Sounds like an exciting game!
Yes!! that’s the type of game I want. What level were you playing at?
I’m still playing! I’m playing the current Game of the Week. I’ve also been playing Monster Train, which is also great, but I find Old World more relaxing.
As for the endgame, I did establish all the laws in at least one playthrough. I think I did so in the 195-turn Game of the Week on Magnificent I played a couple weeks ago. I also got one of the final three “reform” techs, I think. I was really pushing tech in that game because I was constantly outclassed by my military opponents. But in my other playthroughs, on lower difficulties, I haven’t gotten so far, perhaps because I turn from science to culture midgame on those difficulty levels.
… fully convinced I was going to lose I started in earnest the attack on Egypt to gain enough cities and the wonders they’d built to win. I made it with 5 years to spare! Glorious victory for Carthage.
That really IS glorious! Tell us more! I too am curious about difficulty level and your other settings.
I am trying my very best to stay away from Old World as I don’t want it to feel old by the time it hits release. I’m not much of one for early access in general, so the fact I’ve played it at all is testament to my trust in Soren and how awesome it looked (and is) already.
I found you can get to the end game techs, but not in all areas. If you’re willing to let some mid-game techs sit there unresearched, you can beeline something later in the tree. Mind you I was playing as Babylon and was largely avoiding wars for a lot of the game. Also I was on an earlier build so perhaps that’s been rebalanced.
Congratulations! Sounds like a great playthrough!
i did hit the end of the tech tree in 1 game. i played as Babylonia, which gets a science boost, and built lots of science buildings and philosophers. but that was one of my longer and slower games,usually the game is over before i get any “reform” techs.
This was the next level up from the easiest (The Just), that’s why I always preface that I’m a tad incompetent. Which turns out is working to my advantage because my campaigns are a hoot.
I suspect the reason my campaigns end up being so interesting is because I embroil myself in wars. Like in this case when Rome started aggressively expanding at me I started to work on boxing them in and got the Law that allows you to buy more territory and grabbed every barb civ near them.
If you get yourself in a war or are dragged into one you effectively stall your economic development because you switch to a war time economy and spend all your turns fighting it instead of developing. Next thing you know it’s a 100 years in, and everyone is in front of you.
Other settings: medium size map (which still felt large enough), 5 other empires so we’re bound to run into each other fairly early and I scout hard initially, there were 3 barbs as I recall.
How does that work though with a deck mechanic? I often find early for example I can’t get forestry even though I need it badly because the path to it is simply not in the cards I was dealt.
It was fun, I really was just playing it out to see how it ended expecting to lose. The settings aren’t hard so I suspect if everyone is looking for the magic sauce on settings to get to a good campaign it’s not in making them harder, it’s in getting a human who loves getting themselves in wars.
On the ones that end early, are you staying to yourself and just taking out barbarians for more cities and then building up? I find I never manage to stay out of wars and that stalls development so I’m interested in hearing how you’ve gone about staying off the radar of other empires. I’d like to at least once play one where I win by achievements and development, haha.
Netting it out, my take is on interesting campaigns: they get the most interesting when you’re juggling war and development. Minor events tip things, like the alliance you had with Egypt ending when their leader dies suddenly throwing you a war on two fronts.
This is one of the many improvements Old World brings to the genre – personality-based diplomacy. It means the game can get away with abrupt yet plausible shifts in diplomatic stance, which makes the game more interesting, without the seemingly arbitrary or deterministic diplomacy of games like Civ. I’m perfectly willing to accept that an alliance may be abruptly terminated if the ally’s leader dies, whereas I find it more annoying in Civ when Gandhi my friend suddenly decides he’s Gandhi my mortal enemy.
There’s a historical flavor to it I like, too. In the old world, there was a king of the Greeks rather than a king of Greece, if you get what I mean – statehood had a more personal quality than in our time.
Yes, I like that aspect of it as well. It does feel like it makes diplomacy work and make a bit more sense than what you usually get stuck with in 4x’s.
And I really like when I have excess cash being able to pay for other empires going to war with someone I’m either at war with or planning on going tow was with and want them softened up a bit.
And in the example of Egypt, until I wanted to go to war with them I had the option when their leader died of being offered up the opportunity by the next leader to buy a continuance of the alliance, like that as well.
One caveat or danger to alliances though, they can and will drag you into wars. ;)
Thanks for the warning on alliances. I’d been wondering about it, because once or twice my ally did not drag me into their war, which pleasantly surprised me. At least, that’s what I recall happening. So maybe it doesn’t happen automatically?
That is something I’d like to know as well, I don’t know if it’s automatic or not.
And it does impact the decision whether to form alliances because while it’s nice if they join in to help defend your empire, my experience with AI allies is at best you know one potential opponent is off the board but from a war effort perspective the best you can expect from them is a bit of sniping at a common enemy but nothing remotely decisive.
That’s balanced against unexpectedly being dragged into a war.
I’ll make a point of keeping an eye on whether being allies automatically drags you into their wars.
New campaign as Babylon on a large map. Interesting development so far, just barely met Egypt and just got the news they’ve been eliminated.
I don’t recall that happening in my previous campaigns.
Interesting to hear one empire AI took out another one.
I tried a couple games on large maps with the barbarian settings cranked up, just to get a feel for being surrounded by endless implacable barbs. Both times I found that instead the majors were all crammed in around me. I wonder whether there is something about their map generation that does not on large maps, which would make ferocious wars between majors more likely early on.
I wonder that as well because in the first 50 years I easily ran into every other empire on the map, with one scout I probably ran into 3 of the 4 w/in 25.
So they didn’t at least on this go feel that spread out even on a large map.
Yeah, could be coincidental, between the two of us n=3. But I suspect that this is part of Soren’s pot stirring philosophy. The idea that the game works when there is friction and sticks can be thrown into the spokes of your trike – insult ruler A or insult rule B. No hiding off by yourself insulated from such stuff.
And I have to admit, the couple times I did, but some accident, manage to insulate myself, those were my least entertaining playthroughs. Even if some of the potstirring stuff makes me go “Oh for God’s sake” at the moment. :)
Yeah, I’m kind of just laughing at it because I started this campaign on large in order to stay more by myself so I could at least try and for once win a campaign by completing achievements.
One of the empires is a bit more off by itself even if a couple are by me, and that in and of itself spells a problem because Carthage off by itself is building wonders and pulling ahead, while I’m in amongst a couple empires bordering me who are of course mad simply because I border them, we both know where that’s going.
This game so hits a sweet spot for me I just keep starting new campaigns.
I rarely decide to attack other nations, though i realize I would win faster if i did it more often. but I dont think i have ever finished a game without fighting at least 2 other nations at least once each.
Yep, I typically don’t go looking for trouble myself, but it usually finds me. ;)
But in the campaign I described above where I was losing to Egypt, that one I initiated because I was going to lose otherwise.
New test version. Some notable upgrades visually - city labels a lot easier to read and show a progress bar for what they are training/doing.
I seem to have misplaced discord, so I don’t have the patch notes.
That new city label is rather snazzy and informative. I have found these make targeting an enemy on the city tile rather difficult.
And there are some new map effects buttons bottom right, one of which is zone of control.
Edit: just tried submitting error report and it came back couldn’t do it try again later. Got a screen full of red errors and and lost the ability to move or do anything , it’s game breaking (and by game breaking I mean even the menu to load an old save stops working, so not saying game breaking casually here, this has killed this campaign)