game is much easier then HOI2 DD

[Incompetent]

I don't have EU3, but I do have EU2, and one of the things I was hoping for most with EU3 is a decent AI (the other being a better economic/tech system, but it sounds like the old fudges of 'ahead-of-time penalty' and 'inflation' are still in place).


A lot of people seem to be saying "a perfect AI is impossible, so we should be content with a feeble one". This is a false dichotomy. The purpose of AIs in this kind of game is not to make Peter Ebbesen struggle to survive while playing as France, it's to give the bulk of players an entertaining challenge. For that, you just need an AI that avoids the worst mistakes, ie it plays as well as someone who's just learnt the basics of the game.

I don't know how it is in EU3, but in EU2, here's a list of things that even average players ought to know about, but the AI doesn't:

- supply limits
- transporting armies, specifically that you might need to split them up to fit in the boats
- terrain, in particular the basics of which situations give a big advantage to the defender, and which terrain is good for cavalry
- as long as you're not getting battered, economy is more important than military in the long term
- when expanding, focus on rich, right-religion, right-culture provinces
- only start wars if you have a very good chance of winning, and where you have a specific goal, such as capturing cores or 'good' provinces
- don't be dogmatic about peace offers, especially if the enemy makes a more generous offer than you would have suggested (I'm talking about when the AI refuses an offer to give up 1 province, then offers the same province plus 4 more the next day - that's just totally retarded)
- rebels should be crushed ASAP, especially when at peace as your armies have little else to do
- In peacetime, build troops to deal with rebels/deter aggressive neighbours if you don't have enough, and disband some if you have too many
- the 'empty slot' strategy, and an attitude to trade that's similar to war (if you can't win, don't be aggressive, but if you can, press the advantage).
- if you're big enough that you'd refuse vassalisation, you should also refuse diploannexation. Obviously a player would never accept annexation, but for the AI, I'd be happy if it was merely as hard as diplovassalisation, so that 'force-vassalise, diplo-annex' stopped being the expansionist's mantra. In fact, it would be great if the AI remembered how it had been vassalised, and the answer 'by force' made diplo-annexation even more unlikely, to the point of being nearly impossible.
- minting is not just for making armies, it should also be used to make manus (which should be prioritised more by the AI) and colonies. There could be a simple 'inflation factor' to stop this getting out of hand - the more inflation, the less inclined the AI is to mint
- don't colonise a given province once it has reached city status; instead, start a new colony in another province, or if there isn't anywhere worthwhile, stop colonising (the expense of unprofitable colonisation can really hurt the AI)

All of these are really major problems that cripple the AI's ability to compete, and put together they make the game much too easy. But all of them should have been possible to fix, without being any more sophisticated than things the AI could do already. For example, the AI should be able to use its 'war' algorithms when facing rebellions, only it should be more aggressive than in an actual war. The diploannexation, retarded peace offers and excessive warmongering problems could be mostly fixed by simply adjusting a couple of parameters in an existing formula.

I'm not saying that the AI should know about gamey exploits like synchronised looting, that it should show historical prescience when making event choices, that it should have a grand strategic vision and plan centuries ahead, or that it should get all the details spot-on. Good players will always have the upper hand here, and so they should. But the AI needs to play as if it has some basic 'common sense' about the game at a broad level.

The great thing about good AIs is that if they're too good, it's very easy to 'damage' them a bit so they play worse. That way the player can choose between 'full AI', 'moderate AI' and 'crippled AI', and so get a more genuine difficulty control.

 

[unmerged(53922)]

For example, the AI should be able to use its 'war' algorithms when facing rebellions, only it should be more aggressive than in an actual war.

AI is often sending 1 unit on enemy 6, even with 0 manpower, so it's rather blind.

 

[cprofitt]

Not with Granadas starting position and in the year of 1453. As far as I know England had some hard times trying to beat the French in the hundred years war. Do you realy think that Granada whould have managed, by them own, to conquer Spain, France and then crush the Holy Roman Empire in ca 30 years? This with an army of only 30 000 cavalry??

I'm an history teacher and if you would answer so on a test I would grade it Failed in a instant.

small hint: This is a game.

 

[unmerged(53922)]

The biggest problem are loans. I started the game as Knights with about +0,5 money per month = 6 money/year. The loan in EU3 is taken from their own nationality. In real country it can't be higher then ex. 10% of yerly income so I should take only 0,6 money loan . Taking 200 money, inflation in first year should be ex 200/6 = 3000%. But in EU3 is 1% per year no matter how many money is producing your country. Even with foreign loans, nobody will give you 200 money when you have nothing.

So from micro country I could be in a few years superpower by choosing Quest for New World and counquering both Aztecs and Mayas. (+56,8 money from gold/month ... ). Foreign voyages was very expensive, but in EU3 are very cheap.

So I will start a new game as Ethiopia VH with goal of the Europe conquest.
Ethiopia as african society has 500% penalty reasearch + 50 % tribal despotizm for ever = 1000 % penalty, but it's christian. So it should be Westernized by event after 180 month's when having border with latin country. So it will be only penalized 50%. They can't build ships without beeing Westernized so I must conquer till Iberian Pennisula. Who speaks that this game is not competitive

 

[durecellrabbit]

I don't know how it is in EU3, but in EU2, here's a list of things that even average players ought to know about, but the AI doesn't:

Lets see whats changed.

- supply limits

The AI is better about supply limits and I've not seen it go over by much that often but it still happens.

- transporting armies, specifically that you might need to split them up to fit in the boats
- terrain, in particular the basics of which situations give a big advantage to the defender, and which terrain is good for cavalry

I don't know whether this has been changed.

- as long as you're not getting battered, economy is more important than military in the long term

This happens to a extent. I've seen smaller countries disband their armies to reduce monthly expenses.

- when expanding, focus on rich, right-religion, right-culture provinces
- only start wars if you have a very good chance of winning, and where you have a specific goal, such as capturing cores or 'good' provinces

These are kinda random. The AI will target richer provinces but probably won't get them in a peace deal. They also seem to have no goal for the war The AI seems to start wars over lost provinces regardless of the other countries strength. However they tend not to start wars against stronger countries even if that country is currently disadvantaged.

- don't be dogmatic about peace offers, especially if the enemy makes a more generous offer than you would have suggested (I'm talking about when the AI refuses an offer to give up 1 province, then offers the same province plus 4 more the next day - that's just totally retarded)

Still the same .

- rebels should be crushed ASAP, especially when at peace as your armies have little else to do

The AI seems a lot better at dealing with revolts except on islands and far away provinces.

- In peacetime, build troops to deal with rebels/deter aggressive neighbours if you don't have enough, and disband some if you have too many

Does this somewhat.

- the 'empty slot' strategy, and an attitude to trade that's similar to war (if you can't win, don't be aggressive, but if you can, press the advantage).


I don't really know but I think it's the same.

- if you're big enough that you'd refuse vassalisation, you should also refuse diploannexation. Obviously a player would never accept annexation, but for the AI, I'd be happy if it was merely as hard as diplovassalisation, so that 'force-vassalise, diplo-annex' stopped being the expansionist's mantra. In fact, it would be great if the AI remembered how it had been vassalised, and the answer 'by force' made diplo-annexation even more unlikely, to the point of being nearly impossible.

Can still diplo-annex big country. I don't think the AI diplo-annex is starting vassels. France seems to keep the ones it starts with.

- minting is not just for making armies, it should also be used to make manus (which should be prioritised more by the AI) and colonies. There could be a simple 'inflation factor' to stop this getting out of hand - the more inflation, the less inclined the AI is to mint

The AI is better at keeping inflation under control now but I've not seen the AI build many manus.

- don't colonise a given province once it has reached city status; instead, start a new colony in another province, or if there isn't anywhere worthwhile, stop colonising (the expense of unprofitable colonisation can really hurt the AI)

Can't do this anymore.

 

[MacGregor]

You should buy the game and play it, instead of going theory machine all the time

No, just reflecting the experiences talked about in a number of threads. That's why I used the word "appeared." At first I dismissed those grandiose claims as some overmuch self-ego stroking by a few testosterone fueled kids. But then the evidence became too much to ignore. It's hard to believe that many people are lying.

Now, of course players can "limit" themselves and not run roughshod over the game, but my concern is slightly different than that. It's that if one is agressive, "it appears" you can just throw caution (and alliances, and economics, and everything else) out the window and just go on a world conquest tour. Seems a bit of balancing still needs to be done.

 

[The Witch-King]

This is my own WitchMod "very hard " difficulty settings:

very_hard_player = {
merchant_compete_chance = -0.1
colonist_placement_chance = -0.1
missionary_placement_chance = -0.1
land_tech_cost_modifier = 0.25
trade_tech_cost_modifier = 0.25
naval_tech_cost_modifier = 0.25
government_tech_cost_modifier = 0.25
production_tech_cost_modifier = 0.25
spy_efficiency = -0.05
land_morale = -0.5
naval_morale = -0.5
}


I'm still looking at new factors to add, and it's not been play-tested much yet but it should give you a noticeably tougher game.

EDIT: This goes in the static_modifiers.txt file in the "common" directory, replacing the existing very_hard_player entry.

I myself prefer to mod the players modifiers and not the AI countries, as this has the least weird effects on AI behaviour.

 

[unmerged(6310)]

The problem is people opening the box, playing for the first time without reading the manual and without paying heed to the forum (often because they didn't listen to the forum) appear to be winning off the bat. Where's the challenge after that?

Those people must be better players than I because my first game lasted all of 40 days (I picked Mongolia). Ming smacked me so hard I barely saw what was happening.

Then next game as Japan, I didn't DO much of anything although I "survived". Although my techs were weak and didn't make much of any worthwile changes to anything.

This Japan game has been anything but easy. Just now, 70 years after my starting date, I finally get Ming to be my vassal. Japan is supposed to be "easier than average" in 1560 according to the bar when you select nations. If 70 years is what it takes for an "easier than average" nation, I can't imagine how long it would take if I played Mongolia again - 150 years? Forever? (assuming I could survive the first month again).

 

[unmerged(18425)]

There are screenies, lots of them, to be found on this very forum that can act as proof. In fact, it is better proof than when MacGregor himself pulls it off. He would be just one individual who might happen to be a great EU3 player. The fact that we've seen screenies with huge empires from various players in their first games is a better indicator than that...

Screenies of others aren't proof. They could be cheating ever for all you know. And you don't know if it was their first game, or if it was their 20th.

I simply refuse to believe that people can open the box, play for the *first* time *without* reading the manual and *without* paying heed to the forum and then accomplish this. That's what MagGrecor claimed afterall

Of couse, with some experience you can conquer a mighty empire in EU3, but it will be harder than with EU2 and even in EU2 the folks that could accomplish this in their first game without prior experience were rare.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

I think you are clutching at straws there fal.

It is certainly possible to make a large empire on your first game, just pick a major and hire as many cavarly regiments as you can. You do not need to know anything else to be pretty much assured of success in war, and first time players are unlikely to be playing on Very Hard sothere are no BB wars.

Of couse, with some experience you can conquer a mighty empire in EU3, but it will be harder than with EU2 and even in EU2 the folks that could accomplish this in their first game without prior experience were rare.

And I do not believe this at all, making an empire with a small nation is infinitely easier than in Eu2 because of how cheap warfare is.

 

[unmerged(18425)]

It is certainly possible to make a large empire on your first game, just pick a major and hire as many cavarly regiments as you can.

Sure, and you know that this is the best tactic by divine intervention when you open the box? You also know spontaneously how to use them without reading the manual and such? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

And I do not believe this at all, making an empire with a small nation is infinitely easier than in Eu2 because of how cheap warfare is.

Then we disagree completely . I find EU3 much more challenging in singleplayer with a small/weak country than EU2 was and that's even with my EU2 experience taken in account. As Peter posted in some other post: In EU2 being outnumbered with ten to one in a war against the AI while being a CRT or two behind wasn't really cause for concern, once you had some defensive depth. In EU3, it is.

 

[Onedreamer]

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:

It's not easier than any other strategic game when you play aggressive at normal levels... I played Savoy in EU2 and Savoy in EU3 and I didn't find it easier to make wars, though I did find it harder to colonize, especially in Africa.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

Sure, and you know that this is the best tactic by divine intervention when you open the box? You also know spontaneously how to use them without reading the manual and such? Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

Any 10 year old can tell you that horses beat infantry in medieval times loans are pretty self explanatory and point and click at enemy armies is not all that difficult to figure out either. Plus you've probably glanced at the tutorials (I haven't so not sure how informative they are)
I suppose it is testament to how much easier the learning curve is, even if I think it is far too simple.

Then we disagree completely . I find EU3 much more challenging in singleplayer with a small/weak country than EU2 was and that's even with my EU2 experience taken in account. As Peter posted in some other post: In EU2 being outnumbered with ten to one in a war against the AI while being a CRT or two behind wasn't really cause for concern, once you had some defensive depth. In EU3, it is.

A minor in Eu3 can take a single loan, build somewhere between 10 and 20 cavarly regiments and never have to buy troops again. It will also gain great leaders due to its small size and can beat up whichever AI country it wants.

In Eu2 you simply could not afford to buy that many units as a one or two provincer, taking enough loans to would leave you bankrupt and defenceless. You had to bide your time, get allies, make the most of the terrain etc etc.

In Eu3 it is just build cavarly and point and click. How is this harder?

And playing a minor kinda implies you have no defensive depth

 

[unmerged(6310)]

A minor in Eu3 can take a single loan, build somewhere between 10 and 20 cavarly regiments and never have to buy troops again. It will also gain great leaders due to its small size and can beat up whichever AI country it wants.

I didn't have time to recruit TWO regiments, much less 20 when I played Mongolia.

A game week into the game, Ming declared war on me. In 10 more days, all my provinces were occupied.

 

[unmerged(36826)]

I didn't have time to recruit TWO regiments, much less 20 when I played Mongolia.

A game week into the game, Ming declared war on me. In 10 more days, all my provinces were occupied.

I've not played the mongols, my comment was directed mostly at european minors who can recruit mercenaries.

But that situation seems impossible, which again is not a sign of good balance.

 

[EnderV]

In my two campaigns so far (Bohemia and Grenada), I found that on normal the game isn't very challenging (for a non-warmongering player per se, although as Grenada I definitely had 100% mil tradition quite a few time ).
I think that main reason for this (for me, anyway) is that I find it much much easier to run economy than in EU2 - as relative peaceful Bohemia I took no loans, and had twice the income of Ming quite early in the game, as Grenada I took two loans, early in the game - but the highest inflation I had was about 2.5% and it went down from there).

I think there's too few events that cause bad things for large (and by that I mean 20+ provinces) empires. In days where in a good case it took mere days for news/orders/whatever to make it from one end of the country to the other, we can see all and order all as if we had radio connection with every single unit. Of course, it's a necessary simplification for the game, but I think the realities of time and space should be imposed on us in some way.

The same goes for the economy - it should fluctuate a lot more. Now it's an extremely stable case of economy, something pretty rare. Prices should drop (and skyrocket) dramatically now and then - especially with wars; bad harvests should be more common etc. Even booming economy should be vulnerable to a sudden crash (some might argue that especially booming economy), both in trade and production (and taxes). Again, it can be simulated with having more province events, happening more often. Of course, that's more strain on the system, so I don't know how feasible that is.

That said, I doubt much/any of that will be implemented, so I will enjoy the game I have, and wait for more patches which will, likely, increase my enjoyment further.

 

[unmerged(54584)]

My two cents....

EU3 is a great game!
It will get better. Threads like this one help the mod-makers "You and I" change the game for the best. I love the naval system in this game. Much better than in EU2. If you want a major warship as Portugal, in the year 1453, your nation's entire January 1st cash has to be used on it! Woot. Armies should be more expensive as well IMHO. And Mercenary armies should has LOUSY moral, or else they should cost a great deal more to obtain. They should also have a mustering time, just like national units. Kristof73 made a fine point about Loans. Also, Gold inflation needs to be fixed.

Make sure your not 'Resigning and restarting' if you want a challenge. And give Paradox some time. This one will be GREAT!
-yc

 

[calmon]

Hey the world is just a small town. Nice to meet some dominions players here

 

[unmerged(54584)]

Hi Calmon,
Come find me when EU3 goes multi-player. We'll do some blood-hunting!
-yc

 

[Rezag]

Still I dont see nothing new about 1 province minors conquering world people did it in eu2 as well it was easy to make 1 province minor large nation in less than 100 year knight of cyprus conquergin Ottomans was not amazing so why now Granada kicking Castille or any other scenario like this....

Have to say I personally like eu3 more than eu2 only thing realy annoying me is the early and easy exploration I would love to see those player&ai eplorers to live shorter life and suffer mutch more attrition and losses with lower tech levels. Now you can use naval 0 with land 0 to explore whole world or best wait while ai explores it with attrition immune ships and explorer....

Its nice idea maps wont stay secret forever if only that exploration was harder.