Napoleon's Ambition: Should I or shouldn't I?

[Jaspume]

I've been playing EU3 1.3 for a while now, and I've been really enjoying it. I was thinking of getting NA, but after reading things about the I 'cheating', I'm really starting to think again.

What exactly does the AI do to 'cheat'? Is there anything else should know, and finally should I get the expansion?

Thanks.

 

[Wetew]

I've been playing EU3 1.3 for a while now, and I've been really enjoying it. I was thinking of getting NA, but after reading things about the I 'cheating', I'm really starting to think again.

What exactly does the AI do to 'cheat'? Is there anything else should know, and finally should I get the expansion?

Thanks.

Dont bother about all the talk about AI "cheating". Think of it as a way to make the game a bit more fun and interresting.
If we ignore all the talk about "cheating", and insted focus on the expansion and what it got to offer like:
Expanded timeline to 1820, historical options, improved interface and my favourite the new trading system you will get a great game. IMO NA makes a great game even greater So buy it and love it

 

[Pioniere]

I am not a Veteran in Eu3 like I am in hoi2 but the NAP Al often gets a bit more offensive than the original.
Buying Nap is not a money loss.

 

[dharper]

There are a lot of good reasons to get NA.

* It speeds up the game dramatically, especially for mods.
* It adds many new modding options - virtually guaranteeing that most updates for mods will be designed for use in NA only.
* It adds more player options such as moving your capital, creating COTs, more national ideas, etc.

The AI in 2.1 is often complained about, but if past experience is anything to go by, I would bet that there will be a patch soon that addresses it. There are also mods and mini-mods that help to deal with the issues.

I would definitely get it, especially if, like me, you have a slow computer.

 

[spl]

And if you ever want to play multiplayer, you need NA to get into a game now, almost all of them play with NA.

 

[unmerged(12876)]

I thoroughly enjoy NA 2.1. In particular I like the Revolutionary France scenarios, since I am a Napoleonic wargaming fan. I don't have a problem with the AI.

In my current game as Austria, about which I have been posting an AAR "Napoleon and the Archduke Charles," I have found the AI to be very stubborn, particularly at the negotiation table. Nothing has come easy. I think NA 2.1 adds a lot of flavor to the game.

WalterS

 

[valrond]

I've been playing EU3 1.3 for a while now, and I've been really enjoying it. I was thinking of getting NA, but after reading things about the I 'cheating', I'm really starting to think again.

What exactly does the AI do to 'cheat'? Is there anything else should know, and finally should I get the expansion?

Thanks.

Well, as the zealots haven't answered your question, I'll do it.

The AI cheats in NA 2.1 because it can make HUGE (and I mean HUGE, several times bigger than the player), because it doesn't have to play maintenance of those armies. So while I'm losing 12 ducats a month to avoid getting inflation and keep a 20k army, France can keep 100K at my border without paying for it, not losing money, not having to mint and get inflation, and getting a bonus (of that money not spent) in technology.

That's basically what the AI does to cheat. And well, it doesn't pay for colonists, merchants, spies, or anything, nor can go bankrupt, repay loans, have naval attrition...

You see, basically, you play one game and the AI plays another. If you like world conquest, go ahead, if you like a historic game, you should go back to EU2.

 

[unmerged(85598)]

Well, to give you a bit of a more balanced opinion... Yeah, the AI cheats in a rather annoying way - as Valrond says, the AI maintains armies at roughly three times their forcelimit, since apparently this was considered the amount best suited to countering the player (I rather wish there was a setting we could pick for this instead...), which, since this crippled AI economies, then lead to the AI getting a boost to research.

However, between the colonizing range, CoT creation, and new national ideas, among other things, it's still more good than bad. Especially the new modding options, if you've an interest in mods.

It's basically the natural continuation of Paradox's improvement policy - fix some things, break some others in the process. (I speak in jest, just to be clear ).

 

[Gallowglacht]

That Army cheat seems to be more of a negative to gameplay than the positives offered by easier trading and such, and I'm still enjoying basic, seems like I'd be mad to change, what am I missing?

 

[Wizzington]

While I love EUIII, I would never play NA vanilla - it's an exercise in frustration. NA with a simple AI technology / forcelimit mod like Darken's however, is way better than pre-NA.

 

[unmerged(85598)]

That Army cheat seems to be more of a negative to gameplay than the positives offered by easier trading and such, and I'm still enjoying basic, seems like I'd be mad to change, what am I missing?

Well, there are some mods that eliminate or reduce the AI's bonuses, which eliminates a good chunk of the cheating, and the bigger mods need NA's features to work, which means that it's pretty much mandatory if you enjoy them.

For people who found that the game ran too slowly, NA has solved much of these complaints.

Those who found the colonization patterns silly in the original found this largely solved by NA (though, mind you, most of those went with a mod long before this).

There were many who found that the game reduced micromanagement by a great degree.

So, basically, it depends a lot on how you play. Odds are that you'll find a reason that the upgrade is worth it (the price usually isn't much of a factor, since the expansion is cheap), but if your playstyle involves frequent wars with major powers, you might find it unplayable without a mod to make the AI a bit more rational when it comes to the military or economy.

At least, that's how it seems to me.

 

[Gurag]

to maybe go back to some of the basic featues of NA.

i think about most of them this way:

prolonged timeline - good if your interested in the new starting dates, if not you just have a passive AI for a longer time to play against.

historical options - personally i would say that this is highly missleading. if you turn them on, countries get historical monarchs/advisors. Sounds good, but if you reach a timeline where a country didnt have one or the other your stuck without one. Also in my opinion, if you use this option, you severely restrict the flimsy diplomatic system of EU3 even more.

improved interface - never even noticed. a new shield in the bottom right corner that shows me who i am at war with, isnt an improvement to me.

better performance - my system was allways powerfull enough to handle the game, so no real bonus there for me. but it does speed the whole thing up a bit with mods

autosend merchants - in the original game, i was never much of a trader as i hated all the needed micro-management for very little gains. but with the autosend feature i became a semi succesfull trade to help my strained finances out a bit.

so if NA is worth your money will depend a lot on your current playingstyle. if you liked trade like it was before, you wont see a rea improvement. if your looking for more historical events, look somewhere else. there werent added any worth mentioning. you cant tell, from the top of your head, the most important social/military/etc differences between a 1490 and a 1810 start date, probably the extended timeline wont do anything for you then (comabt system didnt change). but if you had performance troubles with the old EU3, NA is a very good addition.

also overall i would say i like the subtle changes that Paradox introduced and specially Patch 2.1 with colonial range give me the feeling of playing a much better game than EU3 Vanilla. So a lot will depend what you like and dislike about EU3 atm.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

if you like a historic game, you should go back to EU2.

Every time I read a comment like this, I wonder whether me and the people making such comments ever played the same game.

 

[comagoosie]

If you buy it you would understand NA AARs better, as they are coming out in force right now. Plus you would get to help people who submit a thread about NA

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I think the improved interface (in the form of that little shield in the bottom-right corner of the screen) is an excellent addition. It's much easier to see which nations are in charge of the various wars you're a part of, and clicking it lets you view all battles your armies have fought, your overall war score, and members of the various alliances - including their stability, war exhaustion and blockade, etc.

Very useful, IMO.

 

[unmerged(90210)]

I think they introduced these advantages to AI only because AI can't use armies efficiently. I think you can defeat AI army even if its 2x bigger than yours, by running away, attacking their small armies, letting attrition do its job etc.

Another thing is its best to keep attacking the AI, if you notice it started building big army. You reduce it, gain a few provinces, then can build even bigger army etc.

 

[kierun]

Having allies helps a lot too...

 

[kierun]

Just a side note, NA costs 19.99 euros (or about 14.7947 pounds) which is about the cost of going to the cinema and having a coffee and pie. So, if you think that you will play NA for at least 4 hours then it's equivalent to going to the cinema for the afternoon. The more you play, the less the cost.

And, if you do not like it, you can remove it and still play the old game.

Add to that MMG 2 which should be coming out in a few months and you have another experience waiting for you.

 

[Jaspume]

Well I've bought it...

And I really like it. I love the autosend feature for the merchants, that has to be one of the biggest plusses. It runs a hell of a lot faster, the 'improved interface' thing mandead mentioned is really useful, and one thing that definately helps is the stability hits that are mentioned when you're asked to help an ally in a war. That always got me in 1.3.... And, I don't know whether this is true, but the AI seems a hell of a lot more aggressive, they've been in more wars and gained more provinces than me, and I'm usually the warmongerer!

I love most of it, but there were a couple of things I noticed. Firstly, the stacking armies thing. Thankfully, as I tested the NA with a saved game of Milan, the smaller nations around me didn't do much of this. When I had moved armies away from my collection of provinces around the capital though, France started to move armies to the border between us. I think Provence had like, 4 supply limit, and they had around 20,000 men there. Yeah, it did make me laugh. but if it helps the AI be more aggressive, which something has, I'm not complaining too much. It's a little unfair, but it makes for a much more challenging game I guess.

Second thing was royal marriages, suddenly it seemed as if most of the nations around me had changed to a government I couldn't marry with, but this may have just been my ignorance.

Lastly, alliances. Have they expanded the limit or something? I can't make any when I have more than 3, but they other nations still make the offers sometimes. Not that this is a bad thing, I think it's better to expand the limit, although I prefer to keep to 3 or 4 now. Where as before having a negative relationship with an ally wouldn't scold you, they now tend to call you to war and abandon you.... Which is a little more realistic given the bad relations.

Lots of great features, and I'm very happy with the purchase. Those bad points don't bother me too much, so it's not much of a problem.

Thanks everyone for the advice.

 

[unmerged(48056)]

A.I. completely cheats when it comes to free units and research.



I've gone games were I had slashed everything in Naval, treasury, trading and stablity... and the A.I. still beats me in my 3 focused areas :wacko: