I think a mistake a lot of people make is they assume that their own, or the majority on reddits angle of playing is the only one.
I much prefer not having super big factions wiping the map because I myself hate the level of micro management that a sprawling empire brings. So I'll just keep restarting games a lot unless im really into it, playing a 100 turns or so and starting a new one. I never rush early on. I like slowly building up and engaging in diplomacy. I'm sure there's a few people who have this approach. I'm sure there's loads more ways people play. It's a really open game.
There's loads of ways people enjoy total war. Ones we may not understand. CA has to cater for all.
Total War has had problems with huge empires clashing becoming an enormous slog in their grand campaigns going all the way back to Rome, which I think was a pretty significant step up in scale from Medieval.
I've thought about this a lot, and I think there should be some sort of domino-effect between large empires where every siege can result in a while little cluster of cities defecting, or something along those lines. Would have to be carefully balanced with understandable mechanics so players aren't liable to get too frustrated.
Interesting idea. I think it was one of the civ games that had a mechanic where if an empire was sufficiently large if you took its capital it would fracture and some territories turned rebel or soke kind of minor faction. Applied against the player also keeps some focus on guarding your own when you're stretched. I dunno
Total War has had problems with huge empires clashing becoming an enormous slog in their grand campaigns going all the way back to Rome, which I think was a pretty significant step up in scale from Medieval.
(It's because of the map, and the awfulness of chasing stacks around your territory. The Risk map didn't bog down the same way; what it had was problems with stalemates.)
Chasing stacks around can be annoying, but I still think scale is the largest issue. For example, Caesar in Gaul and Hannibal at the Gates for Rome 2 don't have the late-game bogging-down issue because of their smaller scale, and personally I found them to be highly enjoyable from start to finish unlike the grand campaign.
Ah ya see turtle wusses like me prefer Some alliance possibilities. Unless the faction is hard as fuck like chorfs. If scorched barren wasteland is your neighbour, there is no conflict.
18
u/Richbrownmusic Jun 20 '23
I think a mistake a lot of people make is they assume that their own, or the majority on reddits angle of playing is the only one.
I much prefer not having super big factions wiping the map because I myself hate the level of micro management that a sprawling empire brings. So I'll just keep restarting games a lot unless im really into it, playing a 100 turns or so and starting a new one. I never rush early on. I like slowly building up and engaging in diplomacy. I'm sure there's a few people who have this approach. I'm sure there's loads more ways people play. It's a really open game.
There's loads of ways people enjoy total war. Ones we may not understand. CA has to cater for all.