Odd strategic question

[bamff]

I prefer GA myself as well.

Even then I often find myself acquiring more territory than I really actually want (sometimes it is hard to march away from a province once you have gone to the trouble of beating its previous holders back!).

[General Dazza]

I prefer GA myself as well.

Even then I often find myself acquiring more territory than I really actually want (sometimes it is hard to march away from a province once you have gone to the trouble of beating its previous holders back!).

On GA - I'm just playing my first GA campaign now. I enjoyed it at first when I was behind in points, and thought it would get harder if I turtled. But I found that as the factions got big they imploded and dropped back.

As a result I found myself facing borders with rebels. Which is fine, but the thing I'm not sure about is this - to get GA points I have to take provinces (I'm not one of the majors who have extra GA objectives), so it makes sense to take and keep provinces, which I've done. Now I'm way ahead cos no other faction gets enough provinces and holds them to challenge me. But I've found that I'm just playing a conquest game.

I can understand how you could role play it more, but conquest is still what you need to do to win.

I think it would be much better if, in a GA game, for all factions conquest was one of about 10 objectives. So rather than just choosing conquest you could choose a range of different paths to victory.

I know this won't happen, but...