I was led to believe that I could "play tall"?

[MarkShot]

I was led to believe that I could "play tall"? But it seems to me that regions seem to be the major factor in legacy computation. Thus, the game seems to encourage not painting the entire map, but painting more of the map than any serious competitor. Am I missing something?

Thanks.

[Gray Fox]

Produce culture and you can reach certain milestones to receive 1 to 5 Legacy points per turn in a region. So 20 regions with 5 Legacy each beat 80 regions with only 1 Legacy each. In my Rhodus campaign, Rome was the largest faction on the map and they lost to me.

[eddieballgame]

'Playing Tall' is viable to a point, particularly when trying to avoid decadence & the 'mixing of tribes'.
Playing Gothones with almost 300 turns in, I am ranked 8th with only 17 regions, but I don't plan on winning.
Just garnering some respect/praise from the fictional history books.
Per a larger faction you can attain higher goals/status with less regions.
In the screen shot the status of Britonae has been achieved with only 43 regions.

[Alcoolamus]

I think you can play tall to an extent with hellenic factions and if you focus on producing lots of culture
But I agree, eventually you will have to somewhat paint the map especially in MP

[loki100]

I was led to believe that I could "play tall"? But it seems to me that regions seem to be the major factor in legacy computation. Thus, the game seems to encourage not painting the entire map, but painting more of the map than any serious competitor. Am I missing something?

Thanks.

I'd reverse your analysis - its about ensuring that a serious competitor can't paint enough of the map to leave you lagging on legacy.

How you solve this (if you can solve it) is highly situational, if Antigonus survives then you have to trip them up - feasible if you are Macedonia, doable as Rome, a bit of a challenge if you are the Picts. If you are a Hellene faction and the Diadochi are all gone, then I think a legacy win off tall, with the occasional well placed kick at your neighbours, is doable.

I also tend to have a rough rythym of expand, run up my decadence budget, consolidate so I can afford more decadence, expand and so on

[Pocus]

I had a discussion about that, and there was the suggestion that in case of civil war, a nation should lose some of its legacy. That would certainly help playing tall. I'm not too sure how players would react to that though, would they think it adds insult to injury or would they welcome the changes? That would be a lever to reduce legacy to an otherwise winning nation.

[brdxman]

I had a discussion about that, and there was the suggestion that in case of civil war, a nation should lose some of its legacy. That would certainly help playing tall. I'm not too sure how players would react to that though, would they think it adds insult to injury or would they welcome the changes? That would be a lever to reduce legacy to an otherwise winning nation.

I'm for it, the more challenge the better, I would like to see a way to win with a more compact well put together society, but still be able to win by the normal expand to own the whole of the Mediterranean, both options should be possible.
You will have to take care of your society to try and mitigate civil war from happening in the case of big expansionism, keep the people happy!

my 2 cents, also it could be a on/off option as well if there is a backlash to it.
Also I think that a smaller state as a option would be a good historical option in the soon to be released Persia expansion, thinking Greek states in particular.

[Gray Fox]

In my Seleucids campaign, I resolved to stay at 100 regions. After a war of conquest, I gave away regions to my Client States to stay at that number. In the Rhodus AAR, I had 124 regions and as Carthage over 170 when I won, so 100 is relatively small for me so far. I crushed Antigonids in 3 wars, which caused them to crumble away. It was a short game then, because I played "tall".

viewtopic.php?f=563&t=98426

[Bridger]

I had a discussion about that, and there was the suggestion that in case of civil war, a nation should lose some of its legacy. That would certainly help playing tall. I'm not too sure how players would react to that though, would they think it adds insult to injury or would they welcome the changes? That would be a lever to reduce legacy to an otherwise winning nation.

Is region culture stockpile reduced when it is conquered? Seems like that would help a little bit (lower culture stockpile = less legacy from culture depending on the threshold). So if conquering a region lowered it's culture by, say 10-15%, then a civil war in which both sides fight over core provinces could do a bunch of damage to legacy output.

[MarkShot]

I think the first thing to do is ask what the game is trying to accomplish in terms of establishing victory conditions?

There are games such as EU4 that really have no official victory conditions.

There are other games like the TW series that tend to have map painting oriented victory conditions.

Both of the above attempt to place obstacles to the "snow ball" effect. Which is generally accomplished by having the world turn against you at some point.

In terms, of placing such obstacles, I find Empires has one of the best set of anti-snowballing mechanics. To view it at the macro level, there is a positive feedback loop "snow balling" which does happen as you ascend, but the game dynamics make it impossible to reach an equilibrium at the top. So, the longer you are at the top, the greater the forces pulling you down, and you ultimately end up in an inverse negative feedback loop. It is a fascinating dynamic, but of course, proper pacing can be the key to making sure that when 500 years are up, you have accumulated the legacy lead. In the real world, history has no end point and few of the civilizations from antiquity have reached the modern era ... although without question Greece and Rome have contributed greatly to what our world is today, and China and much of its ancient culture has reached the modern era. So, given the constraint of Empires being a game, it does the penalty on map painting better than any other title and in a very fresh exciting way.

Finally, to absolutely penalize map painting would be ahistoric. What do we remember the Romans, Macedonia & Alexander, or the Mongols for? Is it concrete and the arch? Is it the roots of our languages? Is it the propagation of culture? Is it a warrior culture? I think if not for the scope of their empires, we who play these games would not hold them in such awe today. So, given that the game is modeling antiquity, it would be unrealistic not to consider some extent of map painting to be part of the historic flavor.

The three areas for debate are:

(1) Should legacy ever decline? (other than events or mortgaging the future for troops)

(2) Should negative social/governmental progress result in legacy decline? (in a way, it does already, since this is a long game and very your legacy income if often more important than current legacy values)

(3) Should client states in part contribute to your legacy?

My first first post was simply that I found region acquisition seemed to over power the legacy equation compared to culture. But I think even if that were not true, some degree of necessary expansion is obligatory. You must be able to field a sufficient military to deter enemies. I am not sure how the AI decides when it will aid an ally and when it will leave an ally to die. I have received remarkable aid that has kept me in the game, and I have received total ambivalence too. Thus, if you want to guarantee your own national integrity, you must achieve sufficient size, economy, and combat power. Or you only win at the mercy rivals not attacking you.

[poesel71]

I think reducing culture in contested regions is a very elegant way to reduce legacy gain. In a way we already have that with the -100% culture modifier during pacification. However, that only limits 'new' culture but doesn't destroy 'old'.

IMHO legacy should not decline ever (I do not like those special events where you can't spend it like currency). Legacy is for the history books. Good or bad - doesn't matter. Only thing is that it persists through time.

Absorbing a client should get you some of their legacy. Remember - the winners write the history books.

[Pocus]

That's already done since 1.00 actually, reducing culture in conquered regions. But as you said, it reduces income, not current amount.

[Morbio]

I wonder if in some circumstances an enemy occupying your region(s) could destroy some of your culture? Obviously not what has been accrued, but perhaps what exists and has been built. There have been a few, perhaps many examples of this in history, most recently IS in Palmyra.

Perhaps if an enemy hates you enough, there's a chance that some of your culture buildings could be destroyed, so that if you regain the region then you have some legacy capability.

Just a thought...