What about 'fantasia' scenerio?
Is it harder or eaisier?
Are there scenerios more challenging than GC?
Is it harder or eaisier?
Are there scenerios more challenging than GC?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Salute grand Captain Savant from Venice
I am sad, since I have to ear that I have to play UZBEKISTAN to have a challenging game.... my godness... you turm me so sad
Salut Captain!
I am sad, since I have to ear that I have to play UZBEKISTAN to have a challenging game.... my godness... you turm me so sad
Salut Captain!
You wrote:
------------------
EU's AI is, frankly, a helluva lot better than the sad excuse in Imperialism II. In fact, people like martin4444 would probably not be able to create such absurdly huge empires without constant saves and reloads; at least not on the aggressive AI level.
An experienced player who does not cheat (i.e. reload when things fall apart) can of course still beat the AI pretty easily by exploiting a few stupid weaknesses, but the early stages of the game in particular can be a real challenge. However, I must advise against playing any of the seven traditional majors as I find them all too easy to play (except for Portugal, which is just boring). On the other hand, the truly tiny nations are not so fun either due to their lack of decent leaders.
Thus it is my opinion that the semi-majors are the most enjoyable to play: Austria, Sweden, Venice, Denmark... Brandenburg (now there's a challenge.)
/Doomie
------------------
No, I have not reload anything or cheated, I don't cheat, its really no fun cheating, and actually, the GC was pretty easy up till around 1650 then it started to get though.
It all began when I as Sweden decleared war on the hansa-leage 1620.. Every single major alliance was involved, every single nation in Europe was involved, with a little luck I could quickly seize many provinces by blitzing them and doing seperare peace.. there was only one problem, I overextended my land forces and I couldnt not keep the provinces firmly in my grasp. (My land tech now is at 41 while Spain is closest with 30 or so..) It is now year 1720 and the war(s) is still raging!!!!!! I first had to fight defensivly tryiung to buy time, fortyfing, giving up hardwon provinces in germany, building my armies, assigning leaders etc, doing my own reformation and restructuring of my armies and their role, slowly but at a high life cost, I slowly turned the side to the point where I am extremly well dug in behing Mighty fortresses all along my frontlines (Each province holds atleast 30k+ armies in them, some even as high as 80k) (my total military force is around 500k troops or so) throwing back any attemps of counterattacks from my enemies and slowly every 2-3 years I conquer more and more provinces. Granted! I know how the AI thinks and its flaws thus I can get away with keeping half my empire undefended since I know he wont attack there..
(I would....)
And a major part to my military success is really LAND TECH!
My research have been 100% focused on Land tech, I dont even send traders to various CoT's, I don't bother, when Military conquest is so much more efficient. I have 4 CoT's within my empire and they are extremly well defended, generating major taxes for me. I could probably make alot more money assigning traders (monopoly) to them, but frankly, all my Ducats goes into the Military. I need to constantly built fortresses, reinforce my armies, guard my key provinces and frontlines.
My only problem with this whole scenary is that I know how I could cause myself some serious harm, attacking certain places where i'm vulnerable, but the AI does *NOT* see this, thus my empire prospers. Not my fault
------------------
EU's AI is, frankly, a helluva lot better than the sad excuse in Imperialism II. In fact, people like martin4444 would probably not be able to create such absurdly huge empires without constant saves and reloads; at least not on the aggressive AI level.
An experienced player who does not cheat (i.e. reload when things fall apart) can of course still beat the AI pretty easily by exploiting a few stupid weaknesses, but the early stages of the game in particular can be a real challenge. However, I must advise against playing any of the seven traditional majors as I find them all too easy to play (except for Portugal, which is just boring). On the other hand, the truly tiny nations are not so fun either due to their lack of decent leaders.
Thus it is my opinion that the semi-majors are the most enjoyable to play: Austria, Sweden, Venice, Denmark... Brandenburg (now there's a challenge.)
/Doomie
------------------
No, I have not reload anything or cheated, I don't cheat, its really no fun cheating, and actually, the GC was pretty easy up till around 1650 then it started to get though.
It all began when I as Sweden decleared war on the hansa-leage 1620.. Every single major alliance was involved, every single nation in Europe was involved, with a little luck I could quickly seize many provinces by blitzing them and doing seperare peace.. there was only one problem, I overextended my land forces and I couldnt not keep the provinces firmly in my grasp. (My land tech now is at 41 while Spain is closest with 30 or so..) It is now year 1720 and the war(s) is still raging!!!!!! I first had to fight defensivly tryiung to buy time, fortyfing, giving up hardwon provinces in germany, building my armies, assigning leaders etc, doing my own reformation and restructuring of my armies and their role, slowly but at a high life cost, I slowly turned the side to the point where I am extremly well dug in behing Mighty fortresses all along my frontlines (Each province holds atleast 30k+ armies in them, some even as high as 80k) (my total military force is around 500k troops or so) throwing back any attemps of counterattacks from my enemies and slowly every 2-3 years I conquer more and more provinces. Granted! I know how the AI thinks and its flaws thus I can get away with keeping half my empire undefended since I know he wont attack there..
(I would....)
And a major part to my military success is really LAND TECH!
My research have been 100% focused on Land tech, I dont even send traders to various CoT's, I don't bother, when Military conquest is so much more efficient. I have 4 CoT's within my empire and they are extremly well defended, generating major taxes for me. I could probably make alot more money assigning traders (monopoly) to them, but frankly, all my Ducats goes into the Military. I need to constantly built fortresses, reinforce my armies, guard my key provinces and frontlines.
My only problem with this whole scenary is that I know how I could cause myself some serious harm, attacking certain places where i'm vulnerable, but the AI does *NOT* see this, thus my empire prospers. Not my fault
martin4444, you should show more respet for a superior (Doomi) kidding
All you said make me sad Please, tell me something positive about AI, just to develop a smile on my ugly face
Regards
kiddingAll you said make me sad
Please, tell me something positive about AI, just to develop a smile on my ugly face Regards
Actually, I would contend that the military AI is poor, for both the reasons cited above and a couple more:
- Unit composition. Human players compose field armies, siege armies, reenforcement armies, etc. The AI churns forces out in a constant stream.
- Garrisons, standing armies, etc. Though this is less the military AI, and more strategic. Human players do, computer doesn't (except huge garrisons on islands).
- Unit routing and objectives. This was probably aluded to earlier. The AI seems to have a very rigid set of priorities. 1) Besiege an enemy provence - the entire alliance has the same, single priority (at least in continental wars); 2) Besiege a provence that has been captured by the enemy. No where in here is 'relieve siege' or destroy opponents army. My week siege army in Il de France goes unmolested while 200K attrit away taking Picardy - a human would take care of both situations. Routing rules seem to include avoidence of combat. Example if one alliance has Hanse and Hesse, and another alliance has Saxony. First alliance has Anhalt under siege. Second alliance wants to besiege Hesse. A steady stream of units will march all the way around Brandenburg to get at Hesse (and not easily relieve Ahnalt, of course). And of course, if you had a Navarre, French, Netherlands, Hanse, P-L alliance (contrived), you will see Navarre march to Bessarrabia to attack the Turks.
I know this is redundant to many prior observations in different threads, but my real point is that there are some rules that would immensly improve the AI. I belief that Imperialism II had a very good AI for military handling, and mainly for the following reason. I saw lots of evidence that the programmers observed human behavior in non-AI games and tuned the AI to behave similarly. The computer would make feints. In complex multiple provence situations the computer would make good decisions. Imp II AI was probably a lot easier to create, though.
Not banging Paradox, here. I would say they have not had enough time to tune/develop the AI to the degree needed to reasonably compete with a human. Sure the human will still always beat it, but in the current state, it is highly predictable.
- Unit composition. Human players compose field armies, siege armies, reenforcement armies, etc. The AI churns forces out in a constant stream.
- Garrisons, standing armies, etc. Though this is less the military AI, and more strategic. Human players do, computer doesn't (except huge garrisons on islands).
- Unit routing and objectives. This was probably aluded to earlier. The AI seems to have a very rigid set of priorities. 1) Besiege an enemy provence - the entire alliance has the same, single priority (at least in continental wars); 2) Besiege a provence that has been captured by the enemy. No where in here is 'relieve siege' or destroy opponents army. My week siege army in Il de France goes unmolested while 200K attrit away taking Picardy - a human would take care of both situations. Routing rules seem to include avoidence of combat. Example if one alliance has Hanse and Hesse, and another alliance has Saxony. First alliance has Anhalt under siege. Second alliance wants to besiege Hesse. A steady stream of units will march all the way around Brandenburg to get at Hesse (and not easily relieve Ahnalt, of course). And of course, if you had a Navarre, French, Netherlands, Hanse, P-L alliance (contrived), you will see Navarre march to Bessarrabia to attack the Turks.
I know this is redundant to many prior observations in different threads, but my real point is that there are some rules that would immensly improve the AI. I belief that Imperialism II had a very good AI for military handling, and mainly for the following reason. I saw lots of evidence that the programmers observed human behavior in non-AI games and tuned the AI to behave similarly. The computer would make feints. In complex multiple provence situations the computer would make good decisions. Imp II AI was probably a lot easier to create, though.
Not banging Paradox, here.
I would say they have not had enough time to tune/develop the AI to the degree needed to reasonably compete with a human. Sure the human will still always beat it, but in the current state, it is highly predictable.
Sorry Bagnato.
Did I mention that I think this is the greatest computer strategy game ever created!
Did I mention that I think this is the greatest computer strategy game ever created!
Companyyy…. The Sergeant from the windy city has spoken
Maybe it is, but it seems that Ai engine should be improved, I say this from what I’ve eared.
Maybe it is, but it seems that Ai engine should be improved, I say this from what I’ve eared.
As a new player, I still find the AI challenging. In my first GC game, playing as England, France was a constant tormentor (they harrassed me at any sign of weakness, although they never really threatened to conquer me).
I expect that the AI will gradually grow unworthy as I start replaying nations and continue to learn the game's nuances. I have observed all of the dumb behaviors that others have described here. But I've still got probably, oh, 60 hours or more of gameplay ahead of me before I start repeating nations.
I do hope that a new patch will upgrade the AI before I can master it, though.
I expect that the AI will gradually grow unworthy as I start replaying nations and continue to learn the game's nuances. I have observed all of the dumb behaviors that others have described here. But I've still got probably, oh, 60 hours or more of gameplay ahead of me before I start repeating nations.
I do hope that a new patch will upgrade the AI before I can master it, though.
Robo.. that's bc
the CIV AI is a big cheat! You know that. As for MOO, I haven't played it but I'll bet it's a big cheat too.
the CIV AI is a big cheat! You know that. As for MOO, I haven't played it but I'll bet it's a big cheat too.
Why does everyone keep
mentioning that loser game Imperialism and the loser of all loser sequels, Imperialism 2?
BTW Bagnato, you could play any of 50 other nations and appreciate the AI. My mention of Uzbekistan was to characterize an extreme case.
Don't people actually read the posts in these forums? Or is it just such a strong human desire to be correct that they have to misperceive even the obvious?
Never mind. Don't explain, don't respond.
mentioning that loser game Imperialism and the loser of all loser sequels, Imperialism 2?
BTW Bagnato, you could play any of 50 other nations and appreciate the AI. My mention of Uzbekistan was to characterize an extreme case.
Don't people actually read the posts in these forums? Or is it just such a strong human desire to be correct that they have to misperceive even the obvious?
Never mind. Don't explain, don't respond.
Savant:
Maybe people keep mentioning Imp2 because it was a very good game. Note: GAME. It wasnt (nor did it really pretend to be) a 'realistic historical simulation'. In regards to what it set out to do, it was very good.
I think it models some of the naval aspects of the period far better (if more abstractly) than EU. At the very least, there was a strong incentive to actually BUILD a Navy. I've seen a number of players claiming that they have played (and won) entire games as 'colonial nation' in EU with no Navy whatsoever except for the explorers. In this regard, I'd say Imp2 exceeds EU.
For most other aspects, I'd prefer EU, but to say that Imp2 was a bad game is selling it short IMO. It was 'accessible' unlike EU. I think many people who never would have played a historical game like EU actually enjoyed Imp2 and I'm sure some of them are now actually expanding their horizons as a result of Imp2's engrossing (if simplistic) gameplay.
Also, FWIW, I think the AI in Imp2 was topnotch. It DID have a few 'advantages' in the info department over human players, but they were reasonably transparent and did nothing to detract from the fun (yes, fun...the game was fun). Personally, I wouldnt mind a few transparent info cheats being added to EU to beef up the AI a bit.
Anyways, I'm sure many others will agree that Imp2 was very good at what it was intended to do. I'm sure that others will bash it's lack of historical basis. If that is the sole judge of a good game, then yes, it was lacking, but compared to most other 'empire building' games out there (and especially a few years ago), I think the game was a real gem. YMMV
Talenn
Maybe people keep mentioning Imp2 because it was a very good game. Note: GAME. It wasnt (nor did it really pretend to be) a 'realistic historical simulation'. In regards to what it set out to do, it was very good.
I think it models some of the naval aspects of the period far better (if more abstractly) than EU. At the very least, there was a strong incentive to actually BUILD a Navy. I've seen a number of players claiming that they have played (and won) entire games as 'colonial nation' in EU with no Navy whatsoever except for the explorers. In this regard, I'd say Imp2 exceeds EU.
For most other aspects, I'd prefer EU, but to say that Imp2 was a bad game is selling it short IMO. It was 'accessible' unlike EU. I think many people who never would have played a historical game like EU actually enjoyed Imp2 and I'm sure some of them are now actually expanding their horizons as a result of Imp2's engrossing (if simplistic) gameplay.
Also, FWIW, I think the AI in Imp2 was topnotch. It DID have a few 'advantages' in the info department over human players, but they were reasonably transparent and did nothing to detract from the fun (yes, fun...the game was fun). Personally, I wouldnt mind a few transparent info cheats being added to EU to beef up the AI a bit.
Anyways, I'm sure many others will agree that Imp2 was very good at what it was intended to do. I'm sure that others will bash it's lack of historical basis. If that is the sole judge of a good game, then yes, it was lacking, but compared to most other 'empire building' games out there (and especially a few years ago), I think the game was a real gem. YMMV
Talenn
Imp2
Historically Imp2 is very bad, but economics and trade are much better than the money - economics and trade thing EU offers. For Imp2 is a turn-based game this is no surprise.
The EU AI is quite OK. Good enough to beat me up sometimes.
Historically Imp2 is very bad, but economics and trade are much better than the money - economics and trade thing EU offers. For Imp2 is a turn-based game this is no surprise.
The EU AI is quite OK. Good enough to beat me up sometimes.
You can see....
... the AI from 2 sides.
EU AI tries to be historical. This sometimes makes it a bit stupid, since we after all actually know the history.
In old warfare you searched for the enemy armies and defeated them. You actually get VP for your success on the battlefield. Most human players don't give a rat in the battles, just goes for provinces....
In diplomacy, trade etc the AI goes after the history. The current king effect the AI reactions and decision as well.
Now the other side is to look for flaws to exploit. Attrition has been mentioned. Other things is where to attack and put your armies. If you have a fairly high relationship, then the AI don't expect you to attack.... If you go for finding loop holes to beat the computer then, you will always find some..... I remember how we used to beat a pinn ball machine when I was a kid. We just pulled the plug and put it back again, direct we got 3 new balls..... Did that make us better pin ball players ???
EU is not a conquer game type Civ. In Europe you already have several nations in balance. If you use the fog of war, then you won't know what's going on anywhere else and by that not be aware what expects you when you attack.....
Also the fact that you can only get 3 provinces in a peace, shows that the game is not about taking the world a ala Napoleon......
The AI is good and can be beaten. I agree with the earlier posts saying that countries like Sweden and Denmark are challanges. I would even like to add England, which requires you to work hard for the survival the first 100 years.
I always use hardest and most aggressive setting. Playing at 2-4 month per minute gives you a chance to enjoy the game, using all manual settings on and with two wars going on you are going to be pretty busy......
... the AI from 2 sides.
EU AI tries to be historical. This sometimes makes it a bit stupid, since we after all actually know the history.
In old warfare you searched for the enemy armies and defeated them. You actually get VP for your success on the battlefield. Most human players don't give a rat in the battles, just goes for provinces....
In diplomacy, trade etc the AI goes after the history. The current king effect the AI reactions and decision as well.
Now the other side is to look for flaws to exploit. Attrition has been mentioned. Other things is where to attack and put your armies. If you have a fairly high relationship, then the AI don't expect you to attack.... If you go for finding loop holes to beat the computer then, you will always find some..... I remember how we used to beat a pinn ball machine when I was a kid. We just pulled the plug and put it back again, direct we got 3 new balls..... Did that make us better pin ball players ???
EU is not a conquer game type Civ. In Europe you already have several nations in balance. If you use the fog of war, then you won't know what's going on anywhere else and by that not be aware what expects you when you attack.....
Also the fact that you can only get 3 provinces in a peace, shows that the game is not about taking the world a ala Napoleon......
The AI is good and can be beaten. I agree with the earlier posts saying that countries like Sweden and Denmark are challanges. I would even like to add England, which requires you to work hard for the survival the first 100 years.
I always use hardest and most aggressive setting. Playing at 2-4 month per minute gives you a chance to enjoy the game, using all manual settings on and with two wars going on you are going to be pretty busy......
Just a comment...
... on Imperialism...
Both these games was great. It was not something to compare with Civ or AOE...
It was a solitaire game that was excellent for travel games on a notebook. Fairly low hardware requirements. Great replayability. Of course there was a lot of things that could have been made better, but they delivered what they promised....
... on Imperialism...
Both these games was great. It was not something to compare with Civ or AOE...
It was a solitaire game that was excellent for travel games on a notebook. Fairly low hardware requirements. Great replayability. Of course there was a lot of things that could have been made better, but they delivered what they promised....
Re: Robo.. that's bc
The civ ai cheats in the sense that units are cheaper to build and that the deity difficulty level is more of a fight against rebellions while trying to expand as fast as you can. But the ai doesnt create units out of thin air, it still follows the basic rules the human player has to follow besides 20 or so cheats(well-documented).
Plus, if you have to play with venice to have a challenge dont you think thats a much bigger cheat? (the computer gets spain[w/the americas] and you start with 3 provinces)
Taking this into account, i think civ ii and eu are just as difficult with civ2 on deity and eu on very hard/max aggressiveness while playing a minor.
Also, like after i played for a few gc's, its like my 8th or so i'm on now, the limitations of the ai become more and more apparent and limited. I dont think i could say this ai is good, prolly a lil below average. Like all single player strategy games, after you get the game down its pretty easy, but the great thing about this game is that you can switch to playing minors.
Even considering my complaint, im still having a lot of fun and i havent enjoyed a game this much since civ ii.
The civ ai cheats in the sense that units are cheaper to build and that the deity difficulty level is more of a fight against rebellions while trying to expand as fast as you can. But the ai doesnt create units out of thin air, it still follows the basic rules the human player has to follow besides 20 or so cheats(well-documented).
Plus, if you have to play with venice to have a challenge dont you think thats a much bigger cheat? (the computer gets spain[w/the americas] and you start with 3 provinces)
Taking this into account, i think civ ii and eu are just as difficult with civ2 on deity and eu on very hard/max aggressiveness while playing a minor.
Also, like after i played for a few gc's, its like my 8th or so i'm on now, the limitations of the ai become more and more apparent and limited. I dont think i could say this ai is good, prolly a lil below average. Like all single player strategy games, after you get the game down its pretty easy, but the great thing about this game is that you can switch to playing minors.
Even considering my complaint, im still having a lot of fun and i havent enjoyed a game this much since civ ii.
Let me rephrase that then to:
I don't find the Game challenging at all, compared to say CIV or MOO.
I could care less about the AI, as long as the game is fun to play and challenging.
I don't find the Game challenging at all, compared to say CIV or MOO.
I could care less about the AI, as long as the game is fun to play and challenging.
How to keep EU fun
To be honest, the AI is pretty good considering that it doesn't cheat. But, that being said, I find (after not that many games) that EU isn't all that challenging if you play as it was 'meant' to be played--as in, playing one of the major powers. I also find that it's not that fun that way; even if it were hard, managing Spain's colonial empire and conquering southern Europe would just get tedious.
It's both more fun and more challenging, to play a weak country.
Unfortunately, in the standard game, most of the weak countries have serious problems (no leaders, generally) that make them no fun to play. You can tweak the scenario yourself (nearly everything is stored in text files, which are pretty easy to figure out), or download the IGC, and that problem is solved.
I also try to set specific goals for myself. Don't just expand opportunistically all over the place; start with an alternate history in your head, and keep it in your mind as you play. You may change your goals along the way, but make sure you have a good reason, rather than just powermongering.
For example, I played a game as the Hansa, where I decided to place money as my highest priority, play as non-militaristically as possible, and treat the militaristic High German types as the enemy (of course I can't take them on head-to-head, but I can find ways to screw with them indirectly). That's much more interesting than trying to diplomatically annex all of Germany and forge a massive empire.
As for the other scenarios: I really enjoyed playing a few short games, like the USA in Age of Revolutions, but you can only play each one once (now that I know how to head off the major Canadian army, England has no chance against me). The Grand Campaign is much more replayable.
Fantasia I don't know much about, having only played a few years of one game, but I suspect that the AI's weaknesses will be easier to take advantage of.
To be honest, the AI is pretty good considering that it doesn't cheat. But, that being said, I find (after not that many games) that EU isn't all that challenging if you play as it was 'meant' to be played--as in, playing one of the major powers. I also find that it's not that fun that way; even if it were hard, managing Spain's colonial empire and conquering southern Europe would just get tedious.
It's both more fun and more challenging, to play a weak country.
Unfortunately, in the standard game, most of the weak countries have serious problems (no leaders, generally) that make them no fun to play. You can tweak the scenario yourself (nearly everything is stored in text files, which are pretty easy to figure out), or download the IGC, and that problem is solved.
I also try to set specific goals for myself. Don't just expand opportunistically all over the place; start with an alternate history in your head, and keep it in your mind as you play. You may change your goals along the way, but make sure you have a good reason, rather than just powermongering.
For example, I played a game as the Hansa, where I decided to place money as my highest priority, play as non-militaristically as possible, and treat the militaristic High German types as the enemy (of course I can't take them on head-to-head, but I can find ways to screw with them indirectly). That's much more interesting than trying to diplomatically annex all of Germany and forge a massive empire.
As for the other scenarios: I really enjoyed playing a few short games, like the USA in Age of Revolutions, but you can only play each one once (now that I know how to head off the major Canadian army, England has no chance against me). The Grand Campaign is much more replayable.
Fantasia I don't know much about, having only played a few years of one game, but I suspect that the AI's weaknesses will be easier to take advantage of.
In regards to Imp/Imp2, loved those games, but they pale in comparison to EU (my opinion.) AI in those two games was good but totally predictable after a while. I could take Sardina to the number two ranking quite easily. Imp2 even more predictable. So far I've AI outcomes/options/actions MUCH more varied in EU. Once again, my hat is off to SSI for Imp/Imp2, they kept me busy for years. Eu2 is keeping very happily busy now!