For paradox and not only...Some reflections on 1.07 beta 11/05

[Marco Knight]

I have been playing since 2 months with 1.07 beta 11/05.

I have to admit that you guys have done a lot of improvements on AI and others things, but the game on the whole is less playable than before.

For example there too many events that reduce the stability, a lot of huge, unrealistic armies that impell you to declare any war they are too mighty and your economics can't afford a so huge army, the maintenance costs are too high!!!, then when you join an alliance and someome of the alliance declares war you lose as many stability points as many royal marriages you have...

So in conclusion...the game is getting boring, few action, you have to stay still, let the stability increase, few wars..and i sleep on my pc...

Please improve better the AI and not make any "artificial" effort to make it harder but less playable...

That's just my opinion..

I wait for yours...

[G-spot Tornado]

I kinda agree with you, but I must say I really like some of the new things in 1.07.
Still, it´s pretty obvious that the improvments are designed for the hardcore EU-player. The game is more complicated and difficult than before. Is that a good thing? I donno...
I bet some new players are really confused. The manual.... well is it useful at all today?

[Barbalele]

There are 2 major things that hurt me still in last beta patch: the first... those huge armies for province minors; the second this high stability granted to those one - two - three province minors, making them something like paradise countries and often ahistorical trading powers.

[BiB]

IF it is too hard then why not play on very easy? For one the armies problem doesn't apply on that level.

[Slargos]

Originally posted by BiB
IF it is too hard then why not play on very easy? For one the armies problem doesn't apply on that level.

Surely though the guys have a point. Not much use to complain about it though, rather than offer suggestions on how to do it.

Myself, I'd like to see a bit of scaling in difficulty levels rather than very easy - hard - very hard.

Again, I can offer no good suggestions about how to scale it, but I'm sure one of our less lazy members can come up with a scheme to please everyone.

Then Johan just has to take time out of his busy schedule to...

Right..

[mrmister]

I agree that the game is much harder,
but (more or less) only untill you have promoted your tax colectors.

About stability - I found it boring that 90% of the game I could stay at stab 3, pre 1.07 beta 11/5

At least now I notice the "set-in-stone 3 petetion for redress in 5 years" -thingie.


(Ok admittedly I primarily play religious homogenous nations)

[magdat]

Here are some suggestions I posted earlier, sorry for reposting (with relative little response, perhaps to long?)

A way to improve the AI intelligence is as follows: when a countries troops travel trough an enemies province with rebels in it, these troops attack those rebels. This is totally ilogical. When a human player travels trough such a province (if no other route is possible) he most probable would stop the fight and try to get to the other side. For both the AI and human player it should be possible to cross a rebeling province with a common enemie without fighting.

Furthermore some travel activity of rebels seems ilogical. It regularly happens, often to a human player´s advantage, that after a succesful siege rebels travel to other provinces (even foreign ones) leaving there captured province unprotected. Such a province is a easy pray for the owner to take back. In my opinion it should be more realistic for the rebels to stay and protect there province till the consequense of there siege has happend (new nation, rebels defect, government broken) and than do al the traveling they want or become part of e new countries regular armie.

A way to compensate for the lose of dynamic of rebellion (by the above mentioned proposal), could be; let neighbouring rebels influence on the revolt risk triggered by the mere existance of neighbouring rebels (+2 RR or more?) and futhermore by a succesfull siege of neighbouring rebels (+4 RR or more?). For neighbouring rebels of neighbouring countries it could remain the same as it is now (rebels +0 RR, succesful rebelsiege +2 RR)

Finaly, I noticed that AI countries don’t seem to care whether or not an enemies province is besieged by rebels. It would be logical if AI countries took into account the fact wich enemies’ provinces are besieged by rebels in there deciscion in wich order to attack enemies’ provinces.

There has been some discussion on ways to increase (in a acceptable manner) the importance/ succes of rebels. These three proposals seems to me to be a good way to improve there succes and make the game again more realistic.


and another one:


When you are DOWed by a country most of the time you only have to besiege (not even finish the siege) one province of the leader of the alliance and peace will be accepted (with the hole alliance).

For a one province nation this seems logical, but this also happens with other countries. This way it is just to easy to win a war

[Captain America]

Originally posted by G-spot Tornado
I donno...
I bet some new players are really confused. The manual.... well is it useful at all today?

Heh... it would be if someone were to compile all the changes and undocumented features into a .pdf, post it for download and continue to update it as new patches come out...

If I ever hit the lottery and suddenly have all the time in the world on my hands, consider it done!

===========================================

As for the game itself, the two beefs I have right now are the constant trade embargoes, many from nations with no CoTs to speak of and the AI cheat on army maint. While acceptable (if annoying) to me when you're looking at a 1 province minor, when your going toe-to-toe with a 15+ prov Austria, it's a real pain in the ass!!!

[Johan]

Originally posted by Captain America
As for the game itself, the two beefs I have right now are the constant trade embargoes, many from nations with no CoTs to speak of

Irrelevant.. Restricting trade is not only about not placing in the CoT, its about denying you trade income from their provinces as well.

[vilkouak]

Originally posted by Johan
Irrelevant.. Restricting trade is not only about not placing in the CoT, its about denying you trade income from their provinces as well.

But the manner of owners of CoTs to ban/unban politics even if not at war hurts their stab greatly. There is something to worry as it usually ends with very low stab for them once they reach level 4 in trade.

[M@ni@c]

For example there too many events that reduce the stability

I disagree there are too many of those events. I think the problem lies rather in the stability system itselfs. It should be based more locally instead of country-wide. For example I find it stupid you have to pay huge stab costs due to a random event affecting one of your home provinces, while for example there are no problems in your different-religion provinces, who seriously increase your stab costs. Perhaps something for Victoria?

a lot of huge, unrealistic armies that impell you to declare any war they are too mighty and your economics can't afford a so huge army, the maintenance costs are too high!!!,

I agree the army size of some AI nations is sometimes ridiculous, however I see nothing unrealistic with you being able to afford a huge army. That's how it should be!

then when you join an alliance and someome of the alliance declares war you lose as many stability points as many royal marriages you have...

I don't see the problem with this. Only close royal marriages with your best friends, and there's no problem.

So in conclusion...the game is getting boring, few action, you have to stay still, let the stability increase, few wars..and i sleep on my pc...

Well I would indeed like more internal politics to kill the time. Since an EU2 game is 400 years, I'm actually happy if some years pass without anything happening, but I sincerely hope there will be more to do in Victoria.

[M@ni@c]

Originally posted by Johan
Irrelevant.. Restricting trade is not only about not placing in the CoT, its about denying you trade income from their provinces as well.

Do you mean that for example when you have a 100% monopoly in a CoT, but a country whose provinces deliver 50% of the CoT's trade value bans you, you will only get 50% of the CoT's trade?? Awesome!

[Castellon]

Originally posted by M@ni@c
Do you mean that for example when you have a 100% monopoly in a CoT, but a country whose provinces deliver 50% of the CoT's trade value bans you, you will only get 50% of the CoT's trade?? Awesome!

Yup!

[calcsam]

Originally posted by M@ni@c

Well I would indeed like more internal politics to kill the time. Since an EU2 game is 400 years, I'm actually happy if some years pass without anything happening, but I sincerely hope there will be more to do in Victoria.

Yes, it would be nice if there were 30 slider settings, and each move moved it 3 times, and internal politics could move it one position.....

[M@ni@c]

I'm not really referring to the DP sliders. Those are perfectly fine. I would be more interested in having to keep under control different factions in your country, each desiring other things. Perhaps that will be implemented in Victoria, if I may believe the released screenshots.

[Joe000000]

Irrelevant.. Restricting trade is not only about not placing in the CoT, its about denying you trade income from their provinces as well.

Ok. I always wondered why the Papal States would keep an embargo on me. I like that rule, it gives some economic power to countries without a COT.