Current test to see what happens if you don't intervien ANYWHERE.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kudos to CA for not giving us a worthy opponent?



historical accuracy is one thing, game balance something else. I take good gameplay over historical accuracy any day...

Judging from the screenshots, no faction seems to be close to even have 20 provinces.

And as people have proved, a player can have 20 provs in what, 20 turns?

[Lacessit]

Kudos to CA for not giving us a worthy opponent?

Like the Hojo hordes?

[teakle]

Kudos to CA for not giving us a worthy opponent?



historical accuracy is one thing, game balance something else. I take good gameplay over historical accuracy any day...

Judging from the screenshots, no faction seems to be close to even have 20 provinces.

And as people have proved, a player can have 20 provs in what, 20 turns?

Kudos to CA for creating a historical simulation which, for whatever reason, gives us a vaguely historical outcome.

You want an overall AI that creates a counter-reaction to your attempts at world domination.

I want an overall AI that generally stays within the parameters of history.

You critcise the overall AI for this; I commend it.

Go figure.

[Kadagar_AV]

teakle, if this was a historical simulator, and if the goal of the game would be bound by historical accuracy I'd agree with you 100%.

You claim the game gives us a historicly correct outcome, that's simply wrong, the whole aim of the game is to build a world dominating empire (with, say, the danes!!). I know I know, you meant the example in this post, but that's not how the game should be played, remember (you know, those "victory conditions" the game sets)?

I don't know how you play, maybe you struggle keeping your initial borders secure without houserules, and maybe you struggle keeping your kingdom as big as is historicly correct, but you dont seem retarded.

My point is that CA needs to decide what way to go.... historical simulator or wargame, the combination just isnt working.