Balancing Issues:

Balancing Issues:

I thought I would start this to mirror the thread at the shogun site. I think Jack Lusted is in charge of the project.

This is about all facets of the game post patch 1.2.

It is not about one faction, but needed changes to balance everything.

Of course everyone will have a different opinion, and that is good.

The game should not be limited to one method of play or one group of opinions.

The game is about much more than just War and Units.

Building, Costs, Trade, Research, Agents, and on, and on need some discussion. Even if it means no change necessary.

Also difficulty levels need to be addressed.

This is not a thread about bugs and quirks so lets try to keep those for some other place.

Please try to keep it organized by areas and difficulty levels.

It is not about disagreement so do try to keep it civil.

No Flaming people. This is about Ideas!

some ideas/wishes:

1. fix the diplomatic AI: allow AI factions to make peace with each other.

2. another theater (Africa, for example), would be nice. with correct priority settings an empire bulding inclined AI could be induced to expand there if the player is actively expanding in another theater (North America, for example). potentially, this would result in at least two (or more) super-powers by the late game.

3. for the above to work, naval invasions need to be fixed; they're not really working as of yet.

4. ideally (for me): in the end game I would see a few (a couple) great powers or blocks of powers trying to wrestle for achieving the same goals; same provinces, etc.

5. currently, AI factions do not seem to fight for their campaign goals. maybe something could be done along those lines?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

some ideas/wishes:

1. fix the diplomatic AI: allow AI factions to make peace with each other.

2. another theater (Africa, for example), would be nice. with correct priority settings an empire bulding inclined AI could be induced to expand there if the player is actively expanding in another theater (North America, for example). potentially, this would result in at least two (or more) super-powers by the late game.

3. for the above to work, naval invasions need to be fixed; they're not really working as of yet.

4. ideally (for me): in the end game I would see a few (a couple) great powers or blocks of powers trying to wrestle for achieving the same goals; same provinces, etc.

5. currently, AI factions do not seem to fight for their campaign goals. maybe something could be done along those lines?

---

To that end, Allies do not seem to really share common goals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

some ideas/wishes:

1. fix the diplomatic AI: allow AI factions to make peace with each other.

2. another theater (Africa, for example), would be nice. with correct priority settings an empire bulding inclined AI could be induced to expand there if the player is actively expanding in another theater (North America, for example). potentially, this would result in at least two (or more) super-powers by the late game.

3. for the above to work, naval invasions need to be fixed; they're not really working as of yet.

4. ideally (for me): in the end game I would see a few (a couple) great powers or blocks of powers trying to wrestle for achieving the same goals; same provinces, etc.

5. currently, AI factions do not seem to fight for their campaign goals. maybe something could be done along those lines?

---

Aggree to much of the above.

1. Very important. If I make peace with a faction, like Prussia, and make them a protectorate, then GB who's my ally should also make peace with them. Also, 50+ year wars shouldn't be happening...

3. I've seen armies embark ships, but not disembark...

5. Excellent idea. I'd like to see the AI agressively pursuing their campaign objectives, especially towards the last 20-30 years of the campaign. Make both GB and France have 2 or 3 colonies/cities that they particularly want, and will do anything to get, just to spice things up...

I started a campaign as Austria just to get a different perspective on things.

On those nations who come late to the sea campaign, there needs to be some way to offset the missed income. Shouldn't there be more continental towns to offset the lack of available trade?

Also there could be a seperate type building that would build income without causing unrest for those extra towns.

When A.I. Spain , France and Britain are given their colonies in America the first few turns they get them completely deviod of troops which in the current build saddles them with a sudden requirement to spend more than they can afford {in those early turns , the new provinces won't make enough to cover the recruitment costs properly the way the A.I. spends} . It over stretches those factions under A.I. {Alleged Intelligence} control .
It is exacerbated when they are at war {a human player can simply prepare beforehand and blitz them and the Native American factions can swamp them with their zerg rush} .

A better solution would be to let them keep atleast half those protectorates' troops {and have them use their parent factions troops only unless they rebel so they can be replenished} when they become the Main factions' possession and move the "AutoHandOver" date to mid-game {even give them all troops and scrap the auto feature completely . None of them achieved in history what the game asks anyway} .

Another recommendation for the AI diplomacy:
We have gone back to having an ally with friendly/very friendly diplomatic declaring war on the human player just because the human has a neighboring province, METW2 style.

I'd like to see the AI diplomatic offers back, but more intellegently. Pre-patch, the AI was stuck in an endless loop, and there were no penalties for refusing. I'd like to see the AI offers back, and the relations taking a nose dive (may be -20 points/ refulsal), so that an ally could become hostile within 10 turns or so. Or it could be -10 points/turn. Anyway, this behavior is more realistic, and would give the game additional flavor.

And the AI should do this only for provinces it needs, not just any province that neighbors it. And it should not give away regions on its own victory list!

With the new changes Spain needs an overhaul!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

With the new changes Spain needs an overhaul!

---

Well, not really. Spain did grow weaker in this time period and it does not make much sense to hold on to those isolated provinces in Europe (Netherlands, Northern Italy, etc.). So, a player should be ready to do some sacrifices and consolidate early on as Spain.

On a different token, Spain is missing the whole South American theater (and revenue from it) in the game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Well, not really. Spain did grow weaker in this time period and it does not make much sense to hold on to those isolated provinces in Europe (Netherlands, Northern Italy, etc.). So, a player should be ready to do some sacrifices and consolidate early on as Spain.

On a different token, Spain is missing the whole South American theater (and revenue from it) in the game...

---

Those regions have to do with victory conditions.

If you divest your self of required regions you still loose.

If you get rid of them you also cut income of which you have too little to start with.

So the idea is to fulfill the victory conditions, other wise what is the point.

Spain has been impacted too seriously by the changes and it was on a very slim margin before.

The loss of her second fleet in the Caribbean is a serious blow. The values of starting regions is reduced. Trade income is reduced. The value of improvements is reduced. Tax income is reduced.

The cost of recruiting troops and ships is increased. The upkeep is increased.

Every neighboring faction will declare war by turn two.

Obviously all the beta testers were off playing Prussia and no one was paying any attention to what they did to this already weak faction.

Because the changes have caused more unbalancing than they seem to have fixed, here are a couple of things to look at.

Recruitment and upkeep should become faction based.

Some factions need some sort of economic bonuses, it would appear. Building costs and returns need not all be equal.

Some nations should be more difficult than others. Spain started its long decline in this period, as did the Ottoman empire. The question is how much more difficult.

Recommendation for balancing:
The AI's priorities are messed up. The AI is recruiting too many units early on, and neglecting economic development, as in METW2. In my current GB game (still turn 31, haven't had a chance to play today), France has a much larger navy than mine, and decent garrisons in all of its North American territories. But it is losing, because it can't maintain its empire. It hasn't even been able to repair a cotton weaver's cottage in Flanders for the last 10 turns...

The current situation is at least better than pre-1.2, when the AI only recruited in its home theater. Now there are some French troops for me to fight in North America...

In Prestige Campaigns , the "must have or you lose no matter what" provinces need to be changed to "get bonus prestige if you own these" .
It would probably fix some of the more lunatic {and immerstion destroying} A.I. behaviour {like constantly trying to buy a certain province , especially for insultingly and stupidly low offers and the cheesy tatics that can happen end game} but also would very likely help the A.I. to not overstetch at bad moments {desparate to get provinces that in real life they had no hope of keeping anyway} .






The prestige system also need some serious tweaking I believe .

Factions should be different and have a different feel to them.

None should be ridiculously easy or insanely hard. But this leaves a lot of room in-between.

All the changes made so far had a point to them. That effect was directed at some complaint or other which some factions had. Now we need to look and see which factions were taken too far in one direction or the other.

It is my opinion that Prussia is much, much too easy and too powerful in the hands of a human player, while Spain has gone too far in the other direction.

The Campaign AI has been made more aggressive and most of the aggression is quite pointless. It no longer sends offers to swap regions which I think is a mistake. ( I know they were verging on spam but not having them and trading is worse then having them)

The game should be balanced in a way that a player can take a looser faction and bring it back to a strong position but no one should be so powerful as to dominate the game.

1. a large public order or prestige/reputation penalty for breaking an alliance; same for breaking peace within X number of turns after signing it.
2. no independent foreign policy for protectorates (like my protectorate declaring war on someone) and screwing my plans. could be that a protectorate warns me of plans to declare war; however, I may deny them that option at a cost of a hit to our relations.
3. a mechanism to make a faction yearn for peace; for example my troops in foreign land as well as foreign troops in my lands cause popular unrest with time.
4. to avoid blitzing (unfairly favoring the player) either
a) campaign map movement speed should be reduced
b) limit the max number of offensive battles per turn
c) decrease morale of unreplenished units (lets say for a unit with 50% men remaining, each has only 75% (100%-50%/2) morale left)
5. differences between factions regarding taxation unhappyness. e.g for the lower classes in Russia (it was feudal, peasants were serfs without any rights) there should be a higher tolerable level of taxation than in UP (merchant republic, free citizens and high taxes?!).
6. reduce unit recruitment cost, increase upkeep. make large standing armies obsolete, conscription prevalent;i.e. make defence easier than offence
7. introduce some sort of attrition, to make long stays in foreign land more expensive; it is unrealistic that armies manage to march all the way from Paris to Goa without losing a man to disease.
8. add additional tax management tool, allowing to exempt population from taxes, however, retaining income from industry (you own the bloody weavers, even without taxation you should get profit from the business at least)
9. allow allied factions to plant at least 1 ship in trade port (in trade theaters) occupied by an allied power
10. a hit to public order in upper classes if a very good offer (to trade a region, to make peace, to get technology) is refused. for example, I offered 300 000 for the spanish to get gibraltar playing as British; they refused. Conquering their empire probably cost less.... :)
11. should be an option to raise emergency taxes in a theater if you are at war. if you ar fighting offensively, the option should not be available (or carry a large public order penalty)

My major issue concerning balance:

Public unrest from farms: Britian doesn´t get negative points when building farms (this was so befor and after the patch). Other factions do. Not sth I do quite understand. Either all factions get negative points or none. Personally I would opt for none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmk

My major issue concerning balance:

Public unrest from farms: Britian doesn´t get negative points when building farms (this was so befor and after the patch). Other factions do. Not sth I do quite understand. Either all factions get negative points or none. Personally I would opt for none.

---

It is not just for Britain. It is for Constitutional Monarchies. Farm unrest is the same as industrial unrest (see other threads). It only affects the lowest class. CM has nobles and middle class, hence no industrial unrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anweRU

It is not just for Britain. It is for Constitutional Monarchies. Farm unrest is the same as industrial unrest (see other threads). It only affects the lowest class. CM has nobles and middle class, hence no industrial unrest.

---

Wow! Thanks for clearing this!
I take my statement back then.

If I would want to see one thing changed is that there should be great allowance by CA for a gameplay style that is seemingly more common then I expected, even though I'm a happy practitioner of it for years: Roleplay.

There seems to be some behind the scenes rigging of mechanics just to keep the player with his hands full. Not having a big war on your hands? The AI will provide you one shortly, damn the actual relations with, and interests of, the nation that suddenly goes ape on you.
This makes things rather pointless for the roleplayers. If I wanted more war, I can see to that myself perfectly fine, thank you very much. If I OTOH get my jollies by merely protecting my homeland and my trade, I should be allowed to do so without the AI mucking things up in quite such an arbitrary fashion.

At this point in time, TW pretty much forces a behaviour in regards to foreign policy that is that of Ghengiz Khan. I don't want that. I'm happiest as a peaceful country that tries to keep itself to itself. You wouldn't think it but it can be great fun and the most epic battles are to be had that way.
Yet all the time, I feel the presence of some CA employee that thinks I should be conquering my neighbours.

I'd suggest trying war/peace diplomacy system similar to the one used in EU3. The main features:

1. War alliance blocks with the principal war leader faction and minors.
2. Minors can sign peace agreements for themselves but not on behalf of the entire faction.
3. Majors can sign peace agreements on behalf of the whole alliance.
4. Occupied territory stays just that: occupied (cannot build, cannot train troops) until ownership transfer is confirmed (or not confirmed) in a peace agreement.
5. If a minor waits for the major to sign the peace agreement, minor's interests are most frequently ignored.

With this system: more game turns would probably be needed.