Also, in relation to the CG being easier than the BG, of course it is!! In the BG you're playing against other humans,...
You obviously havn't played the BG. Often fighting humans is easyer then fighting minors since you can always negotiate with a human:
- Spain to France ... Let's make peace and kick Englans ass instead, he's ahead in the VP race. The Dutch told me he'll help too. He's 2nd but we'll wax his ass later on when the Dutch army & fleets has been decimated against the English forces.
As Arngrim put it ...you must remember that the minors are _much_ tougher in the BG...
I remember one of the first time I played the BG and decided to attack the Papal states, both to learn the system and expand my French territory.
I nearly got my ass kicked, with FRANCE against ONLY 1 single minor.
The war dragged along 20 years, ruining my stability and thus economy.
In the BG every turn you at war your stability drops 1, + 1 for each turn you've been at war previously, to max of -4 stability per turn. This means you have to pump in insane ammounts of money into stabimprovement just to keep floating. If your unfortunate or have a bad King (low administration) you'r doomed as not only will you provinces revolt but you loose up to 50% of your yearly income from low stability (which for some reason isn't in the CG).
In the end I walked away with two provinces but if I would have been unfortunate and not got that peace the last attempt, the next turn I would probably had been forced to offer a white peace or even cede a province to end the war. Anyway it took me 30 years or so to rebuild my stability and economy to what it was before I went to war.
To sum it up, the CG even with the 1.07 patch to me seems like a walk in the park, compaired to the BG, and not just becurse the lack of human involvement.
I am missing the point royally, am I? I was one of those who clamored for firmer AI action against aggressive nations. Aggressive is the key word here.
Yes, you are still missing the point. Be defensive or even agreesive all you want, just don't annex or steal provinces right and left, even in defensive wars or you will suffer the consequences of eveyone seeing you as the plague of Europe.
War was very common in those days but where more about honour and making/redistributing money (ransoms, peace traetys) then a deliberate 'let's conquer the world' strategy (except somewhat for the Turks and Russians which really where expansive).
Sweden is one of the countries that historically treid to go down the conquer path in Europe. In the end they where attaked by the Danes, Poles and Russians all at once and lost nearly all land they had gained the last 100+ years in just a few years.
There is no clear rule to say when relations were upset due to expansion, especially not when that expansion resulted from a successful defense.
No, there wasn't, but you don't get attacked by everyone from taking 1-2 provinces from the first war your in, now do you. It's when you start repeating this procedure frequently it turns into a recognisable patter that the other countries of that time would have (and did) react and the AI tries to simulate this.
Can't you see the difference ?
It is not always possible to take money in EU since the AI nations are usually unable to pay up. If not for that, I would do it much more often.
I belive you totally correct about this. But why don't you put a little more effort into making the importance of this go through to the people at Paradox? Judging to the lengt of posts about other stuff this might seem to Paradox to just be a minor issue for you and everybody else while it in fact is crucial.
------------------
/ Stefan Huszics members.nbci.com/huszics/
Warning: best viewed with Mozilla (NS6alpha) or Opera 5.x.
You obviously havn't played the BG. Often fighting humans is easyer then fighting minors since you can always negotiate with a human:
- Spain to France ... Let's make peace and kick Englans ass instead, he's ahead in the VP race. The Dutch told me he'll help too. He's 2nd but we'll wax his ass later on when the Dutch army & fleets has been decimated against the English forces.
As Arngrim put it ...you must remember that the minors are _much_ tougher in the BG...
I remember one of the first time I played the BG and decided to attack the Papal states, both to learn the system and expand my French territory.
I nearly got my ass kicked, with FRANCE against ONLY 1 single minor.
The war dragged along 20 years, ruining my stability and thus economy.
In the BG every turn you at war your stability drops 1, + 1 for each turn you've been at war previously, to max of -4 stability per turn. This means you have to pump in insane ammounts of money into stabimprovement just to keep floating. If your unfortunate or have a bad King (low administration) you'r doomed as not only will you provinces revolt but you loose up to 50% of your yearly income from low stability (which for some reason isn't in the CG).
In the end I walked away with two provinces but if I would have been unfortunate and not got that peace the last attempt, the next turn I would probably had been forced to offer a white peace or even cede a province to end the war. Anyway it took me 30 years or so to rebuild my stability and economy to what it was before I went to war.
To sum it up, the CG even with the 1.07 patch to me seems like a walk in the park, compaired to the BG, and not just becurse the lack of human involvement.
I am missing the point royally, am I? I was one of those who clamored for firmer AI action against aggressive nations. Aggressive is the key word here.
Yes, you are still missing the point. Be defensive or even agreesive all you want, just don't annex or steal provinces right and left, even in defensive wars or you will suffer the consequences of eveyone seeing you as the plague of Europe.
War was very common in those days but where more about honour and making/redistributing money (ransoms, peace traetys) then a deliberate 'let's conquer the world' strategy (except somewhat for the Turks and Russians which really where expansive).
Sweden is one of the countries that historically treid to go down the conquer path in Europe. In the end they where attaked by the Danes, Poles and Russians all at once and lost nearly all land they had gained the last 100+ years in just a few years.
There is no clear rule to say when relations were upset due to expansion, especially not when that expansion resulted from a successful defense.
No, there wasn't, but you don't get attacked by everyone from taking 1-2 provinces from the first war your in, now do you. It's when you start repeating this procedure frequently it turns into a recognisable patter that the other countries of that time would have (and did) react and the AI tries to simulate this.
Can't you see the difference ?
It is not always possible to take money in EU since the AI nations are usually unable to pay up. If not for that, I would do it much more often.
I belive you totally correct about this. But why don't you put a little more effort into making the importance of this go through to the people at Paradox? Judging to the lengt of posts about other stuff this might seem to Paradox to just be a minor issue for you and everybody else while it in fact is crucial.
------------------
/ Stefan Huszics members.nbci.com/huszics/
Warning: best viewed with Mozilla (NS6alpha) or Opera 5.x.
