Balance between early and late game

[unmerged(42723)]

I hope something like that wasn't posted before.

Anyway - I'd like to see some changes in that field. In Eu2, often you can't do anything (or at least not much) in the early years, depending on who you are and what ressources (money, manpower etc) you have. While it may be realistic and also better for the game that the start isn't too easy, it sometimes is a bit boring when you have to wait so long before you can do a bit more than sending diplos or merchants. OTOH in the late game you're usually so strong that many things become a piece of cake, or that you sometimes don't exactly know what to do with all the money you have now. In that period I often become lazy and don't play anymore since it is just clear that noone can resist you really.

So I want to see more possibilities to do something early, while the late game should be more challenging.

 

[Rythin]

Trigger badboy wars

 

[Sleepyhead]

It would be good if many nations had different AIs so they act historically. But also if there's some kind of generic AI for countries that never became great powers historically. Let's say Poland survives and is the second ranking power after the human player, Poland would then get a generic AI that is very efficient and will thus give the human a real match for the rest of the game.

Restrictions for humans are not fun IMO, strong opponents however are.

 

[Owl]

I agree on the slow start. Can't think of any sensible reason why you should have to grow a diplomat from seed, for example.

On the mid-late game stage when you've become an unstoppable military and economic bully: perhaps an answer might be for other nations to see your expansion as a threat at an earlier stage, as they always did in real life. BB points and BB wars aren't an adequate answer - we need the AI nations to conspire against the human player as soon as you increase you territory by a certain amount. The stage at which this response is triggered could vary according to difficulty level.

 

[Grosshaus]

An easy solution of the boredom of early gameplay is to shorten the timespan of the game

 

[Owl]

An easy solution of the boredom of early gameplay is to shorten the timespan of the game

But I like the early, low-tech stages and launching my first ships. I just wish I didn't have to wait for diplomats and merchants to appear. After all it's not as if the nation didn't exist before the game started...

 

[unmerged(42723)]

An easy solution of the boredom of early gameplay is to shorten the timespan of the game

Of course I do that, I just thought it would be nice to have some more to do early on

 

[Osteles]

I like the early part the most. I enjoy building up my nation from nothing (yes, I play the Byzantines ). Mostly by 1550 at most, I have become an unstoppable behemoth, against no-one can hope to stand, thats when I lose interest.

 

[Jomini]

I find the game lasts much longer when you change your tech level to exotic.

In reality kings did have limits upon diplomacy, finding trustworthy and capable men able to deal with the inevitable trouble changed policy created limited the options for rulers. It was not uncommon for gifted diplomats to be sent directly from one intrigue to another on the other side of the empire. Granted some diplomatic interactions should be easier to undertake, but I've always rationalized it by saying the time lag is waiting for your trained diplomats to arrive back for reassignment.

As far as how to make the game last longer, the only real way to beat the exponential curve is to have the AI gang up on the player. Something like the Anti-French coalition needs to begin to emerge where enemies near the player start making nice, protecting each other from external threats, and piling on the player. Preferably this behaviour should scale with the relative strength of the player so that the player cannot safely however just below the BB threshold.

Other than that, this is but one more thing a more compotent AI should help with.

 

[unmerged(485)]

...........................................

In Eu2, often you can't do anything (or at least not much) in the early years, depending on who you are and what ressources (money, manpower etc) you have.

...............................

So to balance the game at the end you want to be bored and not be able to do much?

 

[Chilango2]

Indeed. One of the primary reasons Europe remained a messy map of various nations, principalities etctera was the back and forth coalitions and balance of power that formed to stop anybody who got too powerful. This is what curbed the Hapsburgs from European domination in the 30 years war, what briefly led to the defeat of the British during the American revolutionary war and its parallel conflicts, and what brought down the French during the Napoleonic wars. Coding a "bright line" has the negative feature of enabling the player to float safely just behind it, and of making for slightly silly situations. The AI should be sophisticated enough to get progressivily more alarmed as the player, or any AI nation, really, grows beyond a certain point.

 

[Gebhard Blucher]

I like the idea of having more things to do early on, but I'm afraid it would turn into a micro-management nightmare once you've expanded a bit. I remember playing quite a few games as Ethiopia where I didn't have much to do for the first couple of decades beyond saving up my meager income for tax collectors and hoping for a nice random event (or at least nothing too bad).

After that though, things picked up nicely. With a it of cash you could start colonizing your little corner of Africa, and engage in a bit of diplomacy with Oman and Nubia. Once you started your first war with the Mamelukes, the game was fully engaging.

I think the lack of early game option is more of a problem for brand new players. I know I had that problem starting out. Games like Civ have you exploring, improving your territory, and building units and structures right away. When I first started playing EU2, I was struck by just how impoverished and limited my country was right away. (And that first game was with England, who starts out with a lot of nice provinces and in a war. )

 

[unmerged(55118)]

The problem is that the computer does a pretty good job maintaining the status quo throughout the ages. Austria does pretty good and so does Sweden, but generally borders in 1700 and very similar to borders in 1500.

I would like it if the AI would randomly assign one major nation to be "the chosen one". The AI would select a nation a good distance away from the player (ex. You are Portugal, it chooses Poland). That nation would gain some big advantages, a new AI script to make it more aggressive, and so on. Then by the time you become powerful, you will be fighting an equally powerful adversary.

 

[Smirfy]

The problem is that the computer does a pretty good job maintaining the status quo throughout the ages. Austria does pretty good and so does Sweden, but generally borders in 1700 and very similar to borders in 1500.

I would like it if the AI would randomly assign one major nation to be "the chosen one". The AI would select a nation a good distance away from the player (ex. You are Portugal, it chooses Poland). That nation would gain some big advantages, a new AI script to make it more aggressive, and so on. Then by the time you become powerful, you will be fighting an equally powerful adversary.

We have that already its called France problem is although it was given some big advantages and has a very aggressive AI no one taught it to defend its cores when it was off campaigning in Poland