A Late Game Sleeper?

[Weltschmerz]

I have noticed a reoccuring theme in the vast majority of games played under the conditions of the Grand Campaign and that of ACGEEP. This being, at around 1750 or so, the human player has reached their zenith and is virtually incomparable to that of the AI. Also at about roughly the same time, research automatically goes to minting as one has maxed out all other relevant research areas; consequently, a process which promotes the spawning of manufactories, etc, and further enhances the human player way beyond that relative to the AI. Additionally, with such tech advantage, numerical force advantage coupled with excess cash reserves, stream-rolling your adversaries to vassalize then diplo-annex is simply a matter of course. I have noticed the same fundamental issue in EUIII. Put simply, how does one make the end game situation as competitive as earlier centuries?

PS: I play Very Hard/ Aggressive

 

[Monkii-sama]

Switch to another country and try to beat your own empire.

 

[unmerged(94521)]

I guess there are a few "overstrechted empire" events that are supposed to keep you down, but they shouldn't really stop a juggernaut.

My advice is to play harder nations: Ethiopia, Songhai, Morroco, Inca Empire, Aztec Empire, Chagatai Khanate. I have yet to max out my techs with any of those in AGCEEP!

 

[almoravid]

For the Glory gives you an opportunity to actually do better than the historical rulers. The fun in the game is to do repeat historical success or do well where historical figures failed. After three centuries of doing better than a country actually did, of course your enemies won't compete. No matter where you started your GC - after a while, you'll be out-performing your enemies.

I seldomly played a game from 1419 till 1819 outside of multiplayer matches, because over-performing for three centuries makes me too strong for the game to be fun. It got much better vis-a-vis EU2 though. There, it took me about 50 years to attain total dominance (without powergaming) with a major like Poland or Venice. Here, it takes me 100-150 for the game to start boring me. And that's okay, since if I want to lead the country during a later age, I can simply choose a later scenario.

After all, what fun is an England played since 1419 going to be in the war of Spanish succession, if there is no Spain or France around?

If you want to be challenged to do your best for a prolonged period, go multiplayer.

 

[Samorim]

There, it took me about 50 years to attain total dominance (without powergaming) with a major like Poland or Venice. Here, it takes me 100-150 for the game to start boring me.

What do you mean by total dominance? And do you mean 100 years after 1419 (1519)?

 

[Mats_SX]

What do you mean by total dominance? And do you mean 100 years after 1419 (1519)?

Ability to wage war against pretty much every other nation and win without even bothering to care about attrition?

 

[Monkii-sama]

Then again I do like expanding too much so I get BB-wars early on. Keeps me fighting for a long time.

 

[unmerged(4868)]

Ability to wage war against pretty much every other nation and win without even bothering to care about attrition?

Or another analogy is..... when you play Persia, and you end up being such a world superpower that you conquer all of Middle East, some of Europe, most of Africa, you have colonies in the Gulf of Mexico, and you are strong enough to win against the United States of America... and you force convert them to Shiite Islam.

World conquests = absurdity at its best.

 

[Mats_SX]

Or another analogy is..... when you play Persia, and you end up being such a world superpower that you conquer all of Middle East, some of Europe, most of Africa, you have colonies in the Gulf of Mexico, and you are strong enough to win against the United States of America... and you force convert them to Shiite Islam.

World conquests = absurdity at its best.

Yea... although US are rarely anything big and bad in this game

 

[ConjurerDragon]

I have noticed a reoccuring theme in the vast majority of games played under the conditions of the Grand Campaign and that of ACGEEP. This being, at around 1750 or so, the human player has reached their zenith and is virtually incomparable to that of the AI. Also at about roughly the same time, research automatically goes to minting as one has maxed out all other relevant research areas; consequently, a process which promotes the spawning of manufactories, etc, and further enhances the human player way beyond that relative to the AI. Additionally, with such tech advantage, numerical force advantage coupled with excess cash reserves, stream-rolling your adversaries to vassalize then diplo-annex is simply a matter of course. I have noticed the same fundamental issue in EUIII. Put simply, how does one make the end game situation as competitive as earlier centuries?

PS: I play Very Hard/ Aggressive

Play on Very Hard / Coward.
The AI will declare war less often. That means the AI will more often preserve it´s armies instead of wasting it in endless aggressive wars.
And they will declare war less often on you - that means if you want to expand you will have to take the penalties and spending the diplomat to declare war yourself.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

For the Glory gives you an opportunity to actually do better than the historical rulers. The fun in the game is to do repeat historical success or do well where historical figures failed. After three centuries of doing better than a country actually did, of course your enemies won't compete. No matter where you started your GC - after a while, you'll be out-performing your enemies.

I seldomly played a game from 1419 till 1819 outside of multiplayer matches, because over-performing for three centuries makes me too strong for the game to be fun. It got much better vis-a-vis EU2 though. There, it took me about 50 years to attain total dominance (without powergaming) with a major like Poland or Venice. Here, it takes me 100-150 for the game to start boring me. And that's okay, since if I want to lead the country during a later age, I can simply choose a later scenario.

After all, what fun is an England played since 1419 going to be in the war of Spanish succession, if there is no Spain or France around?

If you want to be challenged to do your best for a prolonged period, go multiplayer.

At the very least if you are more experienced and you want somewhat more of a challenge you should refrain yourself from playing easy nations.
That means in order of rising difficulty: No major nation like Spain or France. No nation with latin or torthodox technology. No european nation. A nation with chinese or exotic technology. An isolated nation with exotic tech. Or an isolated exotic tech nation that suffers from the whitemanpenalty.