How do you keep WC motivation?

[Autoclave]

Primary purpose of gaming is fun. If you need motivation to play a game than that game is not fun for you.

 

[Dorevai]

World Conquest is
a) Stupid as hell
b) Boring as hell

This is why I hope next expansion will introduce deeper peaceful mechanics, so a player will be able to be proud of small - but - ambitious cultural capital of the world, or whatever like that.

I've been hoping for this for years. EU4 was a large move away from that goal. War has never been easier or more necessary.

 

[Loke]

WC, unhistorical and boring.

 

[calvinhobbeslik]

WC, unhistorical and boring.

The entire game is unhistorical. Also, WC does not have to be completely boring; you can try to achieve other goals as well.

 

[Halaberiel]

Same. To me, the process just highlighted how bad the game was. There are plenty of other achievements I haven't gotten but every game mostly becomes the same.

CK2 is far more interesting because every succession has the potential to become a crises. Some you can manage well and get through fine but sometimes the wrong heir dies and suddenly your plans are all awry. Way more ups and downs. In EU4, the early game is interesting but after that it's just a linear path and the only question is whether your rate of expansion is sufficient for X goal or not.

Succession in CK2 isn't difficult unless you're gavelkind which most people don't spend much time with for obvious reasons.

OP I'm with you, I recently did an Austria game where I had all of Europe by mid 1500s but I just could go on, it's so boring at that point. The game just becomes a claiming frenzy & sieging there isn't much thought involved at this point.

 

[Tedurur]

Did a one tag WC in 1.7 and I agree with what other people have said. Dont unify the HRE, just get everyone as a vassal and stop there (you can start to annex them quite soon thereafter if you want a one tag WC thats not HRE). But most importantly, take your time. Its really quite tedious (also, never build any channels since they suck)

 

[unillogical]

You have quite a considerable amount of time before the next major patch that might break your ironman game, that means you can afford to go slow, play maybe an hour a day, or 1 big war a day, just so it doesn't become tedious.

 

[zenisar]

Well, I admit that I am sitting on this campaign for a week already, without moving forward. I gave France another beating, forced Ottomans to release Serbia, annexed some vassals to release diplo slots. But that's it, I lack steam to go ahead and become even more powerful. Usually I start the game, analyze for an hour some wird numbers about trade nodes or diplomatic relations in an attempt to understand the game better. And then, when the time comes to go on with the campaign, close the game and go to bed. :blush:

Then, instead of going forward with the campaign I started looking rather to go backward. I started to entertain various what-if scenarios: What if I took protestant path? How the strategy would be different? Could I pull off beating France 40 years earlier? Or maybe, since by stroke of luck I inherited 2/3 of Burgundy, could I go for colonization despite starting as landlocked country? I think I will try some of these scenarios at least, just making different decisions at some points ...

Anyway, EU4 as well as other strategy games usually gets to a point in the campaign where the player becomes so powerful that the game lacks challenges. Then I thought whether player experience could keep thrill longer if the game contained any civil war mechanism? Like having some factions that grow in power with number of religions or cultures, tearing the empire apart at some point? Thinking about large historical empires that where tensions and fragility grows with size (Sulla & Caesar & Octavian) or American Civil War or ...