game is much easier then HOI2 DD

[minority]

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 ..

And the defenders would also have stacks of mercs appearing, stabilising the effect.

Or a good GM would set up rules, and good players would faithfully follow them.

Not that I'm saying the current situation is good, but a few modifications and it'll actually be better.

cheers

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

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 ..

I predict that those depending on such tactics in MP to tide them over in lieu of proper war preparations will discover that the mercenary pool, though deep, is not quite deep enough for several people to play that sort of game. Then again, I might be wrong. Time will tell.

 

[bwyb00]

Did I forget anything?

You forgot the cultural assimilation wich comes without any cost.
And also the over powered leader system. The better you are at war, the stronger are your leaders, quite logical but what about game balance? Not to mention the fact you can teleport them from one army to another in a snap.
There is also the stability cost you can inflict to your ennemy AI by spamming him with peace resolution you know he will refuse like 'release that nation'.
So many things need to be tuned... long archers that can't fire because the fire value is multiplied by zero... by the way, when will the beta testing start?

 

[Willburn2]

You forgot the cultural assimilation wich comes without any cost.
And also the over powered leader system. The better you are at war, the stronger are your leaders, quite logical but what about game balance? Not to mention the fact you can teleport them from one army to another in a snap.
There is also the stability cost you can inflict to your ennemy AI by spamming him with peace resolution you know he will refuse like 'release that nation'.
So many things need to be tuned... long archers that can't fire because the fire value is multiplied by zero... by the way, when will the beta testing start?

Agree agree and ..agree. So yeah uhm..when does the real beta start? Oh nm thats us.

 

[extox]

Agree agree and ..agree. So yeah uhm..when does the real beta start? Oh nm thats us.

what did you expect they only had a few testers... i know 100's must of applied to beta test, myslef included and were denied. So screw em... they got my money cuz i like paradox but this game in general really annoyes me. Eventually it will be where i want it after mods and such.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

You forgot the cultural assimilation wich comes without any cost.

Should it? The gain and loss of cultures currently works in tandem - you gain some, you lose some. Easier to gain than to lose (or it would make for real screwy gameplay with cultures flipflopping) but not a one-way deal.

And also the over powered leader system. The better you are at war, the stronger are your leaders, quite logical but what about game balance?

Is with the guy with the big guns.
...Or the little general with the big vision.

As for game balance, everybody who wants to be at the mercy of the true military powers is free to make a go for peaceful coexistence while he builds up his economy. Whether it works or not depends on the situation. Game balance is in striking the proper balance between peace and war that let's you accomplish your objectives.

Not to mention the fact you can teleport them from one army to another in a snap.
There is also the stability cost you can inflict to your ennemy AI by spamming him with peace resolution you know he will refuse like 'release that nation'.

Stabhitting was a tried and true game mechanic in EU2 that thankfully works just in EU3 as well.

So many things need to be tuned... long archers that can't fire because the fire value is multiplied by zero... by the way, when will the beta testing start?

I know that the manual declares the FIRE phase to be the ranged phase and SHOCK to be melee - it is a convenient way to think of things that feels reasonable, but in practise in the EU series the FIRE value has been used to allow gunpowder-equipped unit-types a second attack and SHOCK used by everybody.

That is why artillery has a technology dependent shock value as well as its fire value and why artillery has zero fire value at the early techs but has some shock value; it is primarily a siege weapon with minimal impact on battles (low shock) and no extra gunpowder phase (zero fire).

Archers, like everybody else in the early game, deal shock damage.

The paradigm could change, I guess, but the most obvious change that works within the system would be to remove the fire bonus from infantry regiments named "archers", "eastern archers" &etc and replace with a better (offensive or defensive, take your pick) shock bonus.

 

[smn_]

I predict that those depending on such tactics in MP to tide them over in lieu of proper war preparations will discover that the mercenary pool, though deep, is not quite deep enough for several people to play that sort of game. Then again, I might be wrong. Time will tell.

Proper war preparations would be setting up the regular army and its attack plan, why not still get some extra advantage from the merc rush? I know I would do it if I could afford it.

 

[Mr. Domino]

In fairness, you couldn't take Honduras to a superpower in Hoi2 merely because the game's span was shorter.

Lucky nations or no, I think at a certain level a player reaches a critical mass and of course the game isn't that hard. Most AI nations will not reach uber status a power gamer would. It's tough going early on, but once you beat most of your regional rivals it gets alot easier. But that just seems common sense.

Of course if your Spain + France you will be dominant. What power do people expect to stop you in Western Europe? Even an BB alliance would be ineffectual. Or take France, an "overpowered" country. There's a decent challenge if you get stuck fighting an alliance of Spain and Austria or Burgundy. But once you pass that hurdle and beat Spain and burgundy decisively there is no real threat. But wouldn't that have been the case IRL? Do people think it should be alot harder to beat these nations in wars?

Really I don't think EU 2 (or 3) should be played in 300 year sittings. Most players,even cautious players will run away with the game by 150 years or so. Hence the focus on 50 year games in EU 2. Being dominant at 1600 is not "too soon" as far as I'm concerned, its just the way of things. If your nation had steadily won every war for a century and a half while others performed more or less normally that nation would have dominanted.

The only exceptions I could think of is stability cost. I assume all those wrong culture/wrong religion provinces will kill you. Also, 1453 may be too open ended and fairly balanced (everyone has land tech 1, the New World is empty, France is still fighting Burgundy ect). I am guessing 1520 or so might be a better start date for a challenge, once the ottomans and spain get established.

 

[bwyb00]

@Peter Ebbesen
I perfectly understand you defend this game here in the forum but I am sure you have your own list of flaws you'd like to see corrected.
If not, just make the promess you will never download any upcoming patch and keep playing on 1.1 for ever

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

@Peter Ebbesen
I perfectly understand you defend this game here in the forum but I am sure you have your own list of flaws you'd like to see corrected.
If not, just make the promess you will never download any upcoming patch and keep playing on 1.1 for ever

Of course I have my list of perceived flaws, annoyances, &etc that I would like to see corrected, and I chime in when those are addressed by others and I happen to pass by. That doesn't mean that I won't participate in debates on those things that others see as flaws, particularly when others are snide about it, clueless, or reality-challenged where likely development costs are concerned, but more often when I feel that I can actually help teach people to be better at the game as it is, not as they would want it to be.

Sometimes I am enlightened by such a debate as light is shed on flaws I hadn't realized existed, more often not, but when somebody takes things that (as far as I'm concerned) worked pretty damn well in EU2 and consider their existence in EU3 to be flaws along the lines of "what were they thinking, wasn't this tested", I can be a little bit savage.

Just a tiny, tiny, bit....
....The better to enlighten you, of course.

 

[bwyb00]

So to have a chance you take my previous message in consideration here is the 'soft' version.
- cultural assimilation should at least take more time than gaining the core province, it could also come with a -10% production modifier for 10 year or someting like that.
- leaders power should be reduced. Maybe the random factor could be raised too so that we have real chances to have a good leader with low tradition or crap leader with high tradition.
- We should have a "redeployement time" when moving a leader from an army to another. Especially to avoid exploit in multiplayer game.
- AI should not be hit by a stability cost for an offer that is just 2% under the warscore. There should be a stability hit only with the first offer or if the peace value is lower than the precedent offer in the same war. (Also, the 'release nation' value in peace resolution could be proportionnal to the size of the released country)

I have lots of other remarks (fire value of archer and so...) but its essentially in the modable part of the game, so I will mod... I don't think the beta testing was bad but they probably considered that every modable parameter was on very low priority. It was certainly not a bad choice since the game engine itself seems very robust.

This was the positive version...

 

[unmerged(53922)]

This is my Granada empire playing on VH after 100 years. I will end here becouse I don't see any more competition. The only tought opponent could be Ottoman Empire. I won every war, my inflation is dropping, my tech level is rapidly rising. I have 130 units and cash for many, many more.

I am thinking what country could be more harder. American natives could not build any ships. African either, but they have land road to Europe. - 80% Tech modifier could be a problem, but I can probably handle with it becouse ability of building other countries units. Any other ideas ?

 

[GeneralHannibal]

The way it looks, you can't be defeated. Hopefully things will get better in the next patch.

 

[Theonlystd]

Theres not a SP game out there where the AI can give you good competition on even levels..

Ai isnt smart and doesnt learn from its mistakes so you can force them to keep making them. Its just insanely easy to exploit/be gamey.


Now If the Ai can compete with you on hard settings without an insane bonus and without you being super gamey. I consider that as about as diffucult as a game can be.

Eu3 does a good job of it much better than Eu2 did.. And alot better than most games

 

[unmerged(66094)]

i hope the game becomes "very hard" because of smarter AI but not the modifier, it is lame. But i think we will never get it, because Paradox AI programmers suck

 

[Theonlystd]

i hope the game becomes "very hard" because of smarter AI but not the modifier, it is lame. But i think we will never get it, because Paradox AI programmers suck

Can you show meh a game thats "very hard" cause of Ai and not the bonus's they get?


Cause id like to play that.



Edit- But eu3 isnt perfect obvisouly . Mercs are horribly broken, to cheap to plentiful and fight to well.


They should be more Expensive, And in Less numbers and can only be hired at a certain ratio compared to your starting army. What kind of king is going to give mercs most of his treasury with nothing to assure they dont just come and take the rest of his money and leave?

Also they should have a morale plenty to represent there not as eager to fight to the bloody end as your own countries troops..

And maybe make the Spy Desertion option thing very effective against any Mercenary units the nation has?

 

[unmerged(53922)]

Some things could made AI much more competitive to player:

1. synchronize arrival to attacked province - no one by one
2. AI should be more willing to attack with high stacks of units - now it often uses 1/3 of their stack and constantly is loosing, so I can win even having 4 times less forces + my super generals = bloody slaughter
3. AI don't look at province's unit max support, so it's often killing yourself - even sitting at home. The best example is Africa, when AI units are disappearing from attrition.
4. Why invasions are done only by one unit (sometimes two) ? England is absolutely off this game.
5. Every AI is building a huge stacks of navies and investing in naval technologies even without colonization ....
6. BB wars are good, by not made as defendless country .... AI countries should start to build huge allies blocks when facing very BB country - especially human.
7. Loans + calvary are killer in first phase of game. You can beat any AI, playing by one province nation at start. Generals should add only some percent of power to your units, ex 10-20% max - not 100% - 400% ...
8. AI is ending wars too fast. It could destroy all country, but it suddenly wants to talk about peace. Today it's dowing me, month later is asking about war ending.
9. Beaten AI should rebuild their land forces with very high prioritet - not building improvements and ships too.
10. Avaiable manpower is something fictional. Now you can waste them as you wish. This is probably the key which give ability to such fast conquest. Hoi2 system is much better.

so game need some more programming work to be better. Most options of this game are for human and they are not used properly by AI. (very slow colonization, is AI using spies at all ?, diploannexations, taking loans etc.). In my opinion option which is not used by AI, could be not possible to human.

At the end I must say that sometimes is very hard to stand vs 5 - 6 attacking enemies - so even without changes game is interesting. I had many fun from playing it.

 

[Letar]

i hope the game becomes "very hard" because of smarter AI but not the modifier, it is lame. But i think we will never get it, because Paradox AI programmers suck

He he. Following your thinking style, pretty much every AI programmer on this planet "sucks". Apparently you have not even the slightest idea about AI programming.

 

[Nilmerf]

Can you show meh a game thats "very hard" cause of Ai and not the bonus's they get?


Cause id like to play that.

Galactic Civilizations II and its expansion. The lead guy over there, Brad, is probably the best AI programmer for strategy games in the world.

 

[Prugel]

AI, difficulty and whatnot! What we like is an extremely complex AI simultaniously workning in 100 nations at one time, but we don't want it now (no computer can handle it).....

Now, succeeding with Grenada was possible in EU2, but quite difficult. Taking so much land as the OP and in so short time was probably impossible.
Grenada was (and is) one of the most difficult countries to play (in Europe), and if they can do it, it will be very easy to do as most other countries. If you are willing to use the exploidable cavalry (including merc's) and leaders.

So lets hear it - are there any reasons NOT to tweak these issues?