Experiment to see how hard game is...

[Corka]

I would have thought that 80% of players when first playing the game would throw diplomacy to the wind and go on a conquering spree regardless. I know I did. I mean, you're told from the get go 'You have to conquer 45 settlements to win.', which automatically puts players in the frame of mind to go a conquering.

[Garnier]

You have to mod the game or play with serious houserules.

The trouble is that blitzing is too easy and you can win if you get the jump on conquering. Also sacking cities gives too much money it seems. If the AI had a garrison script, the game could be harder.

[diotavelli]

I would have thought that 80% of players when first playing the game would throw diplomacy to the wind and go on a conquering spree regardless. I know I did. I mean, you're told from the get go 'You have to conquer 45 settlements to win.', which automatically puts players in the frame of mind to go a conquering.

This is true but the game blurb also makes much of the diplomatic and economic elements of the game. I for one didn't realise initially that I could make more money from buying troops and sacking cities than I could through building my economy.

I'd be interested to know the proportion of players who bought M2TW and simply ignored vast elements of the options for gameplay in their first few games. Ignoring diplomacy and economic development and concentrating solely on conquest is a deliberate and far from inevitable decision. The game blurb gives the impression that it will be difficult to win without handling all elements correctly (an erroneous impression but one given, nevertheless), so ignoring important elements would seem illogical without additional information to suggest the contrary.

OF COURSE someone with a different approach would look at the game with another perspective... But the point is that this playstyle is what new players learn FROM the game... New players dont learn (from playing) they need merchants to win, they learn that the micro-management needed for controlling, say, merchants isnt worth it as you can beat the game regardless... And games ARE about winning, and having fun.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Most factions start the game with a merchant: in your first game, most people would assume they'd been given this merchant for a reason and would therefore try to use him. What they "learn FROM the game" therefore is that you need to learn how to use merchants effectively, not that you don't need merchants (that's something you might realise later on).

The game throws diplomacy at you. Most factions start with a princess or diplomat and are approached throughout the early stages by the same from other factions. All of this gives the impression that diplomacy is significant in the game: I can't see how someone could think otherwise.

The idea that you'd realise diplomacy and economic development were less effective than blitzkrieg without playing the game for a considerable period or hearing from another source that this is the case is unlikely: as unlikely as guessing that the AI would be passive at sieges or that shields were bugged without fighting any battles.

If players are presented with lots of prompts from the game to develop their economies and utilise diplomacy (by the presence of diplomats, princesses, merchants and economic buildings) and yet decide, in their very first game that they don't need any of these things to win, they must be possessed of a degree of perspicacity that I don't share.