Slitherine

Hi,

I see that Objectives are assigned without any realistic sense. I am playing as a Roman and my objectives are always far away in the middle of nowhere. Not at all any sense with my current diplomatic situation. Also, they disappear and replaced by other (nonsense) objectives.
When i was playing with the 1.03 (actually just 1 game, 80 turns) the ruling party was giving me realistic objectives often in the nation i was at war with.
Is this working "as designed" ?

Agreed, the objective system is my only major gripe with the game. I actually stopped playing because objectives are crucial to the victory conditions, so I'm hoping they will be fixed.

It seems (to me) to have gotten worse with the 104 patch.

Yes, I was just playing as Rome. Not even controlling all of Italy I'm already getting objectives in places like Caledonia.

Dynamic objectives were introduced in the 1.04 patch. Personally I like the change, you may have to decide to take a nearby objective quickly, before your fickle ruler changes his mind. Alternatively, if you get an objective in an inconvenient spot, you can just wait for it to change.

Prior to 1.04 objectives were pretty much fixed and if one popped up in an ally or client state, you'd have to make the unrealistic decision to go to war with them to get it. This new system is much better IMO.

I second this. The dynamic nature is much better because now you are not stuck with something you don't want or can not do, which was the case before. It is a progress. I feel it is not done yet however, as sometimes IA still gives you largely unrealistic options (perhaps the mechanism can be slowly upgraded, we have time). Still better as you just need to mind your business your own way and ultimately the objectives will be reshuffled.

So objectives are even more random now after the patch? I suppose, if that means e.g. Carthage doesn't need to conquer Syracuse to win the campaign it's a good thing. However, I didn't like having a random generator pulling me around by my nose - it felt wrong for a 4x game - and I suspect that's even worse now.

I'd just like to chip in on this. 290 turns into a game with the new patch and have had some leaders give me objectives that were completely unrealistic but I just ignored them (you don't HAVE to go for them you know) and usually when a new ruler arrived they were changed for much closer and more attainable ones. I do think that the better leaders seem to give more realistic targets.

The most infuriating thing to happen was when I ground my way to being one region away from an objective, had to pause for a turn to get my army into shape again for the next battle and then the target changed. But on the whole I find the new way fine.

Vadim84 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:34 am I second this. The dynamic nature is much better because now you are not stuck with something you don't want or can not do, which was the case before. It is a progress.

Before the patch nonsense objective were assigned and they were fixed. Solution ? Let''s make them dynamic so there will be some chance to have some realistic objectives.
I think this is like hammering your finger to try to heal from a cut.

In my humbe opinion the solution to nonsense objective should have been the fix of the logic behind the assignement of objective. Before assign an objective check the diplomatic situation, check the distance, check, if any some, realistic "historical" conditions (for example the roman are more keen to have objective in Cartage , etc).
And if you want to add some salt, check the traits of the current ruler. If it is "Depravat" (or you can create a new one, like "crazy" ) then be less strict on the above mentioned rule so that you could have as objective some ally or far city.

But not just make dynamic these objectives, transformin them in a kind of lottery without any control.

Disclaimer: I love this game, it is since i was playing War in the Pacific that I don't commit so much time in a game. Good job, now you just need to nail it a bit.

If I am playing as Carthage why would I want to capture Syracuse on my way towards Rome when I could grab a nondescript territory out by the Caspian Sea?

IainF wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:48 pm I'd just like to chip in on this. 290 turns into a game with the new patch and have had some leaders give me objectives that were completely unrealistic but I just ignored them (you don't HAVE to go for them you know) and usually when a new ruler arrived they were changed for much closer and more attainable ones. I do think that the better leaders seem to give more realistic targets.

The most infuriating thing to happen was when I ground my way to being one region away from an objective, had to pause for a turn to get my army into shape again for the next battle and then the target changed. But on the whole I find the new way fine.

Yeah, same here, I now just ignore the unrealistic objectives. Before the patch I enjoyed having objectives set that were realistic to try and obtain, it added a degree of fun to the game. Now I just ignore objectives all together, none of them make any sense any longer.

I tried to delete this post but the delete function is not working on this forum.

Playing a new game, again as Rome and this time i started to get at least 50% of realistic objectives. I was quite satisfied when it happens a weird thing

Padus and Apulia were among my Objectives. At the start of the new turn the Padus objective is dropped in order to make space to a "new" one....Apulia again

There will be some further tweaks on dynamic objectives in 1.05. They are only given if you are at war or really hate the guts of a given nation (like -50 rels or worse).
Then, a region from one such nation is picked, provided it has either a world wonder or a combination of 20 population and tier II/III buildings.

So indeed, it is possible to get an objective in Caledonia if you are Rome. If you are somehow at war with them and they have a decent region to be conquered. For the rest, getting a deserted Saka hamlet while playing Carthage, either we have a major bug or someone is a bit imaginative in his description

Pocus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:05 pm There will be some further tweaks on dynamic objectives in 1.05. They are only given if you are at war or really hate the guts of a given nation (like -50 rels or worse).
Then, a region from one such nation is picked, provided it has either a world wonder or a combination of 20 population and tier II/III buildings.

So indeed, it is possible to get an objective in Caledonia if you are Rome. If you are somehow at war with them and they have a decent region to be conquered. For the rest, getting a deserted Saka hamlet while playing Carthage, either we have a major bug or someone is a bit imaginative in his description

My example (near the Caspian Sea) was a figure of speech. I'm saying that objectives used to make some sense. Now they are so far flung that it is almost useless to bother with them. That takes away the sense of purpose from the game. Playing as Rome for example when I have a campaign against Carthage and Macedonia ongoing (for example) I suddenly get impossible objectives up near Denmark and Ireland.

I'm not trying to take anything away from your wonderful product, Empires/FoGII is an outstanding game (s) I'm just at a loss to understand such an unusual turn of events.

In my opinion, dynamic objectives are a good thing, and with the tweaks coming in 1.0.5 things will be better. Having fixed objectives is going to make things a bit predictable and can alter replayability. Dynamic objectives with the factors mentionned by Pocus (Relations with the other nation, population, etc...) looks like perfect balance to me

FrenchDude wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:48 pm In my opinion, dynamic objectives are a good thing, and with the tweaks coming in 1.0.5 things will be better. Having fixed objectives is going to make things a bit predictable and can alter replayability. Dynamic objectives with the factors mentionned by Pocus (Relations with the other nation, population, etc...) looks like perfect balance to me

(that interpretation is not what I am saying) I would like to see objectives that made some kind of strategic sense, maybe the changes that are being implemented (1.05) will help bring that back into focus.

I'm not sure that objectives halfway across the world map are of any interest and they happen a lot when Rome decides to attack you.
The solution you've chosen seems to encourage declaring war on someone without taking their best province and waiting for it to become an objective rather than having another one on a far away continent.
Plus they move when you don't expect them to, which can ruin plans.

Damn it, tried to edit and I quoted a post, sorry.

LDiCesare wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:55 pm I'm not sure that objectives halfway across the world map are of any interest and they happen a lot when Rome decides to attack you.
The solution you've chosen seems to encourage declaring war on someone without taking their best province and waiting for it to become an objective rather than having another one on a far away continent.
Plus they move when you don't expect them to, which can ruin plans.

If you get an objective halfway across the map, then that's from a country you are at war with or with which you have a relationships of -50 or worse. Given that the AI only declare war to neighbors, this seems surprising. If you have a saved game (the turn before in fact) where you get this kind of oddity, I can check.