game is much easier then HOI2 DD

[alpreb]

I don't like the "play on hard/VH" argument at all. IMO the game should be able to provide a challenge when the game is even. Neither side gets a bonus nor a minus. I always hate in games when the AI has to cheat to compete. Like in racing games(I know, not even same genre...). I once tested with a cheat that made my car run 5x faster than the actual limit would let, literally flying trough the map. The AI kept up...

This is just my opinion. Your opinion can be differend. Mmkay? So I'll just keep on playing on normal and hope that the AI some day learns to play to its fullest. It IS playing the same game with the same mechanics, so it SHOULD be able to do exactly what I am doing and thus, beat me. And not allow me to annex austria/hungary within 2 years as ... ragusa.. or something..

AI will not in the next many years be able to beat the human without cheating. It's only rather advances computers that can beat the human mind without cheat in chess. EUIII is far complex than that. Giving that EUIII AI doesn't use cheats it puts up a good fight. The reason why people are saying it's easy is that they use a exploit being cavalry being a lot more costefficient than it should be, something AI is not able to (could be changed in a patch and then feel the pain of 10k knights attacking you. More likely they reduce the costeffectiveness (sp!))

While it's impressive (I really mean that) to beat the game on very hard the game has an extra difficulty when chosing nation. England isn't the hardest nation to start with for a world conquest. It has the luxury to choose it wars

 

[unmerged(8345)]

Well, I figure I should throw my own first experience with EU3 in this thread. As Brandenburg I got the boundary dispute event and gained a core on Bohemia. I was already allied with Pommerania who was my vassal and Saxony so I figured this should be quick. The war started with me getting a nice backstab wound from Saxony, and Pommerania joined in only to protect my provinces. The war itself lasted 6 years and we must've had over 30,000 in causalities. (this is 1466 btw) The AI was amazing, we went back and forth and I only gained Breslau and they gave it up as a core.

The problem I had was, their armies never died. I had a superstar general and mass calvary and they still lived on to fight another day and besiege Brandenburg for the 100th time. If I chased them throughout Bohemia would they have finally disappeared?

Oh and CIV4 on Deity is unfair, not because the AI gets bonuses, it's impossible to win with some civs lol

 

[unmerged(23409)]

CIV4 on deity?!!!

Just Quecha rush them.

 

[ydejin]

I don't like the "play on hard/VH" argument at all. IMO the game should be able to provide a challenge when the game is even. Neither side gets a bonus nor a minus. I always hate in games when the AI has to cheat to compete.

I'm with alpreb. I think you are expecting way, way too much if you expect a computer to be able to beat you when playing evenly. In order for that to happen, the person who programs it both needs to be good enough to whip you if playing multiplayer and needs to be able to codify his strategy into a program. In addition, the program needs to dynamically respond to different player strategies. That is just not going to happen any time soon with today's computer technology.

IMO the people who expect the computer to be able to play a challenging game without cheating have no conception of how computers really work and likely have not done any real programming. Computers do well with Chess and other games with very limited rules, but it is going to be a long time coming before a computer can play a game of EU3's complexity at a human master level.

 

[Palle]

I don't think that AI is able to beat this Granada anymore, no matter how long the game lasts. In every Paradox game there's a point after which the game stops being challenging and you just play for fun.

The problem with the game now is that cavalry is way too much powerful. Infantry is completely useless for the first 50 years (or more) of the game. As a small country it's also easy to get your Land Tradition to 60-70%. Usually you only need one or two wars and after that you can recruit super generals with shock rating 5 or 6, which makes cavalry even stronger. Luckily this is a thing that can be easily balanced in a future patch.

 

[Galahorn]

I am playing a very hard game as Mecklelburg. I am now in 1700. My country name is Germany. Just won 2 great war against Austria. I am holding most of Sweden and of Germany. All my lands are covered with all the newest infrastructure. I have a huge colonial empire (all Mexico and central america and part of north america) all developped too. I am getting a huge income of 800 ducats a year. My inflation is at 8% and if I do an inflationnist policy I never let inflation got over 10% (then let it go down with National Policy deflation).

What I am trying to say is that yes, the game is easy, maybe too easy. But also, I can garantee you that if Austria and Burgundy were gang banging me, I would be doomed. The last war against Austria took me over 20 years to solve. I won with 99% result, but even then, my manpower was at 0 (since a while). I could still build tons of mercenaries (if i wanted) but certainly not take all of their provinces (actually, I was winning in Italy and north GErmany, but they were still very strong in south GErmany, even holding some of my provinces). Burgundy would of DOW me at that time and I was doomed.

Also, took me over 250 years to reach that level and my reputation is honorable again. Without a good reputation, I would of been wrecked. In conclusion, yes the game is too easy. But the empire you builted in 40 years will crumble. Wait until Austria, Great Britain and Burgundy DOWS u on the same time cause of ur scum reputation....u'll have a tough war. I wish u good luck and i ask for a little more difficulty that will come with the next patches, i am sure.

 

[unmerged(53922)]

My second game on as Granada on VH. In 1521 - after 47 years of almost non-stop war:

- inflation: 19,7 (but stopped)
- 79 units
- BB: 88 points (we are hated as entire world )
- 100 prestige
- 93 army tradition
- tech level is very low compared to neighbours, but my generals for now are doing his work very good.

From year to year is harder and harder, becouse my technology low level. I have two big opponnents: probably lucky Burgundy and Mamluks. War with Burgundy was ended by white peace, becouse I lost so many manpower.
Mamluks are rather easy, but war in Africa is war of attrition. AI don't look at province max supply limit, so soon his forces are decimated by hunger

Let's see how far I can go ....

BTW: Game has some bugs. One time I can moving my units at all Holy Empire area. One peace was I made was fake and I was still at war :wacko:

But game for me is very interesting and need a lot of planning. I like this game very much But you must play it on VH. Normal is too easy.

As you see I have not even hope for any peace time ......

 

[unmerged(56602)]

I don't like the "play on hard/VH" argument at all. IMO the game should be able to provide a challenge when the game is even. Neither side gets a bonus nor a minus. I always hate in games when the AI has to cheat to compete. Like in racing games(I know, not even same genre...). I once tested with a cheat that made my car run 5x faster than the actual limit would let, literally flying trough the map. The AI kept up...

This is just my opinion. Your opinion can be differend. Mmkay? So I'll just keep on playing on normal and hope that the AI some day learns to play to its fullest. It IS playing the same game with the same mechanics, so it SHOULD be able to do exactly what I am doing and thus, beat me. And not allow me to annex austria/hungary within 2 years as ... ragusa.. or something..

Amen, brother. I hate games that force me to let the AI cheat (and handicap myself) to get a bit of a challenge.

 

[unmerged(6105)]

This is one reason I am still afraid to buy the game. I have a feeling it is too easy. Again, people are playing the game and "winning" on their first try. I know game balancing may help, but I am scared that they may not be enough. Initial impressions from following this board: way too easy to win as a militarily agressive player; too many wars to begin with; AI is too agressive; balance appears to be way off.

Someone tell me I'm wrong . . . please.

I can't. The AI is better overall, but there are some things that makes it easy.

- Diploannexing is really easy to accomplish.
- Cavalry is vastly overpowered, especially with a good leader. This goes past much of the land technology, you need a big difference in technology to be able to beat cavalry + shock leader.
- Warfare is now very cheap.
- Compared to late EU2 patches high WE isn't nearly as bad unless you play a small country.

Think I will try to take on some really small country and see what I can do.

 

[KAding]

<snip>
But game for me is very interesting and need a lot of planning. I like this game very much But you must play it on VH. Normal is too easy.

I disagree with you on that. I always play my Paradox games on 'normal' and they provide plenty of a challenge. The same goes for Civ-games for me. I never played higher than monarch. It simply depends how militarily aggressive you are I suppose. I always play minors and I tend not to expand too much. For example, in my current game as Utrecht I aim to just conquer what is now the Netherlands and Belgium. When I played Milan I limited myself to all the Lombard provinces (North Italy).

In my games I usually end up being resisted mostly by big AI blobs. For flavor reasons I never go for all cavalry armies in Europe. I wouldn't really consider myself a role-playing gamer, but somehow I do put some restrictions on myself (in all games, RTW, Civ or whatever). I never bother to, for example, learn the details behind the combat system. Some people just seem to want to exploit some game mechanics, I'd rather not. I just don't see how it would improve my game experience.

Besides, overall I think the EU series does a lot better job at stopping major empires than, say, civilization. The stability costs of keeping a great multiethnic, multireligious country is atrocious for example. That much I found out when I decided to unite the Caucasus as Georgia.

So I would say. To each his own.

 

[KAding]

Amen, brother. I hate games that force me to let the AI cheat (and handicap myself) to get a bit of a challenge.

Of course I agree with you. But expecting an AI to perform as well as humans is a pipe dream.

Or do you think there are strategy games out there that are a challenge without the AI cheating in any way? If so, I'd like to learn about them since I don't know any.

I play my games as a minor in all paradox games, I find it more manageable and I also find that it makes the game a lot more challenging. Taking on the Ottomans as Georgia is plenty of a challenge for me at least!

 

[KAding]

I can't. The AI is better overall, but there are some things that makes it easy.

- Diploannexing is really easy to accomplish.
- Cavalry is vastly overpowered, especially with a good leader. This goes past much of the land technology, you need a big difference in technology to be able to beat cavalry + shock leader.
- Warfare is now very cheap.
- Compared to late EU2 patches high WE isn't nearly as bad unless you play a small country.

Think I will try to take on some really small country and see what I can do.

I agree. Those issues need to be improved. But for the time being it takes only a minor efforts to put some restrictions on myself by not going for full-cavalry armies for example. It really helps the gameplay apparently, since I've been having a hard time beating Austria as Milan!

 

[unmerged(66783)]

My second game on as Granada on VH. In 1521 - after 47 years of almost non-stop war:

- inflation: 19,7 (but stopped)
- 79 units
- BB: 88 points (we are hated as entire world )
- 100 prestige
- 93 army tradition
- tech level is very low compared to neighbours, but my generals for now are doing his work very good.

From year to year is harder and harder, becouse my technology low level. I have two big opponnents: probably lucky Burgundy and Mamluks. War with Burgundy was ended by white peace, becouse I lost so many manpower.
Mamluks are rather easy, but war in Africa is war of attrition. AI don't look at province max supply limit, so soon his forces are decimated by hunger

Let's see how far I can go ....

You will collapse eventually.
It seems to me that you keep expanding and warring, while the inflation will make your units very, very costly. You have few core provinces, so your income will be very limited. Also, the chances of rebellion will increase over time.

So, my prediction is that, to keep a stable income, you have to contineously wage war, force your enemies into vassals and claim money and repeat this process. At some stage you will reach a 'breaking point', the point where your enemies' (and of those you'll have plenty. ) are far more advanced then yours, while you lack the financial power to constantly maintain your army's size to fend off your enemies.

So, your vast empire will probably make way for another 'big blob', while you try to keep your core provinces.

Of course I could be wrong, so keep us updated!

 

[unmerged(53922)]

You will collapse eventually.
It seems to me that you keep expanding and warring, while the inflation will make your units very, very costly.

I have positive income and inflation is stopped so there is no problem.

You have few core provinces, so your income will be very limited.

I have plenty of cores, becouse after some years conquered provinces are main core, and there was a lot of events which gived me cores on neighbour provinces.

Also, the chances of rebellion will increase over time.

War exhaustion is growing very low probably my ruler diplomatic skills but nationalism is zero after 30 years or when I gain core on province. My stability is rising too, so chances of rebellion from year to year are lower.

So, my prediction is that, to keep a stable income, you have to contineously wage war, force your enemies into vassals and claim money and repeat this process.

Some vassals could DOW me too becouse my BB and after diploannex I have to wait 30 years to gain cores, so I don't made any vassalas. I am waiting on DOW's from my enemies and I expand further and further.

So, your vast empire will probably make way for another 'big blob', while you try to keep your core provinces.
Of course I could be wrong, so keep us updated!

For now - everything is better and better. More money, more forces I will update this thread from time to time. Thanks for interesting.

 

[Ludek]

if you want tougher game try moding and introduce folowing changes:

- lucky nations get BB reducion (I sugest something like 0.2-.5 Bb per year)
- lucky nations get iconome/tax bost
- lucky nations get manpower bost (20-100%)
- luky nations get stablity cost reduction (10-30%) and some stablity
inwestment (5-20). You may give similar only lesse bonus for any AI (in case
larger nations it has tendecny to stay at stablity -3 for loong times)

- War increases BB at rate 0.1-0.5 per year (i basicaly shut downs ruler's
diplacy influence )

- give lucky natiosn BB reduction and BB limit bost
- BB increase tech and stability inwestments just like inflation
- mod land tech so infantry isn't so hopeles .. it will help Ai since it is usnig
nfantry regardels of it's usefulness, keep it roughly half as useful as
cavalry

- mod cavalry cost up a bit (I set 25) and derease inaftry costs to 6. It
should keep calry most efficient unit if maximum hiting power in
stack is concerned, while infanry will be most cost efficient way to get
hiting power.

You can consder adding BB related events giwing extra revolt risk for few
years in prowinces with given culture. But I don't know how to do it and
since I don't want to read events (I don't want to spoils things for myself) in
order to learn it, so perchas somebeody could tell me /post such event here.

Then try gain and tell us how are you going

 

[unmerged(66783)]

Well, it seems you're beating history/sense/accepted theories about empires for now Kristof73.

Although I am curious to see if it really is a lasting power.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

You will collapse eventually.

No he won't.

More precisely, he might, if he gets unlucky with events or incautious in his approach, but otherwise he won't.

But game for me is very interesting and need a lot of planning. I like this game very much But you must play it on VH. Normal is too easy.

Indeed it is, if you are the conquest-oriented type of player, willing to take a few loans from the start AND with the resolution needed to rack up inflation to pay off those loans before their interest becomes crippling. Timid players fear inflation, good players know how to manage it. The AI bonuses and player penalties of VH makes it considerably more of a challenge as they'll field significantly more forces and your own forces will have lower morale.

...For other playing styles, normal is quite appropriate for playing and can still remain a challenge, but for conquest? VH it is, since the VH changes are primarily directed at giving the AI a better chance in war (and the player worse)

Still, when playing a favoured nation like Granada D) starting in 1453 when all have low techlevels, you are going to succeed in terms of conquest once you survive past the first few years of conquest so long as you don't commit any grave mistakes. That is, unless you get unlucky with random events regarding total war and unless the king of one of the greater nations is a cavalry genius.

In that way, EU3 remains much like EU2, with the major differences that this time around your own nation is going to have great leaders once you phase out the initial mercenaries for regular troops, and that mercenaries come as cavalry instead of the "mostly infantry" of EU2. The result is that despite the AI performing better both strategically and tactically in EU3, your superiority in leadership will easily match - and often exceed - that performance gain, since a similar nation played conquest oriented in EU2 would have to make do with default leaders.

Later startdates narrows the gap as infantry becomes more viable for other than assaulting.

If you want something that is more of a challenge, choose Japan 1453 on VH and try to perform an early conquest of Korea, Manchuria, and Ming. The two first are pushovers and should fall (except for capitals) within the first 3-5 years - the third.... less so. Ming is considerably tougher in EU3 than China was in EU2. Try whittling them down by attacking immediately when your truce expires and see how you do over a few decades of war.

 

[smn_]

I didn't play EU2, but I know Hoi2 DD well. I read a little to understand some differences between the games. I choose Poland and in my second game I overrun my enemies very fast. So I tried Grenada on normal ... I took one loan and buyed a lot of mercenaries. I choosen "God this way wanted" national idea and after 20 years with second loan, I won the game after France fall. Game is much easier then HOI2 with possibility of taking loans, and having 10 stack of invincible calvary. I don't need any reasearch to destroy Europe by Granada. Game is unballanced at all .... Loans are killing this game. Having 0 power - you can be a powerfull at once :wacko:

To be fair, EU3 v1.1 should be compared to HoI2 v1.1, not HoI2 DD which was an expansion on a refined product.

And I remember Annexing both Germany and Soviet Union with Poland in HoI2 v1.1, then shelving the game

Of course you are right about the difficulty. the major factors making the game easy are in my opinion
- The AI isn't too good at war (well, duh)
- The AI is too rabid, DoWs everything in sight and fights itself to exhaustion
- Trade is easier than EU2
- BB reduction is much much much easier than in EU2
- Colonization is easier than in EU2
- Warfare is MUCH cheaper than in EU2. Maintenance should be more expensive when sending reinforcements. Maintenance should be 4 times more expensive for armies on enemy territory. Or something.
- Reducing inflation is easier
- Getting a casus belli is way easier than EU2
- Getting cores is way easier than EU2
- Converting provinces is way easier than EU2

Did I forget anything?

 

[Sgian_Dubh]

- Warfare is MUCH cheaper than in EU2. Maintenance should be more expensive when sending reinforcements. Maintenance should be 4 times more expensive for armies on enemy territory. Or something.

I find this particularly ammusing in that Paradox specifically stated that in EUIII wars would be more expensive, and that it would not be possible to field the same kind of large armies in EUIII vs. EUII because it would be too costly.


I quote from appendix A of the manual:

"It will be difficult and prohibitively expensive to field armies or navies that are even remotely close to the size of the ones you have used in EU2."

Of course, they didn't mention that you wouldn't need to do to the other issues listed by the previous poster.
It seems that exactly the opposite is the case (at this point)

 

[smn_]

"It will be difficult and prohibitively expensive to field armies or navies that are even remotely close to the size of the ones you have used in EU2."

Of course, they didn't mention that you wouldn't need to do to the other issues listed by the previous poster.
It seems that exactly the opposite is the case (at this point)

So true.. Armies need to be more expensive to maintain, there needs to be an upper limit on mercenaries, and cavalry mercenaries should be much less common.

I predict that as it is, EU3 MP will see wars where sudden stacks of 15k cavalry just appear, fight a few battles only to be then disbanded to save the manpower, and then another stack of 10k infantry will appear near the unguarded border, to assault as many forts as possible before getting slaughtered by the stack of 10k cavalry that magically appeared in front of it .. etc ..