game is much easier then HOI2 DD

[Scipio808]

WOW,Some of the other players most have had luckier games then I did.Even on normal.

Started as major and tried forcing war ealry not matter the Allies.France against Aragon,Castile and Portugal sounds ok.But once they slip past your army's its curtains for you.

1st Probelm not enough army's.

Ok start over.

New France,build up abit longer then dow again.

Ok lots of smaller army's = they sending in 10,000 stacks.


Ok start over.

New France

Build a couple of main army;s and a few meduim and a bunch of small cav's for breakthroughs.

Good plan,good strategy,no luck

3 Warrior king 8,000-12,000 man army's completly thrash my mains,then my meds then............start over.

New France,leave the Iberian Pen. alone until a more favorable time.Maybe I can use some Allies.1456 start.

Now 1608 good econ,good land tech about 19 I think,Forming up 150,000 troops on Aragon,Castile border ready for payback. I own Holland all the way south to Milan,all the way to the Pyreens.Allied Vassel's are England and Sweden.40 Craack;s in Med,40 in Atlantic waiting.

But anyway the game has been very challenging to me.All wars haven't been perfect but it wouldn't have been fun if they were.Cav army's are ok during start but they can be beat.Good Generals balance the game.I've had them ground my war to a halt.Tweaks though could be added.I hate the computer exploting the Merc use.To easy for them to use.

 

[unmerged(503)]

1. correct, raising and maintaining a army can "break" a kingdom financially. Look at Edward III after Calais...he didnt accept the truce because he needed a nap, he did so because he was broke...

2. Geopolitical perceptions were different then. also the nobility, IE, the ruling elites of most of christian europe, were intertwined to a degree that we cannot imagine today, for example a french noble married EdIII's daughter, during truces of the Hundred Years War, French, English, Spanish, German, Flemish, Norman etc etc, Knights went on crusades together against pagans in eastern europe...what Clausewitz expounded and defined was a concept of TOTAL war, imo however all he did was write these principals down in a logical and thoughtful manner. The mongols for example already has this form of warfare down to a art form.

I think that's the point. Modern strategy gamers are better at the diplomacy and military strategy of their games than 15th-century kings were of their kingdoms.

To my mind the reasons you rarely got large conquests by late medieval/early modern kings were...

1) limited ability to gather and support a large army (30,000 is pretty big!): if the nobles could be kept happy enough to supply the men, then there would be problems paying for it

2) no conception of modern 'grand strategy' - the idea of waging war as an extension of a national policy is described by Clausewitz, and basically informs all of our gaming styles. If you asked a 15th-century king what the idea of war was, you would get a very different and much more limited answer.

Where there existed the consistent application of superior military force for political ends, you find spectular results: the Mongols, or the Spanish in the New World, or indeed the Castilians in Spain.

 

[unmerged(503)]

they would be wrong most povitol battles fought in the medevial period were won by combined arms. not by mounted knights, crecy and agincourt both display this in no uncertain terms. hell tell that to the french when they marched to supress the flemish and were routed when they impaled themselves on pikes at the battle of the spurs. did the king of france understand finally the merits of combined arms at the battle of poitiers? at any rate he fought dismounted...at Nicopolis it was the turkish foot that absorbed the french charge, and the cavalry that enveloped, once again combined arms.

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.



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(36826)]

they would be wrong most povitol battles fought in the medevial period were won by combined arms. not by mounted knights, crecy and agincourt both display this in no uncertain terms. hell tell that to the french when they marched to supress the flemish and were routed when they impaled themselves on pikes at the battle of the spurs. did the king of france understand finally the merits of combined arms at the battle of poitiers? at any rate he fought dismounted...at Nicopolis it was the turkish foot that absorbed the french charge, and the cavalry that enveloped, once again combined arms.

It can of course be argued that cavarly was not *the* force of the middle ages but that is irrelevant. It is percieved as being so, middle ages = chivalry = knights

 

[unmerged(503)]

there is no question that heavy medieval european cavalry could be the decisive arm in battle, there are also instances of this...however it was in thier application within combined arms that this was so, further the preception of middle ages = chivalry = knights as you say is well founded, nobles, whom get most of the press from that period used the best equiptment available to thier class, mounts and armor, a mounted fighting man employing a lance and charging in a main body has no doubt made many men wet thier underwear, a mounted fighting man has considerable advantage fighting a dismounted opponent in melee as well unless the opposing army employed counters to the mounted charge as the english did for example. further the english proved time and time again that bowmen could disorder and break enemy cavalry charges, the french by rote would cut off the middle finger of captured english archers to insure they never drew bows again...makes me wonder where the middle finger insult comes from? was it the english taunting the french by flipping the bird and saying, hey I still got my finger!!!

It can of course be argued that cavarly was not *the* force of the middle ages but that is irrelevant. It is percieved as being so, middle ages = chivalry = knights

 

[MacGregor]

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

Well, I said that because that's what people are claiming. There's been any number of "I am a newcomer to EU but . . ." threads. I too was skeptical at first. I'm a skeptical guy. But reading the threads carefully, at least some did seem to be doing it legitimately, although in a playing manner I don't often use, just be the badest boy on the block. I've read a hundred times in these threads that is you build up your war experience (which is apparantly easy to do for a small country, although I do not know) get good generals, and just keep on warring, you're going to have an empire pretty quickly. At least that's the reports.

I loved EU, EUII, HoI etc. But I'm still a little squeamish about this incarnation. I don't know. Maybe I'm being too skeptical.

 

[unmerged(54584)]

Your being too skeptical.....
-yc

 

[markmid]

Well, I said that because that's what people are claiming. There's been any number of "I am a newcomer to EU but . . ." threads. I too was skeptical at first. I'm a skeptical guy. But reading the threads carefully, at least some did seem to be doing it legitimately, although in a playing manner I don't often use, just be the badest boy on the block. I've read a hundred times in these threads that is you build up your war experience (which is apparantly easy to do for a small country, although I do not know) get good generals, and just keep on warring, you're going to have an empire pretty quickly. At least that's the reports.

I loved EU, EUII, HoI etc. But I'm still a little squeamish about this incarnation. I don't know. Maybe I'm being too skeptical.

Conquest is too easy, far too easy compared to other games your right but should that stop you personally enjoying the game?

Even if you only play for the conquest game, just set yourself a higher standard.

As I posted for anyone caring, the way to beat any country via conquest is:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6509164#post6509164

 

[unmerged(67437)]

My take:

Anyone who plays the game expecting both to have an historical feel and challenging gameplay should re-evaluate exactly what they want.

We are capable of playing the game with a consistent plan lasting hundreds of years with the goal of maximizing our national successes. We are able to devote resources to large and long term endeavors knowing with great detail the financial and military capabilities of our nations. We also able to keep ourselves on the same path through the rule of countless rulers.

Real life rulers during this time period were able to do no such thing. Even if a country was blessed with a great and capable king, the next could very possibly be an idiot who destroyed everything his predecessor had built up. Even in a more balanced situation a completely capable monarch might devote his resources to colonization whilst his successor might be a warmonger.

Also, while great leaders might be able to put together vast empires as a result of their superb military and administrative skill, successive rulers very often let these past successes blind them from the reality that they also have to be strong to keep it all together. The Ottomans are a prime example of an empire that declined as a result of apathetic leadership.

My point is that we are incapable of apathetic leadership. We don't allow pathetic mentally disabled rulers to drag our empires down and produce absolutely nothing for 20 years.

My first idea to help fix this problem would be to modify the way national ideas are used. Perhaps they could instead be tied to rulers.

Also, perhaps once you reach certain gov. techs you can augment their idea(s) with one or two of your own choosing, to represent parliamentary influence.

Quite simply, it should be possible for a nation who is capable of being coherent and consistent for hundreds of years to put together a campaign to rule the whole of Europe. No one ever existed to had the ability to see and do what we can.

Furthermore, the fact that we can see and instantly react to enemy troop movements across all our borders is horribly unrealistic.

 

[unmerged(503)]

good points, but most games are like this. the only way to model events in a manner that would require you to "distract" from the master plan would be if the realm in question had factions able to influence your course of action...

for example nobles, middle class, and peasantry. Each in turn affected, and reacting to your choices, games like EU, or even CK failed to exploit, and model this. In reality power between all three groups was in a state of flux, according to current ruler policy, legacy policy...events enacted in the past with legacy effects, the magna carta for example...and exterior events, example, wars that in some manner impact your nation indirectly, example, your people feel sympathy to a nation with the same religion whom is being attacked on religious grounds and you fail to take action as the ruler.

the point is we can enjoy the luxury of essentially operating in a vacuum in relation to these very real influences that RW rulers had to deal with. I prefer a more "competitive" model, with factions compelling you to take them into consideration, but alas.

My take:

Anyone who plays the game expecting both to have an historical feel and challenging gameplay should re-evaluate exactly what they want.

We are capable of playing the game with a consistent plan lasting hundreds of years with the goal of maximizing our national successes. We are able to devote resources to large and long term endeavors knowing with great detail the financial and military capabilities of our nations. We also able to keep ourselves on the same path through the rule of countless rulers.

Real life rulers during this time period were able to do no such thing. Even if a country was blessed with a great and capable king, the next could very possibly be an idiot who destroyed everything his predecessor had built up. Even in a more balanced situation a completely capable monarch might devote his resources to colonization whilst his successor might be a warmonger.

Also, while great leaders might be able to put together vast empires as a result of their superb military and administrative skill, successive rulers very often let these past successes blind them from the reality that they also have to be strong to keep it all together. The Ottomans are a prime example of an empire that declined as a result of apathetic leadership.

My point is that we are incapable of apathetic leadership. We don't allow pathetic mentally disabled rulers to drag our empires down and produce absolutely nothing for 20 years.

My first idea to help fix this problem would be to modify the way national ideas are used. Perhaps they could instead be tied to rulers.

Also, perhaps once you reach certain gov. techs you can augment their idea(s) with one or two of your own choosing, to represent parliamentary influence.

Quite simply, it should be possible for a nation who is capable of being coherent and consistent for hundreds of years to put together a campaign to rule the whole of Europe. No one ever existed to had the ability to see and do what we can.

Furthermore, the fact that we can see and instantly react to enemy troop movements across all our borders is horribly unrealistic.

 

[schmoo34]

The game is searching for an identity, from my perspective. I loved the events in EU1 and EU2 yet I understand folks complaining about its linearity. Now, it lacks linearity, but also lacks direction. I can be Russia, Europe, even the Cherokee and conquer anything that comes my way. With the scripting, I had several factors that prevented me from doing this in EU2

1) Conquistadors and Explorers were limited to specific time periods or specific levels of land and naval techs

2) Events would ensure Spain was formidable or Russia formed or Lithuania kept Russia in check. The events made the AI stronger against you.

3) Rebellions actually were a problem versus just being a test of meticulous micromanagement.

 

[unmerged(6310)]

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.

Yeah, it is - at least based on what I know. Tried Mongolia again a few hours ago. Took a loan, hired as many mercenaries as I can (maybe 2 or 3 before they were unavailable) recruited as I could (2 regiments before my manpower was drained).

Ming didn't attack me this time, just surrounded my borders with 12,000 units in each province. After a while, I went bankrupt, saw my army desert to 3,000 units and a treasure of 0 with 5 income per year.

I'm just not buying the 'playing a small nation is as easy as a big one' type argument right now

 

[unmerged(53922)]

Yeah, it is - at least based on what I know. Tried Mongolia again a few hours ago. Took a loan, hired as many mercenaries as I can (maybe 2 or 3 before they were unavailable) recruited as I could (2 regiments before my manpower was drained).

Ming didn't attack me this time, just surrounded my borders with 12,000 units in each province. After a while, I went bankrupt, saw my army desert to 3,000 units and a treasure of 0 with 5 income per year.

I'm just not buying the 'playing a small nation is as easy as a big one' type argument right now

Taking loan you must expand at once. There is no time to wait.

 

[unmerged(6310)]

Taking loan you must expand at once. There is no time to wait.

Expand?

If I attack Oliriat Khannate (my neighbor to the west), then Ming swoops in and takes my territory, and my fellow Mongol's lands aren't exactly generating lots of money either, especially not enough to offset the interest and military upkeep expenses. Then there's the time it would take to siege the lands, defend their counter attacks, and then wait until the province recovers from the wars - all the while time is ticking.

I can't attack Ming because even if I somehow beat an army twice my size, they just swoop in on the counter attack with the other 6 stacks they have waiting.

I can't explore or take empty provinces because of Terra Incognita and I can't take Quest for the New World because Mongolia in 1453 starts off with 0 Gov't Tech and being tribal adds 50% to my tech costs (and I'm not making much money to invest with).

I just don't see what viable options there are.

If I don't take the loan, I can't afford to raise any troops (treasury of 10 ducats to begin play) and then it's back to getting killed in 30 days or less.

 

[unmerged(53922)]

and my fellow Mongol's lands aren't exactly generating lots of money either, especially not enough to offset the interest and military upkeep expenses.

I understand then even with war taxes and full minting you are on minus ?

I can't attack Ming because even if I somehow beat an army twice my size, they just swoop in on the counter attack with the other 6 stacks they have waiting.

If you are right then you can't attack another country, becouse Ming intervention, then you have no other choose like war with Ming ..... I know how hard it could be. I my Granadian game I fought with allied Poland and Lithuania. They forces was huge. I destroyed some of their stacks, but a new ones was coming and coming. After a few years I managed to have 100% warscore and made good peace deal.

At my Granada game I fought at start with 3 allied countries: Portugal, Castille, Aragon. They combined forces was 3-4 times bigger then mine. I only defended myself, destroying all incoming units. Finnaly I won this war, so you teoretically have chances with Ming.

 

[unmerged(6310)]

I understand then even with war taxes and full minting you are on minus ?

Sadly, that is the case. Taking on pretty much 1% inflation per year and war taxes and still losing at least a couple ducats a month.

If you are right then you can't attack another country, becouse Ming intervention, then you have no other choose like war with Ming ..... I know how hard it could be. I my Granadian game I fought with allied Poland and Lithuania. They forces was huge. I destroyed some of their stacks, but a new ones was coming and coming. After a few years I managed to have 100% warscore and made good peace deal.

At my Granada game I fought at start with 3 allied countries: Portugal, Castille, Aragon. They combined forces was 3-4 times bigger then mine. I only defended myself, destroying all incoming units. Finnaly I won this war, so you teoretically have chances with Ming.

I'll give it a shot. Like you said, there's not much other option. Hopefully my neighbor to the west will ally with me so that's one less worry. They don't have a lot, but with me putting everything into battling Ming, it won't take much.

I probably have no other choice than to make my king a general either? It's not likely I'll be able to afford to recruit a general, even if I build up tradition.

 

[unmerged(12920)]

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

You will succeed nothing of the sort, it's too far fetched, but try it. Sounded a bit too AIstic to me but who am I to tell. Beware though, Granada is lurking in the dark. Try on normal setting though otherwise you'd reach Alexandria in 100+ years (by land).

 

[smellymummy]

would playing as netherlands in 80 years war vs spain be hard? by that point, spain owns half the world, it should be somewhat more challenging than starting in 1453 vs small nations

 

[Daztek]

i have only played 130 years as austria, on hard. i like all the extra colour and the new systems especially the regiments and national ideas, and i like the maps

but by 1580 as austria, i have conquered most of germany, italy, eastern france, silesia, hungary and the rest of these places pretty much vassalised

it seems very easy to expand compared to EU2 (which i was playing until only a couple of weeks ago), i am fantastically wealthy, BB doesn't seem to count for much (little lippe is the only outfit that has attacked me, even though i have been heavily engaged on one front or another for most of the game), no revolts have happened (lower taxes and they go away), i have had no problems at all staying 'dei gratia imperator romanorum', i have crushed venice, burgundy, bohemia, poland, hungary and the ottomans without difficulty

the only downsides are my tech levels are low from my perpetual militarism (love that military drill idea), but i am so wealthy i don't care that my merchants can't keep a grip on even the lowest local COT level, and my armed forces easily overcome their tech disadvantage with numbers, generals, and refitting the entire army with higher tech regiments from provinces taken from burgundy (maurician/caracolle) and hungary (stradioti and spahis were useful for a while there)

the enemy military AI seems very poor, it doesn't seem to build enough troops or stack them in big enough stacks, it is not as challenging as the AI in EU2. only once in 130 years did the AI get close to invading austria and that was the first war where venice suddenly flooded the field (with mercs probably) and gutted my armies, but pretty much failed to capitalise and i recovered easily enough

i love the new game overall but fiscally and militarily it doesn't seem very challenging (on hard, anyway).

 

[unmerged(12920)]

The AI doesn't have enough armies it seems and I was wondering if keeping inflation at 0% (btw, how do they manage that?) has something to do with it?

Have been playing EU3 just for a few days so if my observation is incorect please tell. (I've been playing on normal for now and the info about all countries inflation can be found in the Ledger).