There it goes, fun factor low.

**Daevyll** · 04-09-2009, 10:31

So, to date, youve gotten several weeks worth of enjoyment out of your 50 euro purchase.
Sounds like a good deal to me.

**Smellycat** · 04-09-2009, 10:51

It is not a good deal if you consider we played the previous games for years. It is the first TW game since MTW that i have shelved after 2 weeks. Posting about this game is more fun than playing it. I am not saying it is like that for everyone but it is like that for me mostly because I know that i can not lose and that takes a lot of the fun away.

**Namarie22** · 04-09-2009, 11:26

Originally Posted by Daevyll

So, to date, youve gotten several weeks worth of enjoyment out of your 50 euro purchase.
Sounds like a good deal to me.

I wonder if thinking like that isn't why the gaming industry is what it is, nowhere else would we accept halfbaked products, except with a outrage... my first computer game that I really liked, Dungeon Master by FTL, I still play with a emulator on my PC... Carrier Command, Elite IV, EOTB, Dark Sun, Powermonger, all SSI's games hung around, then there were fewer and fewer games as the years passed like that, up comes the 2000's and games started hanging around for a half a year or so, and later, be happy if you get a few weeks worth out of games.. :P

Dungeon Master came out in 1986, I still play it.

I played Shogun until last year, R:TW and M:TW1+2 until, well, haven't really stopped, they are still installed, just taking a break.. I sincerely hope that E:TW will last more than a few weeks.

OH, there is ONE gem that I started playing during alpha, and bought, and still play, that gem Mount and Blade.. it's excellent, with it's flaws, but nothing glaring... Guess I can go and continue my campaign there until a few patches has arrived for E:TW.. :D

Hm.. complete ramble now.. lol

**Schiltrom** · 04-09-2009, 11:43

I love Mount and Blade!

I find the game boring for the exact opposite reason: I'm a PATHETIC player and without cheats I've no hope of getting anywhere. Just having downloaded RTR can't have helped either.

**maestro** · 04-09-2009, 12:03

Keep at it Schiltrom - you're lucky that the game is at least challenging. Us TW vets often find new TW games waaaay too easy and have to rely on after-market mods to spice things up a little. I have to say, contrary to what all the reviews and previews said, E:TW is the easiest one I've played for a long time. Still - plenty of factions and styles still to play

You'll get better and better with every turn and soon enough you'll be in the sweat-spot where it's about right. Not too hard and not too easy, but a good, enjoyable challenge. I envy you :(

**jsberry** · 04-09-2009, 13:13

It hit me today too. The weariness, the boredom. It's just about buying another stack of troops to go take another enemy capital - way too easy.

The essence of 1700s diplomacy was that nobody should be allowed to get too powerful. That should be very easy to hard-wire into the AI diplomatic choices. Likewise, nobody went for the jugular. Frederick's conquest of Silesia (ONE province) took two major wars and was considered "great." He never came close to taking Vienna. Only one major power was removed (Poland) and it took three concerted invasions by other powers, in the LATE half of the century.

This game is the other extreme. Any game that allows Hollard to conquer and annex France (and England... and Prussia...) is fundamentally flawed.

Here's a no-brainer that the developers could easily implement: Certain regions (France, England, most home nation capitals) CANNOT be conquered - the major powers CANNOT be removed from the game. If capitals are taken, the loser must agree to terms (X regions, Y money, Z techs). That would keep the game both balanced and grounded in a 1700s context.

**Smellycat** · 04-09-2009, 13:41

all the diplomatic status +/- thgings are worthless if you can be hated by everyone and still noone attacks you.

**mmk** · 04-10-2009, 15:11

Originally Posted by jsberry

It hit me today too. The weariness, the boredom. It's just about buying another stack of troops to go take another enemy capital - way too easy.

The essence of 1700s diplomacy was that nobody should be allowed to get too powerful. That should be very easy to hard-wire into the AI diplomatic choices. Likewise, nobody went for the jugular. Frederick's conquest of Silesia (ONE province) took two major wars and was considered "great." He never came close to taking Vienna. Only one major power was removed (Poland) and it took three concerted invasions by other powers, in the LATE half of the century.

This game is the other extreme. Any game that allows Hollard to conquer and annex France (and England... and Prussia...) is fundamentally flawed.

Here's a no-brainer that the developers could easily implement: Certain regions (France, England, most home nation capitals) CANNOT be conquered - the major powers CANNOT be removed from the game. If capitals are taken, the loser must agree to terms (X regions, Y money, Z techs). That would keep the game both balanced and grounded in a 1700s context.

Sounds like a very good idea!

Overall, my experience with the game is similar to yours.
And I really still don´t understand why Prussia would want to trade East Prussia for Courland.

The diplomacy of this game drives me crazy and takes away a lot of the fun. I must say that I enjoyed playing MTW II much more.

**Maladin** · 04-10-2009, 15:32

I agree. I enjoyed Empire: Total War for two weeks after buying it, but now every campaign is the same. Race for the trade spots, plan what to build in each town, search for the same technologies, bribe nations into trading with you, fight off the suicidal one-province powers... I never even got past 1730 because I was already bored by then.

Come to think of it, Dawn of War II is pretty boring once you finish it too.

Someone mentioned Master of Orion; I never played it, only the second game, but I loved it and still play it from times to times. The diplomacy system was particularly good: you could ask people to stop wars, for example.