Pyrrhos of Epeiros campaign

[JC_von_Preussen]

Playing the Pyrhic campaign in level 3 difficulty, I fin that Cathage is way harder to beat than Romans. aybe it has to do with difficulty level as well ?

What's more, Pyhric campaign ( my first) is pretty linear in choices : call allies or await reinforcements from home... That's a bit dull.. What's more, battle are all open battles...
The Pyrhic army seems to work mostly around the Close order superior warbands
The more of them you get, the more efficient your army grows. They remind me of the Swiss Pikemen of P&S

Just finished the Pyrrhus campaign in difficulty non-progressive. Fairly easy fights against the Romans. Moderately hard fights against Carthago, and very tough fights against the Macedonians (lost first battle).
There's no campaign result end screen, that's quite frustrating.
What's more, the "sandbox" system really was dull. It was always the same choices, and all battles were open battles... I remember there was more diversity in P&S. Maybe it's just this campaign tough ? I'll try someothers.
:p

I posted this on discord and wanted to share my impressions here.

[JC_von_Preussen]

Sorry for the double post.

I've just finished the Mithridate campaign.

Although trying the Pontus fighting style is fun at first, when you reach the 7th open battle, you're clearly fed up. The campaign, just like the Pyrrhos one is pretty dull. I really get the feeling the sandbox campaign system, although very promissing on paper, is under-used. What's more Mithridate campaign is frustrating as you play sevral battles after your army has been disbanded.
Suggestion : let us lose Mithridates battle on purpouse. Set a special goal, like losing not that badly. that would be very fun and would kill the monotony.

[grumblefish]

Sorry for the double post.

I've just finished the Mithridate campaign.

Although trying the Pontus fighting style is fun at first, when you reach the 7th open battle, you're clearly fed up. The campaign, just like the Pyrrhos one is pretty dull. I really get the feeling the sandbox campaign system, although very promissing on paper, is under-used. What's more Mithridate campaign is frustrating as you play sevral battles after your army has been disbanded.
Suggestion : let us lose Mithridates battle on purpouse. Set a special goal, like losing not that badly. that would be very fun and would kill the monotony.

Yep, I did the Mithridates campaign and found it to be very, very dull. I was obliterating everyone, but like you said, it's just open battle after open battle, with no real choices in between. I can only think of one actual choice I made, whether to fight enemy A or B; every other part of the campaign has been linear.

[JC_von_Preussen]

Yep, I did the Mithridates campaign and found it to be very, very dull. I was obliterating everyone, but like you said, it's just open battle after open battle, with no real choices in between. I can only think of one actual choice I made, whether to fight enemy A or B; every other part of the campaign has been linear.

Thank you for posting this. I was starting to wonder if I was the only person here who found those campaigns needed more love. Maybe the vast majority started playing other stuffs, like Rise of Rome and Caesar campaign, while I started playing more exotic armies. I wonder if the current state of things is definitive.

Sandbox should be an incintive to replay campaigns. Currently, I would not replay Mithridate and Pyrrhos campaigns !

[JC_von_Preussen]

Yep, I did the Mithridates campaign and found it to be very, very dull. I was obliterating everyone, but like you said, it's just open battle after open battle, with no real choices in between. I can only think of one actual choice I made, whether to fight enemy A or B; every other part of the campaign has been linear.

Thank you for posting this. I was starting to wonder if I was the only person here who found those campaigns needed more love. Maybe the vast majority started playing other stuffs, like Rise of Rome and Caesar campaign, while I started playing more exotic armies. I wonder if the current state of things is definitive.

Sandbox should be an incintive to replay campaigns. Currently, I would not replay Mithridate and Pyrrhos campaigns !

[JaM2013]

yeah, same experience here... i would at least expect playing some historical battles with maps made at least resembling the area they were fought on, but they are completely randomized.. sandbox campaign is way better, to the point, i rather set up same era opponents and play through that, than starting "historical" one.. kinda wasted potential really.. i think it would be a lot better if devs have studied some of those campaigns and tried to simulate situations these generals were getting into.. like Caesar campaign against Helvetii, where he was actually trying to prevent the tribe from crossing the river, and fought some interesting battles against them..

If you need inspiration, i highly recommend watching Historia Civilis channel on youtube. These guys went into insane detail describing Caesar's camapaign in Gaul, with battle descriptions, possitioning, and overal strategic situation.. here is the part about helvetii:

[Paul59]

yeah, same experience here... i would at least expect playing some historical battles with maps made at least resembling the area they were fought on, but they are completely randomized.. sandbox campaign is way better, to the point, i rather set up same era opponents and play through that, than starting "historical" one.. kinda wasted potential really.. i think it would be a lot better if devs have studied some of those campaigns and tried to simulate situations these generals were getting into.. like Caesar campaign against Helvetii, where he was actually trying to prevent the tribe from crossing the river, and fought some interesting battles against them..

The historical campaign system is basically just the sandbox system, with some of the variables decided by the campaign designer. Both styles of campaign result in random battle maps and random orders of battle. There is no way to recreate an actual historical battle in the historical campaign system. I think it was made that way to make it easy for modders to create new campaigns, and to give replayability. You could play the Pyrrhos campaign multiple times, and get different battle maps every time.

There is only a limited set of campaign decisions available to the modder/designer. From my experience in designing the Antiochus III campaign, I found most of them not very useful. When it comes to the Raphia or Magnesia stage, I did not really want to give the player the option to go off protecting supply wagons or fighting the enemies allies. I think this tends to make the historical campaigns more linear. But then I believe the campaign system is in it's infancy and it will doubtless improve with the suggestions of our wonderful fan community.

[shawkhan2]

So strange, but I seem to be swimming against the current here.
I find the Pyrrhus campaign fascinating. Just love facing the different armies in the course of one campaign.
The Romans I almost always find the toughest to fight. I would beat them but suffer 12-15% casualties doing so.
The Carthaginians are almost a blow-out. Seldom exceed 8-9% casualties beating them.
Much of the joy in fighting the battles is the rock/paper/scissors effect.
You must select the unit type that can most effectively face-off with an opposing unit type.
So far I have not found much that can beat a veteran Hastati/Principes in a fair fight. Usually have to practice those things called maneuver and tactics to defeat them with a phalanx-based army.

[JaM2013]

yes, that is the main advantage of historical campaign vs sandbox one.. that you have face multiple enemies within single campaign.