• 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.

unmerged(202)

Sergeant
Jun 14, 2000
55
0
In most of the AARs we've seen on this site, the human player is doing quite well, whipping the AI. Of course, there are exceptions like the Scottish AAR and temporary setbacks like the beginning of Sapura's Swedish AAR, but generally the human does very well.
Now, is that because the human usually does whip the computer (which I guess is natural) or because of the AAR selection? Like, 'I'm not doing too well in this game, I'll restart until I get a cool AAR to write'...

/Martin
 
Well, do remember that the A.I is not infullable (or is that infallable?). No A.I will ever be as advanced and as unpredictable as a human being (Marcus told me this months back and I agree with him), however the A.I in EU comes DAMNED, DAMNED close. Virtually 80% of the work in the last few months has been work dedicated on improving and de-bugging the a.i.

Also, the AAR's I made were to highlight how 'action pakced' EU can be, this is why I was on the offensive most of the time. Do remember that patches are out for this game and they constantly change various statistics and variables in the game, so that an game played 3 months ago might not exactly work out the same way it will today. Of course this will probably not happen anyways because the A.I can be quite random which is good.

On higher difficulty lvls it is very difficult and very costly to wage constant war. It also depends which country you play as. I played as Sweden, and as you say I had quite a few problems at the start. This is why I spent most of my cash on increasing military technology which became much more superior to tech of my adversaries.

Sapura
 
Much of my experiences follows what Sapura says.

I can only tell you from my ARR. My goal was to:

1) Explain the game.
2) Give you an interesting story which hopefully would make the game feel historically, or actually like changing history within the limits of the existing resources.

I played the game as the Papacy say ten times before I played the AAR. So I actually knew what was possible and what was not (i.e. in gam terms). Secondly, I didn't play on the highest difficulty levels as I was afraid that that would make it difficult to get lots of money so that I could buy all those nice things I wanted to explain to you all.

But perhaps it is time for a Armageddon scenario on a tough level showing how hard it can be just to survive.

/Greven
 
i agree

i'd like to see some AARs at the higher difficulty levels.

also some indication from the designers as to what the 'historical' difficulty level would be.

some of the AARs (esp the one on the site where papacy conquers italy and converts north africa) are a bit odd

daz
 
Daztek

read this thread:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forums/Forum1/HTML/000198.html

It'll explain why / what happened in the Papacy aar. The main idea behind this thread is this: EU is not a strictly historical game. You are free to do whatever you want (to a degree), given the right circumstances, variables. Would you like to play the same campaign OVER and OVER again *exactly* the same knowing how it would end historically? I wouldn't.

Sapura
 
'EU is not a strictly historical game. You are free to do whatever you want (to a degree), given the right circumstances, variables. Would you like to play the same campaign OVER and OVER again *exactly* the same knowing how it would end historically?'

no, of course not. but the papacy story seemed a little too over the top, that's all

daz
 
Well, it's a 'what if'. If you're not interested in what if situations, which can be 'out there' at times (part of the charm of the game), then thats too bad.

Sapura
 
I certainly have no problem with historical variations, as long as they are within the realm of possibility.

When reading the AAR's, one shouldn't judge realism by thinking 'did this happen in real life?' Instead, they should think 'could this have happened in real life?' When I get this game I don't want to repeat history, I want to change it in realistic and rational ways.

In my opinion, the most important element in a historically accurate game is that a strategy that could have worked in real life for a particular person/country works in the game.

The only thing that bothers me about the Papal AAR is the AI's apparent lack of concern for the growth of the Papal States. The territorial gains made in the AAR could indeed have been accomplished in history using the available resources and manpower if there existed a desire for conquest and intelligent and efficient leadership.

However, if the Papacy was able to single-handedly conquer or seriously weaken a major power such as France or Spain, then I would think it to be very unrealistic and would not consider this game to model actual historical abilities.
 
You make good points Zagys..

single-handedly conquer or seriously weaken a major power such as France or Spain, then I would think it to be very unrealistic and would not consider this game to model actual historical abilities.

Hey, if that ever happens, I'm quitting EU. Either that, or I'll be fired as a beta tester, and so will everyone else! :)

Sapura
 
Originally posted by Sapura on 07-19-2000 03:18 PM

single-handedly conquer or seriously weaken a major power such as France or Spain, then I would think it to be very unrealistic and would not consider this game to model actual historical abilities.

Dear all.

Sorry about not participating in the forum for some time. Too much work! Anyway, I have read all the messages you have all sent during the last two weeks or so, and I am surprised to see how much the Papacy AAR has been criticised, both here and in another topic of this forum. 'Unrealistic'? Hmm, I do not think so. I'd rather call it 'unusual'. What would have happened if both France and Spain had been ruled by Regencies such as France in 1610-24? If I am right, both Spain and France did not intervene much in Italy during that AAR. Of course it was a mistake for Spain (and France) not to intervene in Italy, but then that was a choice made by Charles VIII of France and Ferdinand of Spain at the time.

I think the crucial point is that in the AAR, and because of whatever exceptional (not 'unrealistic'!) circumstances, there was a void of power in Italy. One wonders what would have happened if the Italians had been left to their own devices. If there had been a time when the Duchy of Milan dominated Italy, why shouldn't the Papacy have a go as well?

And as for converting those provinces in North Africa from Muslim to Christian... Well, the Southernmost provinces in Spain (Granada is one) had been Muslim from the time of the conquest by the Moors (circa AD 711), and they were 'converted' to Catholicism during the 16th century and the final expulsion of the Moriscos in 1609. Northern Africa was conquered by the Muslims around the mid-7th century AD. In my humble opinion, I do not believe that 50 years' difference makes it realistic to convert Granada and unrealistic to convert Tunisia.

Best regards to all, as always.

Martin (from Barcelona)
 
With the Papal States AAR, remember that the Pope's army never got too far over its head. It focused on acquiring small countries of the one or two province size, usually with help. Then when it finally became a somewhat sizeable Italian empire, only then did it go after a major power and then only with France as an ally and Spain in turmoil. This seems realistic if you can accept the pope going to war.

The AAR ends before the pope has to deal with the new, more difficult situation of being surrounded by the Spanish-Venetian alliance that includes the most promising areas of expansion. The easy days are over. It would probably be very difficult to expand farther, though I am sure Greven could manage something. Maybe it is time to consider reforming the Holy Roman Empire under the pope...
 
Originally posted by Sapura on 07-19-2000 06:38 AM
Well, it's a 'what if'. If you're not interested in what if situations, which can be 'out there' at times (part of the charm of the game), then thats too bad.

Sapura

hey, hey, pls don't put words in my mouth. 'what ifs' are fine. papacy taking italy is conceivable in the absence of great power intervention. but papacy conquering and *converting* north africa in a few years seems far fetched to me. but hey its just an opinion

a more serious problem was the one in the Pol-Lit Cwlth aar, where spain sent a vast fleet into the black sea when it was at war with the ottomans. no fleet should be able to pass through the dardanelles/bosphorus if both shores are controlled by a hostile power. after the invention of artillery the straits could be securely closed against enemy shipping

ref 'empires in arms' for example, the game EU is loosely based on; whoever controls constantinople controls the straits

daz
 
*converting* north africa in a few years seems far fetched to me. but hey its just an opinion


Well I don't think it was 'a few years'. It was over several reigns of different Popes, if I recall correctly.

where spain sent a vast fleet into the black sea when it was at war with the ottomans. no fleet should be able to pass through the dardanelles/bosphorus if both shores are controlled by a hostile power. after the invention of artillery the straits could be securely closed

I don't recall this happening, so many games I've played :) However you are right, but EU does not allow for such micro-complexity. It is a 'grand' strategy game. It would be nice if it were possible to zoom in on cities, whilst their being laid siege to, directing a siege / battle tactically, but EU is not that sort of game. You have to take the rough with the smooth, no game is 100% perfect.

Sapura