Broken Objective System

[n0b0dy007]

Current design is broken:

• No Player agency to select/modify

• No way to disable/avoid, as it is intrinsic to Progress mechanism

• No way to prevent changing out from under whilst pursuing them

Fix it, or disable it.

[arralen]

Could you elaborate a bit what you're having troubles with?
What are your suggested fixes?
Why didn't you post to the existing thread "Objectives given without any ratio and sense"?

[n0b0dy007]

It is a game-breaking annoyance, so I have moved on to other games.
Since there are other threads on the topic, evidently others find it similarly annoying.
Let us know when it has been fixed/removed.

[Pocus]

In the next patch, an objective won't be phased out if you own a region adjacent to it.

It is by design that you don't control which objectives are given to you. How would it work otherwise? Players would design as objectives easy to take regions, like you declare war, once you are sure you can win and the enemy capital is under siege, you design it as an objective?

[jhornborg]

Give each faction objective provinces, like in Total War Rome 2. For every turn that provincial control is disrupted, they don't gain VPs for it. The concept of random, changing objective cities seems arbitrary and has also kept me from going back to the game.

[jimwinsor]

Give each faction objective provinces, like in Total War Rome 2. For every turn that provincial control is disrupted, they don't gain VPs for it. The concept of random, changing objective cities seems arbitrary and has also kept me from going back to the game.

Before dynamic objectives, we had fixed objectives which would be the same every game. That was demonstrably worse than the current system, IMO. Having objectives vary from game to game greatly adds to replayability.

The text announcing the gain or removal of an objective from your list makes it clear that they are coming from your ruler. Rulers back then often were quite often mercurial and arbitrary personages, so the arbitrariness seems rather immersive to me. As the power behind the throne (which is the role I think the player should consider themselves to be), the need to think on the fly and adjust my strategy accordingly is in general a good game mechanic, IMO.

Which is not to say the mechanic can't be improved, to weed out the occasional oddball objective assignments. But like I said, in general I feel the current system is a huge improvement over the old.

[jhornborg]

Before dynamic objectives, we had fixed objectives which would be the same every game. That was demonstrably worse than the current system, IMO.

I did try playing again after the dynamic objective patch, but not for long enough to notice the difference. Carthage had the same starting objectives. e.g. For some reason the game designers really want Carthage to capture Syracuse. A more realistic system would be to make Sicily the objective province, and give Carthage VP for owning 3 of its 5 regions (i.e. majority control).

I think it's the concept of objective cities that bothers me - they are too specific. When they're fixed, the game feels scripted and when they move the game feels railroady. I see your point about playing the role of a military general being ordered around by politicians, but I'm not sure the VP system should be driven by your ability to pander to fickle jerks. Also, the infrastructure and diplomacy systems suggest a greater scope I.e. the player is in fact the king, not a general.

[loki100]

...
I did try playing again after the dynamic objective patch, but not for long enough to notice the difference. Carthage had the same starting objectives. e.g. For some reason the game designers really want Carthage to capture Syracuse. A more realistic system would be to make Sicily the objective province, and give Carthage VP for owning 3 of its 5 regions (i.e. majority control).

I think it's the concept of objective cities that bothers me - they are too specific. When they're fixed, the game feels scripted and when they move the game feels railroady. I see your point about playing the role of a military general being ordered around by politicians, but I'm not sure the VP system should be driven by your ability to pander to fickle jerks. Also, the infrastructure and diplomacy systems suggest a greater scope I.e. the player is in fact the king, not a general.

to be fair, the game probably should start with a scripted war between Carthage and Syracuse, it was their core goal and there had been 4 major wars between the two powers in the previous century.

more generally, I like that you have little control or players would just allocate their objectives to their short term interests. Even in this era, states had a form of public opinion, in effect a consensus amongst elite groups as to their interests, goals, what made them special and so on. And these often sat badly with either current capacity or the aims of a particular ruler. Going back to the Syracuse eg (ok pre the 310 start date), the main cause of unrest was that the merchants etc wanted a policy based around defending the city, a citizen army etc, the various Tyrants wanted to expand using mercenaries. At various stages in the wars with Carthage and Athens, each faction felt vindicated and each managed to create the conditions for near total disaster. So objectives being slightly off kilter with your own understanding of what you want seems pretty good to me.

[jhornborg]

to be fair, the game probably should start with a scripted war between Carthage and Syracuse, it was their core goal and there had been 4 major wars between the two powers in the previous century.

more generally, I like that you have little control or players would just allocate their objectives to their short term interests. Even in this era, states had a form of public opinion, in effect a consensus amongst elite groups as to their interests, goals, what made them special and so on. And these often sat badly with either current capacity or the aims of a particular ruler. Going back to the Syracuse eg (ok pre the 310 start date), the main cause of unrest was that the merchants etc wanted a policy based around defending the city, a citizen army etc, the various Tyrants wanted to expand using mercenaries. At various stages in the wars with Carthage and Athens, each faction felt vindicated and each managed to create the conditions for near total disaster. So objectives being slightly off kilter with your own understanding of what you want seems pretty good to me.

I agree that Carthage should start the campaign with an objective that puts them at odds with Syracuse. IMO, gaining majority control of the Sicily province would accomplish that more realistically, because Carthage could then achieve its historical trade superiority in the central Mediterranean without wiping out Syracuse, just as they did historically. It would also create more variety of strategic options for both factions, and a more interesting see-saw situation with objective VPs.

[loki100]

but they weren't fighting Syracuse for 'majority' control. For most of the period 450-310 Carthage had that (in game terms) it was to destroy a major commercial rival on their doorstep, so I'd suggest hooking the objective to Syracuse itself is pretty accurate

[jhornborg]

but they weren't fighting Syracuse for 'majority' control. For most of the period 450-310 Carthage had that (in game terms) it was to destroy a major commercial rival on their doorstep, so I'd suggest hooking the objective to Syracuse itself is pretty accurate.

I disagree. Carthage was trying to build a mercantile empire by controlling Sicily. The Sicilian Wars resulted from the Greek states resisting Carthaginian expansion. Carthage didn't need to conquer Syracuse as long as they controlled the rest of Sicily. After the Seventh Sicilian War, Carthage had achieved its Sicilian objective until Pyrrhus came along.

Conversely, Carthage's Tunisian objective shouldn't be tied specifically to the city of Hippo Regius. An invading army should be able to deny Carthage's homeland objective VP by taking majority control of the Tunisia province (whether or not Hippos Regius is captured). Tying VPs to a single city doesn't make for good strategy IMO.