Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
But all in all, at this point I'd be wrapping it up and gearing to start another playthrough.
Even though you can paint the map in this game, it wasn’t really designed with that in mind. For example, there are diminishing returns from owning more provinces past a certain point. Don’t get me wrong, you can still paint the map and have a heap of fun. It’s just that the other win conditions seem to fit better with the overall game design.
All Kingdom Advantages first, then if I feel like playing longer, Emperor of the World.
And indeed, if you have good diplomacy you don't get attacked or at least, it's very rare.
Yeah most strategy games like this suffer from the snowball effect and late game boredom. And like you, I also never finish a Total War campaign. This game is slightly better because you are limited by the number of royal knights, so therefore recruiting more marshals lowers your kingdom power elsewhere.
The win conditions also help create a different dynamic to just map conquest for the sake of it. This can give various wars a specific goal of obtaining the missing resources you need to win. I can imagine that a multiplayer game, with experienced players, could be quite interesting.