Should have the ability to eliminate player-countries

[Japan]

I think that we should have the ability to eliminate player countries.
example: if Spain takes all of Portugal in a war at the beginning, they can annex them.

I think that the game should make the revolt risk VERY high, and the others countries VERY mad, but I think that if have the power to completely overrun a counrty, we should be able to annex them, player country or not. I think that just because it is a player country doesnt justify taking away the superior country's annexing powers!

 

[hjarg]

Sorry, could you be more clear with this one?

Are you talking about multiplayer games or single?

If multiplayer, then only way to do that it to hold a gun on enemies head, kidnap his wife and torture his dog.

If single, you can actually edit the game a bit so your country is the only major nation and you can annex all you like

 

[Japan]

This refers to multi-player as well.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Japan
This refers to multi-player as well.

I believe it's something that's being done for EU2-no longer any "major powers" just "significant nations". Yes, this does mean it's theoretically possible for the AI to beat you!

 

[Vulture]

Aren't you talking about the 'non-ability' to annex majors???
Download the IGC

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by VultureGFF
Aren't you talking about the 'non-ability' to annex majors???
Download the IGC

If he means annexing a player-controlled nation in multi-player mode, the IGC won't be a complete solution for him.

Welcome back, Vulture-enjoy your trip (or whatever it was?)

 

[Vulture]

Aye, twas nice... Good camp, lots of fun, I am tired now

 

[BiB]

Sleep

 

[Vulture]

Ok I MIGHT try that, but that way I won't be able to tonight

 

[unmerged(5161)]

Response to Original Post

While I respect Japan's impulse to make all nations annexable and I understand the IGC and its power, I believe that the ability to annex every nation would unbalance the game. While I understand that it isnt realistic to not be able to annex any nation you want, it does serve a game balancing purpose. Once you make all nations annexable, world conquest is much easier. France can take all of England and Spain within the first twenty years of the game (if played by a good player) if he could annex them. It unbalances the game because the AI does not fight total war. Human players do. While the game manual may suck in a lot of ways, it does mention that during this time period
"total war" was not practiced. Vassalization seems much more likely.

Therefore, I propose an alternate idea. Instead of being able to annex major powers, you could be able to vassalize them. This would both severely inhibit their ability to prosper (Half of your money is a lot) and satisfy historical accuracy. Say France conquers England in 1532. It is more likely that in real life, they would place England in a state similar to vassalization than actually make them French. Small nations, like Lorraine, would be made French. Therefore, you can annex them. Does anyone else agree?

 

[unmerged(4868)]

Re: Response to Original Post

Originally posted by ryoken69
While I respect Japan's impulse to make all nations annexable and I understand the IGC and its power, I believe that the ability to annex every nation would unbalance the game...

Are we playing Risk?

 

[unmerged(3408)]

Once you make all nations annexable, world conquest is much easier. France can take all of England and Spain within the first twenty years of the game (if played by a good player)

Yes and no. France may be able to break Spain's back early and annex her, but then France will be carrying a huge BB rating for the next 100 years. This will make it very hard for France to make allies. And the very next war of conquest which France embarks upon, the entire world will DoW on her.

To paraphrase Hamlet, "Tis maddness but there's [balance] in it!"

 

[Agelastus]

But it does mean that you're probably strong enough to handle BB wars-apart from anything else, taking out Spain simplifies France's strategic position enormously (akin to the England-Scotland situation.)

 

[unmerged(5161)]

2 Points:

1. All France has to do is get white peaces (after all, you are fighting 1 & 2 province weaklings) for 30 years and then after rebellions die out, take out the rest of Europe, then the world.

2. To Suleyman, no we are not. However, the point of the game is to allow people to make decisions that could have happened during the time period. Annexing everyone could not actually happen. EVER. No nation has ever done it and no nation will ever do it. Just like Monaco will never DOW the US. It just wont happen.

Also, fairness is vital to a game's multiplayer potential. That was one of the big pitfalls of Command and Conquer. In that game, one side was just better than the other. If 2 players of equal skill played, the one playing NOD would win every time. GDI was never on the same level as NOD. This imbalance stayed with the game through all the sequels. Each time, one side was unfairly stronger than the other. Every other RTS fell into this trap. In Warcraft 2, Orcs were more powerful than humans. It was unfair. However, EU is not RTS and everyone cant play France. So, someone ends up with a bigger stick that everyone else and wins. It comes down to who is playing what rather than who is the better player. This makes multiplayer become boring because France or Spain always wins unless they are played by morons.

 

[unmerged(3408)]

This makes multiplayer become boring because France or Spain always win

What is winning? VP? The ability to survive as a small nation? Uniting a specific region of the world under your domain?

Unless you play for out-and-out conquest (zzzzzzzz) there isn't any one way to win. Baden will never top the VP's race. But playing as Baden and staying in the top ten is a victory in itself. Like many things in EU, victory is open ended.

No we are definitely not playing risk.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by ryoken69
Just like Monaco will never DOW the US. It just wont happen.

You've never seen "The Mouse that Roared?"

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Two suggestions:

"Major countries" if annexed should perhaps involve a double BB hit (other countries recognise that this is a major change in the balance of power.)

BB wars should be harder to get out of: no nation should accept any white peace unless you've taken, or are directly threatening, their capital. (This requires some sort of co-operation, which I hope we will see in EU2.)

But in principle, I agree, everybody should be annexable. Countries should disappear, reappear, change size, grow, shrink ... the player should expect a game in which can make large gains but inevitably will lose some of them, rather than now where you can gradually get bigger and bigger until you dominate the whole world. The trick is to gain more than you lose, and keep friends in the process.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Heyesey
You've never seen "The Mouse that Roared?"

Yes!!!!!

I like the end, where the American negotiator is trying to get the demands of the peace terms increased, to try and make it less embarassing!

Still, maniac declarations are the bane of the game-although I'm beginning to see a pattern suggesting it's partly because the AI seems to be using an Alliance as if it were a single country.