4 when I want that.

IMO the problem is that historically a strong leader could lead his country and gain a lot, regardless of the time period. However, often when the succession went bad so did the empire.

We are always the good leader with a firm hand on the tiller. We're not led astray with such matters as court infighting or a surfeit of food / wine / women. So, yes, difficulties are overcome and the empire grows. Charlamane managed to conquer most of Europe. Alexander most of the Middle East. Only their death destroyed it.

Personally, I don't want a game where everything I make sporadically implodes regardless of what I do (oh, up to 30 provinces - oh, this time it's a plague!)

What might be slightly more interesting (if contrived) is to have the threats that are external to be increased from time to time, such as another wave of people from the Steppes / Middle East / North Russia / British Isles (where is not that crucial. The warn out factions against you are slaughtered and a new foe takes their place, radically altering the map of Europe.

Yes, you can survive, but you'll be defending against an attack from a fringe where you might not expect it. Getting a decent number of semi plausable triggers might be slightly tough (there are only so many pretenders / new religions / cults / crusades / excommunications / barbarian invasions that can be stomached).

[screwtype]

The thought of a game where I need to micromanage food, birth rates, resources, etc etc doesn't thrill me. I can play Civ 4 when I want that.

Yes, but I specifically said I wouldn't support such a system for TW either. A bit too complex for a campaign map as big as a typical TW game. It would have worked great for Shogun though!

Personally, I don't want a game where everything I make sporadically implodes regardless of what I do (oh, up to 30 provinces - oh, this time it's a plague!)

Neither do I - far from it. (In fact one reason I've never much liked MTW is because of the province rebellions/60% world rebellion features. Boring).

What I said is that I'd like a system that is based on player skill - ie you can avoid implosion of your Empire if you're skilled enough. As a general rule I'm against random events in games that have a big impact on play. At the very least random events should be able to be ameliorated by a skilful player.

[rory_20_uk]

The current system requires skill. So you are advocating one that requires more skill.

To do this there can be:

more variables to balance
AI allowed to cheat more (more gold / trade / units are better)
More savvy AI both tactically and strategically.

IMO the basic crux is that the AI isn't capable enough. Other solutions are merely to palliate this fact. Random implosions are no good I agree, but then nor is having another 5, 10, or whatever factors to balance. Again, once you get that sorted you'll continue to crush the opposition beneath your sandles. Ths skill needs to be present on both the tactical and the strategic maps. The AI doesn't do a particularly great job on either.

Strategically, even when allied the AI never acts together. No joint attacks, no coinciding thrusts to stretch your armies. Hell, you can trade with one half of an alliance when at war with the other! In essence alliances mean precious little, and empires will passively sit there watching you crush their allies one by one - whilst bankrolling you - until it's their "turn".

To fix this problem there are mods that address this issue with trying to sort out the AI (darth's darkmod for example). Whilst it is a lot better the basic system is flawed.
Others try to do things the other way and the player is drowned in barbarian hoards pouring in from Gaul - effective, but hardly fun fighting essentially the same battle 5 times per go.