Preventing mid to end-game stagnation

[Green Giant]

I remember that while EU 2 was great between 1472 and 1599 at around 1600ish the game really got boring. The number of wars dropped off sharply after the smaller nations were gobbled up by the bigger ones. I think this is because the AI would be very hesitant to declare war on a strong nation. Even when wars between the powers started through event or what-not white peace would be declared in a month. BTW I usually played on aggressive. While game-wise this is sound, historically it is inaccurate and saps the fun out of the game. If anything the period was DEFINED by huge clashed between the major powers.

I think that one way of combatting that in EU3 would to somehow make the AI define objectives for itself and go after them. If any other power got in the way there is a chance war could start and it won't end until objectives are achieved or the nation is exhausted.

What do you think? Is this a problem that should be fixed in EU3?

 

[Josephus I]

EU2, like many other games, suffers from the Snowball Effect. That is, the larger one gets, the less likely it is you'll be attacked, so you'll keep getting larger and thus the game gets pointless past the midgame.

Originally, P'dox introdcued the Bad Boy concept in EU1 to try to stop this. But then during one of the EU2 patches they decided to curb this because small AI minors where getting clobbered DOWing the Bad Boy all the time.

What they really need to do is somehow work on a Giant Killer Alliance algorithim. If the human player is getting too big and has a high BB, the AI should configure 2-3 other major powers to DOW the human and form an alliance. Pretty much an extension of the BB, but more of a United Front, rather than a patchwork of individual wars.

 

[unmerged(15337)]

I think this is because the AI would be very hesitant to declare war on a strong nation.

IMHO this is exactly the problem. The late game stagnation you spoke of is one symptom. Another is the excruciating behavior of, for example, the French AI, which would eagerly target German Rhineland provinces instead of fighting Spain or England for core French territory.

 

[Smirfy]

The proper working of centralization in relation to Empire size would be a good start instead of everyone being The Peoples Democratic Republic of Ottoman

 

[Duke of Wellington]

A switch over is needed in ai files sometime. I believe this was done in EU2 but never really had the proper effect, somethings were jsut too hardcoded.

 

[Yakman]

Empires that expand beyond their cores should be punished mercilessly.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

Empires that expand beyond their cores should be punished mercilessly.

More encouragement by the AI to go after cores would help

While the idea of expanding beyond cores being bad is not a horrible one It does sicken me to see AIs all the time snatching non-cores with little value from other countries that could use them far more and ignoring their own far more useful cores.

 

[Duke of Wellington]

The ai seems to be just too cautious when deciding to DOW the player even on furious.

 

[Yakman]

More encouragement by the AI to go after cores would help

While the idea of expanding beyond cores being bad is not a horrible one It does sicken me to see AIs all the time snatching non-cores with little value from other countries that could use them far more and ignoring their own far more useful cores.

better AI is a given need.

We also need the AI to form diverse alliances against powerful states, as happened historically, when France, England, and Holland, de facto teamed up against Spain, or when everybody allied against Louis XIV.

 

[Duke of Wellington]

In addition to the team up alliances suggested by Yakman a co-ordinated attack by the ai is needed. And by co-ordinated I don't mean all 150K men attack Vladimir at the same time.

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

Alliances of power would definetly be better then alliances of convienence. Austria allieing with 6 german minors may give them room to create many vassals but if france attacks it will not help the war effort at all to bring them along.

 

[Mowers]

The proper working of centralization in relation to Empire size would be a good start instead of everyone being The Peoples Democratic Republic of Ottoman

LOL

Too true.
Its definitely part of the equation, a difficult equation I might add...

 

[Smirfy]

LOL

Too true.
Its definitely part of the equation, a difficult equation I might add...

Well we have a few people who like sums ( ) who knock around the forums

My thinking was something along the lines off

Each level of government should have a base number of provinces it can administer without penalty this can be modified by religion, Reformed being a penalty and Catholic being a bonus for example. As Empires expand to levels say of the Spainish, Haspburgs or OE, Beys, Viceroys and Dukes can be appointed at cost as upgrades to effect levels of centralisation/decentralization and revolt

 

[Mowers]

Well we have a few people who like sums ( ) who knock around the forums

My thinking was something along the lines off

Each level of government should have a base number of provinces it can administer without penalty this can be modified by religion, Reformed being a penalty and Catholic being a bonus for example. As Empires expand to levels say of the Spainish, Haspburgs or OE, Beys, Viceroys and Dukes can be appointed at cost as upgrades to effect levels of centralisation/decentralization and revolt

Yep. Get Ebbesen the human computer to compute it all before it goes out the door - problem solved.

I would build on your exact idea and have it that there is a direct number of provinces that can be directly ruled and that you use the CK system of characters to rule those regions and that they are the "new vassals".

As technology and society progresses I would have it such that one can expand the base number of provinces that one can control and that administration and issues are greater related to CK type characters in your government against the POPs in the collective regions.

This would be an automatic break on over expansion for the AI and for human players and would provide a "decent end game" as eventually a state that has high centralisation and disconted POPs then suffers the generic "french revolution" event. - thus ending the game. As technologies improve the chances of the "french revolution event" increase thus making it impossible for someone to avoid it by say 1795. Making an end game possible between 1760-1795.

 

[Rich Oliver]

I hope there is more than one level of core

 

[unmerged(27108)]

EU2, like many other games, suffers from the Snowball Effect. That is, the larger one gets, the less likely it is you'll be attacked, so you'll keep getting larger and thus the game gets pointless past the midgame.

Originally, P'dox introdcued the Bad Boy concept in EU1 to try to stop this. But then during one of the EU2 patches they decided to curb this because small AI minors where getting clobbered DOWing the Bad Boy all the time.

What they really need to do is somehow work on a Giant Killer Alliance algorithim. If the human player is getting too big and has a high BB, the AI should configure 2-3 other major powers to DOW the human and form an alliance. Pretty much an extension of the BB, but more of a United Front, rather than a patchwork of individual wars.

Good idea imo! If they can code it.

 

[ulmont]

Empires that expand beyond their cores should be punished mercilessly.

I disagree. It was not set in 1453 that England should lose the Hundred Years War, or that Portugal should remain separate and never be part of Spain, or that several German states could not combine, or that Russia should only stay to the east of Poland (especially that last)...

EDIT: Plus, the Ottoman "cores" are nowhere near the same "cores" as other nations...

 

[unmerged(53986)]

, or that Russia should only stay to the east of Poland (especially that last)...

Was that a refernce to the idea of making Russia the third partner into the commonwealth?
Or something else?

 

[ulmont]

Was that a refernce to the idea of making Russia the third partner into the commonwealth?
Or something else?

It was a reference to the partition of Poland (that is, since Russia did eventually expand into the east of Poland, they shouldn't be punished for "going outside their cores").

 

[Surgünoglu]

If the AI get uber-alliances, then I'd like to see allies of the player get a bit smarter, too. As it is, EU has some pretty good diplomacy, but it has its holes.

And there should be more opportunity for states of different religions to form alliances.