I really have no idea why so many people dislike campaigns. I love them. 

I like campaigns too... just not the one attached to Elemental.  The player is given ZERO choice about anything, its do this then that, then this and use this army and that city, etc...  I loved the campaign in Kings Bounty and HOMM, but both gave you at least some freedom.

I'm glad you like it (honestly). But then you got the game you paid for, I didn't. Sure, I could have gone for the refund, but by the time that was an option I had invested too much of my time to just walk away. Besides, I still had hope for the stratigic part of the game.

I don't know why you would use the word rush in relation to total war battles though. To me they are almost painfully slow, with the placing of your troops, moving towards the enemy, long battles, persuing fleeing enemies, etc. Even when you win effortlessly it takes a long time. Sure you have to act quickly sometimes, but only battles where you are evenly matched in strength or badly outnumbered require you to monitor everything closely (at least in Rome:TW).

I would have been quite happy if they had met somewhere halfway between total war and the current combat system.

I hope you are right. The combat system needs a lot of work before I'd call it solid. And it will need complemented by the magic system in a good way to make tactical combat even remotely interesting (to me). By that I mean magic that isn't just used for summons and direct damage spells.

I agree, you need to have options in a mission to make it interesting. Like the example someone made where you need to get access to the only harbor on the map (was that in this thread, I'm not sure). You could make the victory condition that you sovereign has to be in that city for 10 turns (so you can't sneak past the enemy's defenses, you need time to build the ships), and then leave the player free to choose how he achieves that. He could ally with his enemy, thus getting access. Or he can conquer the city. Or he can incite a revolution and then make a deal with the new leader. Or he can open a gate to the underworld, unleashing a horde of unspeakable horrors that leave the lands devastated, thus allowing the player to rebuild a harbor of his own at the location. And there should be side quests, some to help you with your main mission, some just to keep you busy while building your forces or something.

Satrhan, I think you'd really enjoy this post here by Frogboy: https://forums.elementalgame.com/343449

Frogboy specifically mentions Total War Type Battles in the last sentence.

Case closed, apparantly.

[quote who="Serapth" reply="138" id="2773227"]


Quoting Raven X,
reply 104

Quoting Frogboy, reply 88
 so it really depends on what the community is looking for.


Psst, here's what the community is looking for

https://forums.elementalgame.com/396516/page/7/#2772936


 

 

Let me just say as a member of the community, I overwhelmingly and completely with all of my heart and soul DO NOT WANT THIS.

It simply wouldn't work, not without a complete engine redesign.  Once that engine redesigned happened, it would be a game I do not want to play.  A turn based game is tactical in nature, especially a turn based game with heroic units.  Moving things to a massive scale would simply drown you in minutiae.

That and there exists such a long list of things that need to be fixed or implemented ( like game crashes, game balancing, AI strengthening and Multiplayer ) that the linked idea is actually harmfully unfocused.

 

So please put me down as an epically opposed vote, in case Stardock actually entertains these silly ideas.

 
]

I like the idea. I do think that if a battle is started all units in adjacent squres and the same square should be involved like in other TBS games like MoM and AOW.  And yes it works well in those games and can work in this game.

Because campaigns in just about all TBS/RTS/SHOOTERS are boring because the tend to be linear which is never fun IMO. I perfer to create my on "campaign" if you will. Where I'll have no idea how it ends and does not have the restrictiveness of normal campaigns. I perfer a story to be organic (sandbox) as opposed to stagnat (Linear campaign.)

You make an interesting comparison when you share how you view sandbox games, yet don't belittle how important storytelling is (it'd not be the venerable thing it is without being a major part of human creativity).  I agree linear campaigns aren't worth the effort it takes to make them, but they don't have to be so simplistic.  There's hardly any ingenuity required to port ideas like the quest trees from MMOs and games like Morrowind (which nailed the epic story feel).  We know the sandbox (and by extension, the toolset) is versatile; how tough would it be to capture some of those winning techniques in the TBS format?  It'd certainly scratch that itch so many have to experience/play a good story, and it would elevate this game.

Of course, I hope the sandbox mode remains a priority until it's challenging and smooth (like the finished GalCiv product), but there's also nothing wrong with sending Brad an epic quest (turnabout and all).