I'm somewhere in Chapter 4 and the campaign map might as well not have existed for the last twenty hours or so as all I'm doing is clicking on a quest, then another, then another. Do I ever get to take over the map?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I have the feeling that you are sometimes supposed to take over regions altough you are not told so. If they are on your level you should be able to take them without breaking quests, at least thats how I understand how the unit tier system was designed.
What if there is a quest that is attached to that province and you break it before you already took it?
I am wary of conquering any province i was not asked to conquer because i don't want to break quests or get stuck.
I am wary of conquering any province i was not asked to conquer because i don't want to break quests or get stuck.
It seems to me that a third of the game is missing so far - we have the adventures, and the battles... but no strategy layer. Not what I hoped for really. Maybe it's still to come.
As you well know, there is still a very strong 'tactical wargame' element to this title. They removed some of the 'strategy wargame' aspects that KA1 enjoyed, but there is still more than enough tactical challenge to qualify this as a 'wargame' in every other sense of the word.
Just wondering but does any of you had 600k gold after you beat the romans. (600k accumulated money since the start)
Besides that, do I just have the feeling that you can't fail quests.....
Besides that, do I just have the feeling that you can't fail quests.....
There certainly is. They transformed it into a nearly linear storyline campaign in which traveling around on the overland map functions mostly as eyecandy, but it is still a wargame.
The transformation doesn't make it a bad game*, but with the exception of the choose-your-own-adventure options, it makes it a game that in playstyle has more in common with the Neocore's own crusader games (whose playstyle owe much to the Warhammer games Shadow of the Horned Rat, Dark Omen and Battle March but lacks their stability) than it does with its predecessor.
Which is a crying shame for those of us who like strategy games focused on strategy and found KA1 an impressive mix of strategy, CRPG, and tactical combat simulator elements, but at least leaves us with a KA2 that is an excellent tactical simulator with CRPG elements competing against the 82398765645+ other tactical RT"S" out there, most of which feature no CRPG elements at all.
* though it reveals the repeated claims pre-release about the size of the overland map for something surprising: a detail that is essentially irrelevant to gameplay.
Last edited:
That's it, yes. I've finished it now and at no time does the campaign map play any role. People want different things of course but for me this has been very disappointing.
They took the wargame aspect and dumped it... simple as that All I can hope for is that they realize this and will correct it in future iterations. They should have a story mode and a free play mode similar to Total war that is a recipe for success.
Technically if you can break a quest by conquering a province before you recieve the quest in that province, then it's a bug. The tier system usually helps you determine who you are not supposed to attempt to conquer, although there are plenty of opportunities to benefit from neighbours other than conquering them at the first chance. Well, most of them. Obviously you can't make pacts with the Fomorians 
I also don't think that having to conquer the entire map is required to qualify for the 'wargame' title, but your mileage may vary.
I also don't think that having to conquer the entire map is required to qualify for the 'wargame' title, but your mileage may vary.
Nobody said that. You don't have to conquer the whole map in HoI3, or Rome Total War, and those are wargames.
The point isn't forcing the player to conquer the entire map, but rather not forcing the player to follow a specific path to victory. Wargamers want the freedom to make their own strategic choices, and KA2 has removed that freedom.
Why on earth Neocore made this design decision is baffling to me.
A war story is not a war game.
This complaint is being seen all over the place. Here's a quote from the Rock Paper Shotgun review, which just went up:
This complaint is being seen all over the place. Here's a quote from the Rock Paper Shotgun review, which just went up:
This was a big misstep for the franchise. Hopefully Neocore gets the message and does KA3 right.
I guess ka2 suffers from jilted expectations :\
Honestly love the game and its campaign approach but it seems to have disappointed its total war/grand strategy section of its fanbase.
Honestly love the game and its campaign approach but it seems to have disappointed its total war/grand strategy section of its fanbase.
Yes; As noted earlier in the thread, if not for the legion of bugs, it would actually be a good game - but a good game in a genre than the one Neocore carved out for themselves with KA1, the "roleplaying wargame".
There is certainly room for more games in the "linear campaign of RTS battles with CRPG elements of equipping/customizing heroes/choosing tech upgrades, with one or more armies that move from objective to objective in a mostly or entirely predictable order with a few optional choices" subgenre of CRGPs and RTSes, but it was certainly not what I expected from the successor to KA1 and the host of utterly trivial bugs it launches with seriously detracts from my perception of the game.
Maybe they will make an expansion that actually adds more kingdom/province management to the game. Something equivalent to the Druids DLC, but with more emphasis on strategy/strategic aspects.