i totally agree, imagine China or Timurid Empire trying to fight against all the rebels...
-
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.
Totally agree no tactical battels!
They will only give human player another adventage. After a short while human will be able to beat AI with army numbering one tenth of AI's.
But I would have more options like: choosing tactic before battle,
different units (with nation specific units ) and it means more combat phases.
They will only give human player another adventage. After a short while human will be able to beat AI with army numbering one tenth of AI's.
But I would have more options like: choosing tactic before battle,
different units (with nation specific units ) and it means more combat phases.
But this is a strategy game not a tactical one.
Re: Specific units, I always found it a little cheesy in CIV3. Very hard to balance them all.
agree with this. specific units are very dificult to balance (like Civ3 or Cossacks).
And, all people will want to be a major power with specific units, and no one will play for example Nubia because of the lack of the specific units....
but, you can say, "well, let's make specific units for all so you can play every nation with their specific units".... mmm ...a total mess right??? have you count all the nations in EU? they are more than 200... so making 200 specific units is a total waste of time... and imagine if you want to make specific units for specific periods of time... you can multiply 200 * n, being "n" the number of units you want to have for the countries.... so a COMPLETE MESS and WASTE OF TIME.
you can spend that time making the AI better.
Originally posted by Generalisimo
agree with this. specific units are very dificult to balance (like Civ3 or Cossacks).
And, all people will want to be a major power with specific units, and no one will play for example Nubia because of the lack of the specific units....
but, you can say, "well, let's make specific units for all so you can play every nation with their specific units".... mmm ...a total mess right??? have you count all the nations in EU? they are more than 200... so making 200 specific units is a total waste of time... and imagine if you want to make specific units for specific periods of time... you can multiply 200 * n, being "n" the number of units you want to have for the countries.... so a COMPLETE MESS and WASTE OF TIME.
you can spend that time making the AI better.
Exactly my point, thanks for expanding on it.
what if
I agree, no micro-battles.
As for trade:
How about having bonuses to your stability if you can trade certain items. Rather than profit, I'd like to see it go along the luxury route and create happiness. It could force you to make trade agreements with a country. You get credit for a resourse you either produce or have a Trade agreement with a country that trades it to you.(It would give me more an incentive to create or honor trade agreements. The flip-side is it could offset the religious complications in stability, where you could decide to trade to become more stable. The drawback is smaller countries get penalized, but stability is not usually a big concern as with a country with more provences.
just a thought
Teaparty
I agree, no micro-battles.
As for trade:
How about having bonuses to your stability if you can trade certain items. Rather than profit, I'd like to see it go along the luxury route and create happiness. It could force you to make trade agreements with a country. You get credit for a resourse you either produce or have a Trade agreement with a country that trades it to you.(It would give me more an incentive to create or honor trade agreements. The flip-side is it could offset the religious complications in stability, where you could decide to trade to become more stable. The drawback is smaller countries get penalized, but stability is not usually a big concern as with a country with more provences.
just a thought
Teaparty
this was supposed to go in the Imperalism vs UEII thread. Can a mod please move or delete.
thanks
Teaparty
thanks
Teaparty
I can give it a try, though be prepared to rewrite it in the thread, I'm not to be trusted.
Edit : Pfeeew, it worked.
You are the master, we but your puppets !Originally posted by Carolus Rex
I can give it a try, though be prepared to rewrite it in the thread, I'm not to be trusted.
Edit : Pfeeew, it worked.
Re: what if
I always thought you should get some kind of bonus out of each Trade item.
For example Lots give a bonus to manufactories if they are built in those provinces, producing and trading grain increase your troop capacity. ...
But what for example is Fur good for!
Maybe it should give you a bonus against winter attrition!
I always thought you should get some kind of bonus out of each Trade item.
For example Lots give a bonus to manufactories if they are built in those provinces, producing and trading grain increase your troop capacity. ...
But what for example is Fur good for!
Maybe it should give you a bonus against winter attrition!
Well, I'd like to see a multiple product province system... with certain provinces being richer and easier to exploit...
What I am thinking is let's say you start out as a wine producing province... well, as the ruler of your country, you could put more money into developing another possible resource in that country... like metals or cotton or ceramics... but depending on the province, some resources would be harder(ie more costly) to develop than others... and there are places that you can't get certain resources, no matter how much you pay(like furs in the desert)
M
What I am thinking is let's say you start out as a wine producing province... well, as the ruler of your country, you could put more money into developing another possible resource in that country... like metals or cotton or ceramics... but depending on the province, some resources would be harder(ie more costly) to develop than others... and there are places that you can't get certain resources, no matter how much you pay(like furs in the desert)
M
I really like all the ideas sprouting up about diversifying the trade aspect of EU. Its interesting to imagine how one aspect of the game can add immensely to all others. I think with even small additions to the trade area we could see some real interesting stuff happeneing.
Perhaps an interesting thing, Amber being produced by the southern Baltic states, this would increase their value even more to their neighbors, while providing them with a new source of income to defend themselves with.
Around 1750 to 1780 coal would begin to come available in english and rhineland provences, adding new motivations to possibly stale and comfortable borders....
etc etc
Perhaps an interesting thing, Amber being produced by the southern Baltic states, this would increase their value even more to their neighbors, while providing them with a new source of income to defend themselves with.
Around 1750 to 1780 coal would begin to come available in english and rhineland provences, adding new motivations to possibly stale and comfortable borders....
etc etc
Well if you did that then you would have to use my suggestion of making every trade item have a special purpose. Otherwise everyone would change every province into a grain , Sugar/Wine, or metal province. or Gold.
Originally posted by Castellon
Well if you did that then you would have to use my suggestion of making every trade item have a special purpose. Otherwise everyone would change every province into a grain , Sugar/Wine, or metal province. or Gold.
Not if you had a supply/demand pricing model like in Imperialism. Of course then most goods would tend towards having the same price,
i like the idea of Castellon, every resource should give some bonus, the more you have, the more you get.
Originally posted by Generalisimo
i like the idea of Castellon, every resource should give some bonus, the more you have, the more you get.
Well it would certainly put a strategic value on some provinces that now have none!
Imp 2 had 1 thing
lines of supply. grabing
critical provinces cutting
the outlet, not just
taking the gold mine
and getting the gold.
EU2 seems to miss
on geographical
importance affecting
sea routes. Royal
wharfs should affect
sea zones unoccupied
by opposing naval forces.
ie. cape breton, singapore
etc.
lines of supply. grabing
critical provinces cutting
the outlet, not just
taking the gold mine
and getting the gold.
EU2 seems to miss
on geographical
importance affecting
sea routes. Royal
wharfs should affect
sea zones unoccupied
by opposing naval forces.
ie. cape breton, singapore
etc.
Another interesting idea from imperialism, when you blockade an enemy port, you usually capture merchant ships, and sieze their cargos. This would be an interesting addition, perhaps during open war, if you blockade, you can sieze ships and cargo, but only while at war.
I really like this idea, Stealing the enemies trade income.
Maybe his merchants in overseas CoTs would be auto competed out by your merchants while the blockade lasts.