Crazy long Campaign requirements

45 regions for the UK????? Er...what?

I have to say, this is completely ridiculous...granted it might be do-able in game terms (although I have to say I am one of those players who likes to expand my empire to the size it roughly was and fight with the resources that allows...mostly) but 45?!?

45 regions in MTW2 terms is probably larger than the 3rd Reich! Cmon CA...a teeny tiny bit of realism here would not go amiss.

Im certainly not a player who goes for a mad territorial land grab every game but this is what these requirements suggest. This also betrays quite a shocking mis-interpretation as to what the medieval period was 'all about'

I think this needs to be toned down a bit- and yes I know there is the short campaign- but I think this points to one glaring fact...this game needs Glorious achievements!!!

This offers much more in terms of the realistic desires of each nation in the game. This allows those smaller power to win 'in their own way'

Thank you. Opinions if youve got em...

Papal states require 100, in short campaign I think its 80. Pshh.....short of unleashing a blitzkrieg on Europe from Rome which is absurde, I think those requirements do seem a little ambitious, though perhaps not entirely out of the question for a really motivated player.

It can be modded though, I forgot what the file was called but I saw it last night so it's possible to tone down the #'s.

Yes, the massive land requirements of both RTW and M2TW have been a let down. I miss the glorious achievements victories. That made MTW so incredibly replayable. It even made the AI react so much differently. Being able to carve a victory your own way was one of the things that made TW great, you could expand, you could crusade, you could establish a strong home. All lead to victory, each lead to a very different game.

Yes, its not like the whole point of the series is to conquer the world or anything. Or the fact its called the Total War series.

I do not think CA have even vaguley pretended that the victory conditions are realistic, becasue they are not. And that is because you are doing a very unrealistic thing, and personally i love it.

Originally Posted by Lusted

Yes, its not like the whole point of the series is to conquer the world or anything. Or the fact its called the Total War series.

I do not think CA have even vaguley pretended that the victory conditions are realistic, becasue they are not. And that is because you are doing a very unrealistic thing, and personally i love it.

agreed!

I have some sympathy with Lancelot - the MT2TW victory conditions are rather generic and exhausting. After seeing the varied conditions in BI, I thought CA could have made the M2TW ones more GAish - more limited and faction specific.

I also hoped the missions might substitute for GAs but they don't. They are very incremental and short term - take that neighbouring town etc. I love the missions. But they are not generally the long term objectives that would shape your whole game

However, we can't protest too much - by and large, the MTW GAs were not that great, except for some early Catholic factions. But they did offer an opportunity that has not been followed through.

45 provinces + Jerusalem sounds broadly ok for a challenging game, though. I am on turn 90, VH/VH England and have only about half the required number of provinces, and have not set foot on the Holy Land. I've read of some people ending the campaign without managing to meet their goals, which is good IMO.

Originally Posted by Lusted

Yes, its not like the whole point of the series is to conquer the world or anything. Or the fact its called the Total War series.

I do not think CA have even vaguley pretended that the victory conditions are realistic, becasue they are not. And that is because you are doing a very unrealistic thing, and personally i love it.

What a completely trite response to a real issue I have with the game...

Let me respond in kind...Conquer the whole world...world map is it?...off to geography class for you...

And more to the point, the requirement is conquer 45 regions, which isnt even the whole map, let alone world...did you even think about your response before you typed it?

Second, do you even know what the term 'total war' really represents? Coz it sounds like you dont. So off you go and google it...

Geez Lancelot, you need to kick back and do some Yoga or something.

Lusted has a point, and so do you. The game is unrealistic even if it was only about taking twenty regions for nations like poland or denmark. On the other hand, it's this taste of "what if" that gives the game a great flavor, and that has probably made it such a big success.

If you find that you can't act like an adult on the forum, refrain from clicking the POST button.

My $.02... I'm okay with the campaign goals, given the nature of the game. The high number of provinces is probably aimed at establishing a clear winner by the end of time period CA wanted to cover. If the number were lower... like capturing 20 provinces or something... then it would be easier for the AI to win a victory condition before you ever saw the the Mongol event, the New World opening up, gunpowder, etc. A higher number of provinces also reduces the chance that two players (AI or human) would both hit the victory condition on the same turn.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing some alternative campaign goals, but I'm not sure it would change the feel of the game that much. For example, it would be fun if we could have the equivalent of a Tech Victory in GalCiv2... building up universities and research until we get a Newton or Galileo event, and then win the game that way. But you'd still need a large stable empire to divert that much money to research, inevitably involving warfare and territorial expansion. And you'd have to make sure you prevented AI factions from reaching the "normal" province number goal at the same time. So would the game really feel that different?

Glorious Achievements would have been nice. I mean really, what were the chances of Scotland or Hungary conquering all of Europe. Nothing against Scots or Hungarians, just a historical example.

Then again, what do I know.

What chance did city-states or tiny realms such as Rome, Macedon, of building empires? Slim, but it did happen, so it could have happened elsewhere. It's all a matter of having the right people, and Alexanders or Attilas don't grow on trees.

In TW series, that legendary conqueror happens to be YOU, so it all depends if you have the what it takes to pull it through.

By the way, did no one notice there happens to be a short campaign with faction specific objectives? Doesnt look like any of the whiners above did.

As for the great achievements systems in MTW, true it was fun at the time, but still felt a bit unfinished. I think it evolved into the current mission system, which I find richer and more rewarding. Very few countries in MTW had objective other than conquer a bunch of provinces.

Excellent point. Bravo.

Originally Posted by PaulTa

Geez Lancelot, you need to kick back and do some Yoga or something.

Lusted has a point, and so do you. The game is unrealistic even if it was only about taking twenty regions for nations like poland or denmark. On the other hand, it's this taste of "what if" that gives the game a great flavor, and that has probably made it such a big success.

If you find that you can't act like an adult on the forum, refrain from clicking the POST button.

hey, what do you mean Poland? it was one of Europe's biggest countries during late medieval period...

Originally Posted by Senta

hey, what do you mean Poland? it was one of Europe's biggest countries during late medieval period...

oh lordy... Did Poland ever equal Barbarossa or Napoleon's achievements? I don't think so (I might be wrong, but probably not). So when one makes an example to illustrate a point, then one has a bit of a liscense for creative freedom.

I'd like to point out that you don't necessarily need to conquer 45 regions to achieve the goal of the campaign.
In my game with the Scots I control maybe 20 regions - but Spain, Denmark and Milan are may Vassals, adding another 19 or so....

I find 45 not even that much..... hmmm maybe im the only one

Originally Posted by Zoltan

What chance did city-states or tiny realms such as Rome, Macedon, of building empires? Slim, but it did happen, so it could have happened elsewhere. It's all a matter of having the right people, and Alexanders or Attilas don't grow on trees.

In TW series, that legendary conqueror happens to be YOU, so it all depends if you have the what it takes to pull it through.

By the way, did no one notice there happens to be a short campaign with faction specific objectives? Doesnt look like any of the whiners above did.

Very few countries in MTW had objective other than conquer a bunch of provinces.

To your first point. Yes thats true but you seem to suggest that all societs across a large time period have the same goals. Medieval was a feudal system and could not fight like rome if it wanted to 99% of the time. It is an invalid comparison.

And as I stated already, GA mode made it about something other than plain conquering, if you so wished. Which made it a much more sensible depiction of the medieval world.

And yes I have already mentioned short mode...in my first 'whiney' post

As to your last point...hardly. Some were limited sure, but many especially England and HRE had a fun list of things to do.

Yeah, capture 45 provinces and a particular city...haven't I played this game before?

Didn't I get bored of this game because of the idiotic victory conditions?

Oh thats right! I did!

Thats also why I'm only playing short campaigns.

You could play till it's clear you are going to reach the victory conditions. Or till a faction reaches 30 or whatever. Or till a certain date and the leading faction in the graphs wins. Or play the short campaign.

I'm a bit miffed that conquest is the only way to win the game, and I do feel they've missed a trick. I would like to see either Civ style multiple victory conditions or even an EU2 style points system that would make development, diplomacy and production contributing factors along with conquest.

That said, I'm still loving the game. However, I think that without Glorious Achievements or some equivalent it might lose a bit of re-playability.

Ok, seems like people don't like the idea that things are difficult to do ... there are other difficulty levels and you don't have to complete the game, only attempt to.

And it's not a linear game, you may try to expand in any way you wish, if catholic excom your way through with no thought to religion, god forbid you try a peaceful campaign defending your borders. Role play is not everyones cup of tea but you can still make a decision to play the game in a certain way if you wish.

In my campaign (first one) I think I have about 60 turns left to take 12 regions and Jerusalem (have antioch and adana in the middle east), I may well do it, especially if I can get a vassal or 2 but the damn mongols came south and took the whole of the levant.

Why is it necessary to complete the objective if you can't? There is not a specific advantage to doing so as you unlock the nations you conquer as you do so, not through victory conditions.

We'll probably find that they are in there, just turned off for now as they didn't have time to balance them all.

Expect a lot of things like that to turn up once the un-packer arrives.

Also bearing in mind the existing goal-based mission objectives that the potential for modding in much longer term goals, and very specific ones, is possibly enormous: there seems no reason not to assume that you can set a 100 year goal to capture X city, build a huge cathedral or convert all of Jerusalem to Catholicism (or all of England to Muslim).


Combine the short-term goal objectives of specific regions into a long-campaign and add in specific goals from the council of nobles )or whatever you decide to rename it, or even add a new goal setter using the Guild-goal options) and - Voila! - a FAR greater potential for modded options that MTW ever possessed in its wildest dreams.

Certainly the release version is lacking in many areas, but don't overlook the massive potential.

Wow - what a load of strong opinions. You know what?

If you don't like the whole "conquer 45 regions" thing then do a short campaign - or set your own victory conditions and role-play... crikey.

You don't have to have some screen come up and say "j00 are teh winnah!" to win at this game, you know. Play it how you want to play it and be happy.

Just a reminder to everyone - please post in a friendly manner. There's no point getting angry because you have different opinions on a game from someone else.

I was disappointed with RTW's generic victory conditions. For every single faction it was conquer 50 provinces and control Rome. That was disappointing. I can understand that they wanted you to conquer Rome in order to achieve victory in Rome: Total War, because Rome manage to rule most of the known world at that time. But the "one size fits all" victory conditions ruined diversity in the game.

I enjoyed the whole style of Medieval: Total War's victory conditions. They weren't pushed into your face, but they did play a part in your overall strategy.

I agree with Lancelot. Glorious Achievements would have been great in M2TW and the current victory conditions are, to me, ridiculous.

That said, I'm not going to cry about it, I'll just play the game how I want to, and never actually 'win' a game.

It would however be great if when the time comes, GA can somehow be modded back into the game in some shape or form

I like it the way it is. Sure, they could add an option for GA victory, I wouldn't complain. But I also wouldn't use it myself...it was too easy in MTW and it'd be too easy now.

Frankly, the VH/VH campaign as it is now is too easy. I couldn't conceive of playing an even easier version.

Originally Posted by PaulTa

oh lordy... Did Poland ever equal Barbarossa or Napoleon's achievements? I don't think so (I might be wrong, but probably not). So when one makes an example to illustrate a point, then one has a bit of a liscense for creative freedom.

Poland:



Quick search and the map isn't very good. But the answer to your question is yes.

First lets do some hair-splitting: "Poland" (i.e. the different countries forming it) was one of the greater empires between the 15th and 18th century but could not be compared with empires build by maniacs like Napoleon or worse. And that's a good thing to say, isn't it?

Who/what is Barbarossa?

To topic: I never considered TW a game to win in the manner the game defines. I win the game when 1. I can see all the lovely warriors I'm able to build at all in the recruitment window and 2. I think the AI is at its end. From that on playing would be quite boring.

TW games -especially MTW and M2TW- are mainly arcade, you cannot ask for realistic winning conditions.

What a completely trite response to a real issue I have with the game...

How polite of you.

Let me respond in kind...Conquer the whole world...world map is it?...off to geography class for you...

I refer to the map in game as the world map as you are conquering a certain part of the world. Yes, it does not cover the whole world but it is the world in which the game takes place. I suppose i should have used the term map instead of world.

And more to the point, the requirement is conquer 45 regions, which isnt even the whole map, let alone world...did you even think about your response before you typed it?

Yes i do surprisingly.. 45 provinces is around half the map, but generally i play beuond that and go and conquer the whole map.

Second, do you even know what the term 'total war' really represents? Coz it sounds like you dont. So off you go and google it...

Total War refers to nations putting their entire effort into a war, so all production goes into a war, army gets massively expanded etc. But in the concept of the Total War series i believe it to refer to the fact you are at constant war, hence Total War.