I hope MMtG is more difficult than MMU the mod.

[highsis]

I don't represent the general opinion of MM fans, but I hope it is more difficult than MMU in terms of a game play.

I find vanilla/every other mods so easy even without using exploits at VH difficulty that I miss the difficulty of MMU. Although I hate difficult games in other genre and despise giving AI insanely large bonuses, MMU felt like it's a fair competition despite the hard difficulty. (I am aware MMU gives AI an edge, but they are hardly noticeable and AI still suffers from war and financial crisis unlike other vanilla's VH difficulty where AI just ignores all negative effects with unrealistic bonus modifiers)

Above all things, MM's difficulty feels realistic. I love numerous stability hit events(stop looking at the sky! event is my favorite) and the possibility of collapses that huge nations have, unlike the vanilla where you become invincible once you are on 5 provinces. MM's unforeseeable challenges and numerous possible options of dying make the game shine because it feels like you are ruling a nation instead of repeatedly playing endless expansion games. I'm most familiar with my own country's history, so I will give an example from it how MM's simulation is much more realistic than the vanilla.



A Korean Kingdom Goryeo(918 ~ 1392) fought against Khitans 3 times. On the second and third invasion, Goryeo deployed 300,000/200,000 soldiers in each war, respectively.

300 years later, in EU3(particularly Meiou)'s timeframe, Goryeo was threatened by bunch of Japanese Wokou pirates. They even marched to the capital, and Goryeo this time was able to gather 3,000 soldiers from all over Korea, which made them outnumbered at least 1:10 by 'pirates' due to lack of supplies to feed the army.

When the general leading Korean army told the king that he needs at least 10,000 soldiers to defend the capital, the king replied that the nation(that rules most of the Korean peninsula) is not capable of supporting 10k troops and the general will have to inspire each soldier to fight like 100 soldiers lol.





A nation's military strength decreased by 100 times even when the nation's territory size remained the same. Another example will be Ming that failed to expand out of China let alone dominating Asia despite its uber-strength. These examples imply that there are much more to the strength of a nation than the size; unfortunately, which is all that matters in EU3 vanilla. I love challenges MM offers with domestic/international events that can even bring down a powerful nation into pieces if the player is not resourceful and prepared enough. That is why I hope MMtG could offer even harder, in other words, more realistic challenges to its players.

[Comrade Chaos]

I wish there was some way to alleviate -stab events. Losing stability because of the "Establishment of the Office of Decency" or something felt strange.

[elazard]

I dont like the idea of loosing stab because of nothing (it's an omen) when i rule correctly my country (or at least not at the rate of MMtM in wich having more than 2 stab after 1600 was almost impossible due to the high stab cost and the rate the -stab events show up). I like the idea of loosing stab because i made a bad choice in my policies or something.

[Clophiroth]

Well, I am playing as Persia... And, in the last 60 years, I never have been at less than 2 stability, almost all the time at 3... (Well, but I am fully conservative and have some religious ideas... Maybe, that explain why XD)

[Jaidal]

MMU is unbalanced, so yes I would expect it to be more difficult. MMP2 on the other hand, I wouldn't know as I am not a beta.

[Dawkins]

Yes, I found MMP2 to be the best game of it's genre party because it increased difficulty by placing restrictions on the player which seemed realistic.

[DrZoidberg]

+1
Income is what restricts the player mostly in MM.
In MMU compared to MMP2 there are some new features that increases the income of the country.

[Ivashanko]

I don't know much about Korean history, but 200,000/300,000 soldiers sounds highly suspect to me. It is possible that the numbers were inflated.

[highsis]

I don't know much about Korean history, but 200,000/300,000 soldiers sounds highly suspect to me. It is possible that the numbers were inflated.

Asia was a very densely populated area; China, Japan, Korea alike. Furthermore, Asian countries developed advanced bureaucracy while contemporary Europe was still in feudalism(Japan stayed in feudalism for a longer period, though). As a result, many Asian countries could keep a huge standing army, although it must have lacked in equipments and quality of training compared to Europe where a regular army became dominant much later.

I can't vouch for historical accuracy of ancient history books, but at least in Joseon dynasty Kings weren't allowed an access to history recordings(their refused requests to do so are recorded too lol), and since Goryeo's history book was made by Joseon, I think they are pretty believable. And many of the numbers come from our opponents' records, too. The followings are some of the largest armies deployed in Korean history. And we lost many of them, too. No reason to inflate our numbers in a battle we lost



Goguryeo – Sui(China) war of 612 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goguryeo-Sui_Wars)
300,000 soldiers estimated - 113,8000 soldiers(combat troops only) recorded in Tang(China) history book
(and it's one of few 'real' million armies in history unlike Herodotus's records of Persian army of 5 million )

Goguryeo - Tang(China) war of 645, battle of Jupil moutain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goguryeo-Tang_Wars)
150,000 vs 200,000

Goryeo - Khitan 3 wars of 993, 1010, 1019 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goryeo-Khitan_Wars)
first war: didn't mobilize vs 60,000
second war: 300,000 vs 400,000
third war: 208,000(cav + inf) vs 100,000(cavalry archers)

Imjin War between Korea and Japan 1592 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...sions_of_Korea)
170,000 vs 158,000

Japan deployed nearly 200,000 soldiers in its civil war, Battle of Sekigahara, in 1600. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sekigahara)

I wouldn't say 300,000 is exaggerated number because it was definitely not a regular army(Goryeo couldn't support upkeep costs for a long time), but Korea had a large population big enough to raise an army of that size. Otherwise Korea would have ended as a part of China a long time ago. That's one of reasons I find Asian history interesting; many, many number of soldiers in a war.

[Dichromate]

I would hope that it's more difficult mechanically (ie: well balanced), without resorting to stupid random 'player punishing' events.

EDIT:
and anyway, MM the mod wasn't really that difficult for 'good' players because they could always do the good old scorched earth, let attrition do the fighting tactic and the AI would fall for it every time.

I hope players face logical constraints and problems (especially with the faction system) as opposed to absurd, annoying random events. They were one of the worst aspects of MM the mod IMO.
(that doesn't mean no stab-hits, there needs to be an occasional random stab drop to make the stability cost mechanic meaningful)

[Cybvep]

I will accept anything that increases the difficulty level as long as it's plausible. If I go on a conquest spree, then I fully expect to face rebellions, AI coalitions against me, increasing administrative cost etc. However, if I'm enjoying my golden age and perfectly managed my country without overextending myself and drowning in debts, then constant stab hits or sth like that will feel out of place.

Seriously, who cares whether the AI cheats or if the game is stacked against you if the gaming experience is good? As long as the cheats don't hit me in the face, all game features are useful and I don't feel that I'm fighting the Zergs instead of the French, I won't complain.

[ubik]

I don't represent the general opinion of MM fans, but I hope it is more difficult than MMU in terms of a game play.

I find vanilla/every other mods so easy even without using exploits at VH difficulty that I miss the difficulty of MMU. Although I hate difficult games in other genre and despise giving AI insanely large bonuses, MMU felt like it's a fair competition despite the hard difficulty. (I am aware MMU gives AI an edge, but they are hardly noticeable and AI still suffers from war and financial crisis unlike other vanilla's VH difficulty where AI just ignores all negative effects with unrealistic bonus modifiers)

Above all things, MM's difficulty feels realistic. I love numerous stability hit events(stop looking at the sky! event is my favorite) and the possibility of collapses that huge nations have, unlike the vanilla where you become invincible once you are on 5 provinces. MM's unforeseeable challenges and numerous possible options of dying make the game shine because it feels like you are ruling a nation instead of repeatedly playing endless expansion games. I'm most familiar with my own country's history, so I will give an example from it how MM's simulation is much more realistic than the vanilla.



A Korean Kingdom Goryeo(918 ~ 1392) fought against Khitans 3 times. On the second and third invasion, Goryeo deployed 300,000/200,000 soldiers in each war, respectively.

300 years later, in EU3(particularly Meiou)'s timeframe, Goryeo was threatened by bunch of Japanese Wokou pirates. They even marched to the capital, and Goryeo this time was able to gather 3,000 soldiers from all over Korea, which made them outnumbered at least 1:10 by 'pirates' due to lack of supplies to feed the army.

When the general leading Korean army told the king that he needs at least 10,000 soldiers to defend the capital, the king replied that the nation(that rules most of the Korean peninsula) is not capable of supporting 10k troops and the general will have to inspire each soldier to fight like 100 soldiers lol.





A nation's military strength decreased by 100 times even when the nation's territory size remained the same. Another example will be Ming that failed to expand out of China let alone dominating Asia despite its uber-strength. These examples imply that there are much more to the strength of a nation than the size; unfortunately, which is all that matters in EU3 vanilla. I love challenges MM offers with domestic/international events that can even bring down a powerful nation into pieces if the player is not resourceful and prepared enough. That is why I hope MMtG could offer even harder, in other words, more realistic challenges to its players.

I hope its not going to be harder. You'll have more choices, more pitfalls but making it harder than the mod was NOT part of the design.

[ubik]

I wish there was some way to alleviate -stab events. Losing stability because of the "Establishment of the Office of Decency" or something felt strange.

The events in question give ways to avoid the stab hits. Pick the other options... and stop complaining also about the Synchronized Orchestra type of events!

[ubik]

I dont like the idea of loosing stab because of nothing (it's an omen) when i rule correctly my country (or at least not at the rate of MMtM in wich having more than 2 stab after 1600 was almost impossible due to the high stab cost and the rate the -stab events show up). I like the idea of loosing stab because i made a bad choice in my policies or something.

The design doesn't make moral, ethical or game skill judgements on the player. One can only do as best as he can in the knowledge that he cannot hope to control what is going to happen in the game. What one player considers good play another one can very well consider a poor show and both can be right at the same time.

[ubik]

Well, I am playing as Persia... And, in the last 60 years, I never have been at less than 2 stability, almost all the time at 3... (Well, but I am fully conservative and have some religious ideas... Maybe, that explain why XD)

It's going to be harder in Magna Mundi to keep stability at Serene.

[ubik]

I will accept anything that increases the difficulty level as long as it's plausible. If I go on a conquest spree, then I fully expect to face rebellions, AI coalitions against me, increasing administrative cost etc. However, if I'm enjoying my golden age and perfectly managed my country without overextending myself and drowning in debts, then constant stab hits or sth like that will feel out of place.

Seriously, who cares whether the AI cheats or if the game is stacked against you if the gaming experience is good? As long as the cheats don't hit me in the face, all game features are useful and I don't feel that I'm fighting the Zergs instead of the French, I won't complain.

Continual stab hits without a good reason and without option to avoid them were not in place in MMP2/MMU and are not going to be featured in the game.

[elazard]

The design doesn't make moral, ethical or game skill judgements on the player. One can only do as best as he can in the knowledge that he cannot hope to control what is going to happen in the game. What one player considers good play another one can very well consider a poor show and both can be right at the same time.

sorry thats not what i meant, i had something in my mind like playing narrowminded in a game in wich you people are craving for freedom. I'm not really sure i'm explaning myself very clearly here..

[ubik]

sorry thats not what i meant, i had something in my mind like playing narrowminded in a game in wich you people are craving for freedom. I'm not really sure i'm explaning myself very clearly here..

If you go too radical on policies you have to face the consequences. One thing that happens in MMtG right now is that you can't experience the same radical policy event twice in a row, which make it more plausible.

[elazard]

Sweet i like it

[Dichromate]

If you go too radical on policies you have to face the consequences. One thing that happens in MMtG right now is that you can't experience the same radical policy event twice in a row, which make it more plausible.

Oh! that's very nice. Presumably that goes for the 'synchronized orchestra' type events too? Cause I once did get two of those within a year... lucky me in that case.