Dutch Campaign abandoned in disgust

Well for the first time ever since Shogun Totalwar I've got so disgusted I've decided to abandon a campaign before the end. (3 years before the end in fact)

Everything has been going fine up until 1745 (5 years before the end) then all sorts of weird and stupid things started happening.

First of all France which is at war with Britain decided suddenly to sacrifice its last few ships to blockade London. Cutting off all my trade with Britain and leaving me with a cash flow crisis. I managed to survive that by selling one of my Indian provinces to the Mughal Empire, and Britain sent a few sloops to sink the French fleet. So, that sorted that out.

Then Westphalia (Feeble and Destitute) decided to declare war on the entire world, including me, effectively cutting my trade routes to Hannover and all my northern trade partners. Nothing I could do, in terms of bribes threats or offers would get them to back down so my army took out their faction in a single turn. But once again my treasury was empty.

Then everyone except Britain cancelled their trade agreements with me, and Britain is the only country I still need to go to war with because I have to capture New York to win the campaign, and even when I was rolling in cash Britain would not consider any offer to sell it to me. Even my Eastern Allies cancelled their trade agreements with me, and whilst still allied consider it beneath their dignity to buy anything from me.

So, plan B, stockpile as much cash as I can from British trade, then blitz New York on the last turn or two. Not very happy about that strategy as its obviously gamey, but I have no real choice. Literally, 4 turns of saving up and then blitz the British.

Next turn, Britain moves its fleet out of London to Portsmouth, France builds a sloop and captures London. Imminent Bankrupcy.:inquisitive: Ok! Britain has at least two 2nd Rates in Portsmouth and a huge Army in London, so I just need to survive one turn and Britain will kick the silly French sloop out of its main trading port.

Nope! the British are too scared of a French sloop to do anything. Ok! I shall sink the stupid sloop and go to war with France. Nope! not allowed the French Ship is in a harbour, albeit an allied one, I would have to invade Britain to get at it whereupon we would be at war and the issue of trade irrelevant.

Sooo! checkmate as far as I can see. If I press the end turn button I'm bankrupt, and there is nothing I can do to resolve the problem.

I think checkmate is an apt description really, more than any previous title, ETW plays much more like chess than a strategy game. The victory conditions alone are contrived to force players along a specific script. I mean I never really understood why the Dutch would want a mix of territories that included New Andalusia (forcing war with Spain), French Guyana (forcing War with France), New York (forcing war with Britain) and Carnatica (forcing war with the Maratha Confederacy). But I figured it was just a blantant attempt to force me to fight the big boys rather than pick on the weaker nations, so I went along with it.

However, the AI's end game strategy seems to be to conspire deliberately against the player by using whatever means the program has at its disposal, sacrificing nations and units like pawns even though they have no interest in the outcome. The only solution to this sort of strategy is World Domination, kill off all the pieces so the AI has nothing to sacrifice, and I've never been interested in that sort of game.

Ouch! Sorry to hear that.

Two points:

1) I think it's been discussed that in order to make the game hard, the AI would gang up on the player in the event the objectives stated are about to be reached by the player. Sounds like it did a good job to me.

2) Chess is the quintessential strategy game and probably the best of all time. If E:TW feels somewhat like a complicated for of Chess then I'd say we have a winner.

I'm pretty sure every ruler and statesman of the time would describe 18th Century Europe as a chess match.

I'm struggling to deal with consecutive posts that describe this game as too hard, or not hard enough.

Yeah! bit dissapointing.

I've had another look at the campaign options and as far as I can see (for the Dutch anyway) the only viable set of Victory Conditions is 'World Domination'. All the others including 'Prestige Victory' require the Dutch to declare war on every major trading power in the world, which is financial suicide.

'World Domination' requires the capture of 40 Provinces, but at least you have the freedom to pick which ones and can therefore keep the trade flowing whilst you do it.

The other thing thats dissappointing is that obviously trade is not mutually benficial to both parties, which it should be. As things stand factions can sit their with no trade partners and apparently suffer no ill effects which seems weird. Likewise, trading with a potential enemy ought to make them nore powerful not just you, which it doesn't seem to do at present.

Anyway, going to give the World Domination thing a wirl and see how gamey that gets. Just a bit dissppointed that the 'Short Campaign' is no longer an option as it has been my favourite with all the previous TW titles.

In my UP campaign (VH/VH, currently in the mid 1760s) I went bankrupt at least half a dozen times due to wars interrupting my trade routes. I was getting so much income from trade in the East Indies and with Marathas, that a large fleet parked anywhere from Madagascar to the Bay of Biscay would swing me from 8k income to 6k deficit. Spain loved parking fleets there.

The way I handled it was to constantly bribe Spain to leave me alone. They would declare war, blockade the trade route, and I would go bankrupt. I'd find a way to get some money together (usually by undoing buildings that were in progress) and buying peace. This usually bought me about 4-5 turns of peace and normal income before Spain would declare war again. Rinse and repeat buying them out of the war. I pumped all my spare money for a long time into building a formidable fleet. Eventually, I had a large fleet of 2nd Rates ready to protect my trade lanes. When Spain declared war that time, I beat their navy to a pulp and proceeded to wage war against them with my income intact.

Lesson Learned: If your income is massively dependent on trade, you need to maintain a strong fleet at all times.

I am not at all pleased with the way the changes have paned out.

It has made it hard for the Western European Factions who should have no cash problems while making it insanely easy for the Central European Factions (excepting Austria, and that may alleviate its self too) to march from region to region acquiring the lands they need to win. There trade doesn’t matter so much and everyone being at war with you is not going to hurt your income significantly.

Most of the DOWs are in name only and with the changes they lack the troops to do any serious damage.

The way I played Austria made it a challenge but were I to have just blitzed it may have been easier.

As the game stands now there are a few Gold Plated Factions that are ridiculously easy to play and lack any challenge, a couple that are a bit interesting and the rest are just tedious. By that I mean that there are just too many obstacles and as soon as one is nearing a fix then 12 more factions declare war and cut trade or income back into the red. For those factions building troops or ships is a very big deal and not being able to build a strong economy make them just not worth all the effort of playing.

Things are going well in my GB campaign so far.
But that's because I broke off all alliances except the one with the 13 provinces and pretty much only trade with nations that are currently not at war.
My colonies in America somestimes gets distrupted by pirates but overall they aren't much threat.
Right now focusing on making sure that I can support myself just incase my trade routes gets blocked.
The economy is a tough act now.
Have to be careful with it and think smart otherwise you can lose everything fast.

TinCow's description is exactly what happened to me as Prussia.

Very early I sent a trade fleet to the far far east and got two ports of Spice to trade. In the intervening 40 years I had multiple interrupts from factions I went to war with or pirates. I only ever had these two ports by the way.

Finally I have a 5 ship 3rd rate fleet and it's heading out there to ensure there are not further interruptions in the final 35 years of the game and to raid other nations as they have gone to war with me since I first went out there.

I'd say that is pretty realistic to me. It's been a great time playing this Prussian campaign. I'm not going to win but I've had a blast trying.

That in itself seems to be a significant difference in the approach to the game between people. Some wish to dominate all the time and if they can't then it's too hard, others want a challenge that they can sometimes beat, and others are satisfied when they never achieve victory.

The main issue is...

None of us play the same type of game, many of us play on different combinations of difficulty and there are 12 different factions.

Those variable represent at least (5 x 16 x 12 = 960) 960 main combinations of feedback to consider.

Try bending your brain around that for a minute. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Well for the first time ever since Shogun Totalwar I've got so disgusted I've decided to abandon a campaign before the end. (3 years before the end in fact)

Everything has been going fine up until 1745 (5 years before the end) then all sorts of weird and stupid things started happening.

First of all France which is at war with Britain decided suddenly to sacrifice its last few ships to blockade London. Cutting off all my trade with Britain and leaving me with a cash flow crisis. I managed to survive that by selling one of my Indian provinces to the Mughal Empire, and Britain sent a few sloops to sink the French fleet. So, that sorted that out.

Then Westphalia (Feeble and Destitute) decided to declare war on the entire world, including me, effectively cutting my trade routes to Hannover and all my northern trade partners. Nothing I could do, in terms of bribes threats or offers would get them to back down so my army took out their faction in a single turn. But once again my treasury was empty.

Then everyone except Britain cancelled their trade agreements with me, and Britain is the only country I still need to go to war with because I have to capture New York to win the campaign, and even when I was rolling in cash Britain would not consider any offer to sell it to me. Even my Eastern Allies cancelled their trade agreements with me, and whilst still allied consider it beneath their dignity to buy anything from me.

So, plan B, stockpile as much cash as I can from British trade, then blitz New York on the last turn or two. Not very happy about that strategy as its obviously gamey, but I have no real choice. Literally, 4 turns of saving up and then blitz the British.

Next turn, Britain moves its fleet out of London to Portsmouth, France builds a sloop and captures London. Imminent Bankrupcy.:inquisitive: Ok! Britain has at least two 2nd Rates in Portsmouth and a huge Army in London, so I just need to survive one turn and Britain will kick the silly French sloop out of its main trading port.

Nope! the British are too scared of a French sloop to do anything. Ok! I shall sink the stupid sloop and go to war with France. Nope! not allowed the French Ship is in a harbour, albeit an allied one, I would have to invade Britain to get at it whereupon we would be at war and the issue of trade irrelevant.

Sooo! checkmate as far as I can see. If I press the end turn button I'm bankrupt, and there is nothing I can do to resolve the problem.

I think checkmate is an apt description really, more than any previous title, ETW plays much more like chess than a strategy game. The victory conditions alone are contrived to force players along a specific script. I mean I never really understood why the Dutch would want a mix of territories that included New Andalusia (forcing war with Spain), French Guyana (forcing War with France), New York (forcing war with Britain) and Carnatica (forcing war with the Maratha Confederacy). But I figured it was just a blantant attempt to force me to fight the big boys rather than pick on the weaker nations, so I went along with it.

However, the AI's end game strategy seems to be to conspire deliberately against the player by using whatever means the program has at its disposal, sacrificing nations and units like pawns even though they have no interest in the outcome. The only solution to this sort of strategy is World Domination, kill off all the pieces so the AI has nothing to sacrifice, and I've never been interested in that sort of game.

---

A few points:

1. AI seems to be doing a good job actually...
2. why leave taking your crucial provinces for the last turns?
2. I'm surprised, playing as Dutch, you did not have a huge treasury cushion in the first place.
3. Have you tried trading provinces? For example, in my British campaign, the Turks (my long-standing and most profitable trade partners) happily agreed to exchange Egypt (British need it for the long campaign goals) for a couple filthy rich Indian provinces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

Lesson Learned: If your income is massively dependent on trade, you need to maintain a strong fleet at all times.

---

Well, that's the idea of a maritime empire, isn't it? :)

By the way, TinCow, how do you find playing VH battle difficulty? For me, the fact that armed citizenry can beat the pulp out of my line infantry in a straight one-on one fight takes a bit away from tactical enjoyment, similar how in RTW VH difficulty level allowed light cavalry to annihilate spears and phalanxes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

By the way, TinCow, how do you find playing VH battle difficulty? For me, the fact that armed citizenry can beat the pulp out of my line infantry in a straight one-on one fight takes a bit away from tactical enjoyment, similar how in RTW VH difficulty level allowed light cavalry to annihilate spears and phalanxes...

---

I like it, but I don't have much frame of reference, since I've played all my games on VH/VH except for the first, which was H/H. I don't find myself getting beaten up unfairly at all, let alone by firelock mobs. Those guys still have glass jaw morale and can be easily taken by militia or line infantry in my games. Even on VH, enemy units don't last long under flanking fire.

The only thing I have to be cautious of is bringing the right tools for the job. If I'm heavily outnumbered or outgunned, I can lose battles, particularly early on when I haven't teched up my units. If I take the time to build up a proper, balanced army and make my campaign map movements carefully, I win more often than I lose.

I should note thought that I love losing. I pretty much never lost a battle in RTW and M2TW. In ETW, I lose multiple battles in every campaign I play. Every time it happens, my first reaction is shock, followed quickly by glee as I realize that my plans have all been shot and I've got a real challenge on my hands. In the UP campaign I'm playing now, it's a prestige game and I'm not going to win. I've finally achieved a very strong military and economic position, but my prestige score is maybe 1/4 of the leader's. I doubt I'll make up that ground in the time remaining. That makes me happy. The only other campaign I've ever lost in TW was a MTW France Glorious Achievements campaign where I failed to build the Krak des Chevaliers in time.

Winning all the time is boring to me. Games are far more fun when victory is not certain every time you boot up the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

A few points:
1. AI seems to be doing a good job actually...

---

In terms of stopping me winning the campaign the AI - if it were considered the only opponent is doing a brilliant job.

However, my objection is the way it is doing it. From a player perspective I don't consider the AI to be my sole opponent. Rather the AI is custodian and manager of a number of independant or allied factions all competing with each other to survive and win the game.

Thus, the AI sacrificing Westphalia in order to deny me one turns trade income might be considered a brilliant ploy in terms of the 'AI v Player', but it was a lousy expliot in terms of what was best for Westphalia.

Likewise, the AI cancelling every trade agreement was a brilliant move in terms of the 'AI v Player', but again made no sense in terms of the nations who actually cancelled their agreements. I mean why not just programme the AI never to accept any agreements or alliances with a human player at all.

That would be an awesome strategy for the AI wouldn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

2. why leave taking your crucial provinces for the last turns?

---

Because Britain was/is my major trading partner, and New York is not a crutial province, in fact its a liability in terms of its geo-political and fiscal situation. If I had a choice I'd let the British keep it.

The other provinces listed I managed to take in a reasonably measured fashion including Flanders, French Guyana and New Andalusia. Carnatica was a bit more of a problem mainly because V.O.C, troops are so expensive to hire and maintain, and because Mysore decided to object to a Dutch colony as their next door neighbour. But eventually it was sorted. I had all the 15 colonies required for Victory except New York, and the main reason it was last was that Britain had a strong Navy and New York is a real pig to get troops to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

2. I'm surprised, playing as Dutch, you did not have a huge treasury cushion in the first place.

---

I did before the AI started playing silly billies with all the factions. Unfortunately, a large Navy and a large colonial army soon drain your treasury, when income drops from 26K+ to 6K.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

3. Have you tried trading provinces? For example, in my British campaign, the Turks (my long-standing and most profitable trade partners) happily agreed to exchange Egypt (British need it for the long campaign goals) for a couple filthy rich Indian provinces.

---

Yep! tried everything. Emptying my treasury into their back pocket, offering them half of India, if I had a princess I would have tried pimping her too. But no go total intransigence, even though they were classed as 'Very Friendly'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Well, that's the idea of a maritime empire, isn't it? :)

---

True and I was enjoying the game up to the point where the AI started dealing from the bottom of the deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I should note thought that I love losing. I pretty much never lost a battle in RTW and M2TW. In ETW, I lose multiple battles in every campaign I play. Every time it happens, my first reaction is shock, followed quickly by glee as I realize that my plans have all been shot and I've got a real challenge on my hands. In the UP campaign I'm playing now, it's a prestige game and I'm not going to win. I've finally achieved a very strong military and economic position, but my prestige score is maybe 1/4 of the leader's. I doubt I'll make up that ground in the time remaining. That makes me happy. The only other campaign I've ever lost in TW was a MTW France Glorious Achievements campaign where I failed to build the Krak des Chevaliers in time.

Winning all the time is boring to me. Games are far more fun when victory is not certain every time you boot up the game.

---

Cha...ching!!!! Totally concur!!

That is why I ask everyone that say's it's too easy to play on VH/VH. What I never say is "and please try and play realistically and not use cheesey tactics or strategy".

The reason is there is no way of knowing if someone is or isn't doing that. Therefore you never know if your dealing with someone playing straight up or using every cheat and trick in the book.

-EDIT_

Didz, you certainly have a point in stating that the AI needs to think about individual and well as overall objectives, and I see your point. But you literally described how world wars were won against large empires. If these nations were allied their behaviour would be perfectly acceptable to me. One country sacrifices to ensure the world is not covered in a the vile Orange yoke of reperssion and domination that you represent to them all. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I like it, but I don't have much frame of reference, since I've played all my games on VH/VH except for the first, which was H/H.

Winning all the time is boring to me. Games are far more fun when victory is not certain every time you boot up the game.

---

It's true that the game should test the player, and I would hope it did on VH/VH. I think some people are finding M/M difficult though...

As has been mentioned above, each faction has its own pressures and restrictions that condition the player's game -which IMAO only adds to the richness and diversity of playthroughs. The biggest change which is probably hardest for people to get their heads around is the sensitive & non standardised economy; by which i mean that each faction's is slightly different, depending on their starting situation, not least the 3 individual revenue streams (farming, industry and trade) that each need to be developed.

Some factions rely predominatly on one economic stream rather than the other 2, e.g. the UP having the most extreme reliance on trade and Prussia relying mostly on farming (until growth & development start paying industrial dividends).

For the best results, these conditions require the player to build their empire and play the game around them. I.e. as Tincow said, for the UP it's vital to have a strong navy; and why as Prussia, it's vital to prioritise agricultural techs above trade or industry for economic means.

You can of course try to play the UP like Prussia -having large European armies cutting a swathe accross germany (and beyond), or Prussia like the UP -spamming indiamen, but it's quite a challenge!

Bloody hell alh_p ! I never realised until just now that Prussia relied so much on farming!!

That would explain why I've never cracked 5 to 8k in profits for the last 65 years!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I like it, but I don't have much frame of reference, since I've played all my games on VH/VH except for the first, which was H/H. I don't find myself getting beaten up unfairly at all, let alone by firelock mobs. Those guys still have glass jaw morale and can be easily taken by militia or line infantry in my games. Even on VH, enemy units don't last long under flanking fire.

The only thing I have to be cautious of is bringing the right tools for the job. If I'm heavily outnumbered or outgunned, I can lose battles, particularly early on when I haven't teched up my units. If I take the time to build up a proper, balanced army and make my campaign map movements carefully, I win more often than I lose.

I should note thought that I love losing. I pretty much never lost a battle in RTW and M2TW. In ETW, I lose multiple battles in every campaign I play. Every time it happens, my first reaction is shock, followed quickly by glee as I realize that my plans have all been shot and I've got a real challenge on my hands. In the UP campaign I'm playing now, it's a prestige game and I'm not going to win. I've finally achieved a very strong military and economic position, but my prestige score is maybe 1/4 of the leader's. I doubt I'll make up that ground in the time remaining. That makes me happy. The only other campaign I've ever lost in TW was a MTW France Glorious Achievements campaign where I failed to build the Krak des Chevaliers in time.

Winning all the time is boring to me. Games are far more fun when victory is not certain every time you boot up the game.

---

Thanks for the reply, I might give the VH battle setting another consideration. As to that prestige game of yours: destroying/raiding the leaders' economy might be the key. Economy is a huge chunk of the total prestige score.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Yep! tried everything. Emptying my treasury into their back pocket, offering them half of India, if I had a princess I would have tried pimping her too. But no go total intransigence, even though they were classed as 'Very Friendly'.


True and I was enjoying the game up to the point where the AI started dealing from the bottom of the deck.

---

I guess, it's quite random. Maybe being so close to the last bell of the campaign was the reason behind their stubbornness. As I said, playing as Britain, I managed to trade some Indian provinces for Ottoman held Egypt; I also managed to get Gibraltar from Spain in a similar deal. Ottomans need Egypt for their win and Spain needs Gibraltar... Both of these deals were done late-mid-game rather than near the end though. And, it likely is harder to pull off in a short campaign than in the long one I was playing.

I've never liked the victory conditions CA came up with to win with the short and long campaigns so I always choose world domination in my campaigns. it allows me more freedom to do what I want when I want and how I want. But thats just me.

When it comes to the new changes (taxes, trade, DoW, etc.,) CA made in the last patch I think they probably over did it and swung the pendulum too far one way. Now they just need to tweak it back a bit to get a better balance and then it should be good. If they dont do it I imagine the modders will.

I'm working on a few campaigns right now post patch and am delighted I havent experienced a single CTD so I'm tickled pink about that. The other stability fixes they did are working fine too. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skott

I've never liked the victory conditions CA came up with to win with the short and long campaigns so I always choose world domination in my campaigns. it allows me more freedom to do what I want when I want and how I want. But thats just me.

When it comes to the new changes (taxes, trade, DoW, etc.,) CA made in the last patch I think they probably over did it and swung the pendulum too far one way. Now they just need to tweak it back a bit to get a better balance and then it should be good. If they dont do it I imagine the modders will.

I'm working on a few campaigns right now post patch and am delighted I havent experienced a single CTD so I'm tickled pink about that. The other stability fixes they did are working fine too. :2thumbsup:

---

I, for one, love the new tax system. :beam: I also have no qualms about the victory conditions. I think, the idea was to have empires that still could be challenged by other powers in the end-game while one maintains such built up states.

Unfortunately, the passive late mid-to-end-game AI defeats that idea. And, no, AI doing all kinds of silly things in the last few turns before the campaign ends as in Didz's game does not count as an "AI fix"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Bloody hell alh_p ! I never realised until just now that Prussia relied so much on farming!!

That would explain why I've never cracked 5 to 8k in profits for the last 65 years!!

---

??? is that some sort of misplaced sarcasm?

When Prussia starts off they don't have much more than farms to generate income... 30 years into my campaign (with an empire from the Netherlands to Minsk), I'm getting a maximum of ~500 marks per trade route.

I'm only saying that it's farming that generates most of Prussia's wealth to begin with, then as your pop grows and you can develop industry, it becomes the main source of revenue.

5 to 8k in annual profits is jack shit compared to a UP or GB global trading empire...

I actually think there is a certain character to factions. Small ones are much more stupid and stubborn, probably have some delusions of grandeur.
For example, I could not get a peace treaty with savoy even while I was besieging their only region with a clearly superior army....
Russians, however, always accept peace; maybe break it next turn, but they are easy to get an agreement from.

In my other campaigns very similar things happen all the time, with small nations beng suicidal and larger ones being more sensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

??? is that some sort of misplaced sarcasm?

When Prussia starts off they don't have much more than farms to generate income... 30 years into my campaign (with an empire from the Netherlands to Moravia), I'm getting a maximum of ~500 marks per trade route.

I'm only saying that it's farming that generates most of Prussia's wealth to begin with, then as your pop grows and you can develop industry, it becomes the main source of revenue.

5 to 8k in annual profits is jack shit compared to a UP or GB global trading empire...

---

I'm serious, I didn't realise that farming could be that lucrative. I focused on industry, like iron smiths, weavers etc etc. Seems I've made a bit of a blunder.

And yes GB, Martha and France have huge economies in their Prestige break down and they are the three above me.

Jees, I need to see if I can correct this with 35 years to go and try and win.

To be clear, I don't think the game AI is perfect by any means. It still needs a LOT of work, and Didz is right that some moves that the AI makes don't make any sense at all. However, even in its current state, I already feel like this is the best TW gaming experience I've ever had. If more bugs and AI problems are smoothed out, this could easily become a classic PC strategy game, particularly once the modding tools are out and the fans have had a whack at it. I'm already drooling over the idea of the a mod that significantly increases the number of regions and playable factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

To be clear, I don't think the game AI is perfect by any means. It still needs a LOT of work, and Didz is right that some moves that the AI makes don't make any sense at all. However, even in its current state, I already feel like this is the best TW gaming experience I've ever had. If more bugs and AI problems are smoothed out, this could easily become a classic PC strategy game, particularly once the modding tools are out and the fans have had a whack at it. I'm already drooling over the idea of the a mod that significantly increases the number of regions and playable factions.

---

I agree with all the points made.

I'm drooling over the idea of having more theaters added (sub-saharan Africa, South East Asia, Indonesia, Australia, South America) so that given the current economic engine since the player is forced to concentrate on one theater at the start, the AI could expand into another theater and build themselves up as meaningful end-game opponents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Didz, you certainly have a point in stating that the AI needs to think about individual and well as overall objectives, and I see your point. But you literally described how world wars were won against large empires. If these nations were allied their behaviour would be perfectly acceptable to me. One country sacrifices to ensure the world is not covered in a the vile Orange yoke of reperssion and domination that you represent to them all. :-)

---

They weren't Allied, nor were all the nations that threw in their trading chips, and Britain was actually at war with France but still moved aside to let a French sloop capture London.:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

They weren't Allied, nor were all the nations that threw in their trading chips, and Britain was actually at war with France but still moved aside to let a French sloop capture London.:thumbsdown:

---

Well if it was co-ordinated you would have described the most impressive AI attack on a player I've ever heard in a TW game. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

It still needs a LOT of work, and Didz is right that some moves that the AI makes don't make any sense at all. However, even in its current state, I already feel like this is the best TW gaming experience I've ever had. If more bugs and AI problems are smoothed out, this could easily become a classic PC strategy game.

---

2nded, the patching trend is good and even without them game is still good enough to have monopolised my gaming since it was released. Despite the bugs. :beam:

@AussieGiant, sorry mate -i thought you were taking the piss... :dizzy2: I tend to research farming techs first, or at least before industrial techs anyway, as they accelerate population growth creating all the extra towns for industry sooner, whilst also increasing your revenue. bingo bango, german industrial revolution 50 years before the British one -have that King George! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Didz

Well for the first time ever since Shogun Totalwar I've got so disgusted I've decided to abandon

---

I'm with ya -- moving on to find something with more strategic depth, even if it has less eye candy.

This is probably the end of the road for me, with the Total War franchise. It was fun, while it lasted ...

tincow nailed it there is no fun or satisfaction when there is no chance of defeat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

@AussieGiant, sorry mate -i thought you were taking the piss... :dizzy2: I tend to research farming techs first, or at least before industrial techs anyway, as they accelerate population growth creating all the extra towns for industry sooner, whilst also increasing your revenue. bingo bango, german industrial revolution 50 years before the British one -have that King George! :2thumbsup:

---

No problem. I realised it was good to get the population booming as early as possible. That's why I keep the tax levels down at the start...but it never clicked to focus on the farming aspects as you have said. Makes sense of course, but I never drew the link in my mind.

Honestly I think all the playable factions benefit consdierably from maxed farm tech. Increased income + Increased growth. Is hard to beat.

I know this is true with Russia, Prussia, Austria, and any power that owns substantial land in Europe, NA, or India.

Ok! Decided to try another Dutch Campaign, but this time I've gone with 'World Domination' as the victory condition, and its a lot easier. The main advantage is that you get to choose your enemies and your friends so its a lot more strategic in a geo-political sense. Whether I manage to accumulate 40+ regions is less certain, so far I've only taken the pirate islands. But the most interesting aspect for me this time round is having the freedom to play power politic's with the other factions, pumping money into one faction to counter the aspirations of another. Effectively, stopped France in her tracks by pumping money into Wurtemburg and Savoy, who are needless to say very friendly with me. And Spain had a hard time taking down Portugal which had my secret financial backing, in the end I let them die merely because I wanted their Trade Ports:pirate2:

Going for an Indian Empire now mainly because the Marathas stupidly kicked me out of Goa after I had bought it for 30K from Portugal and then refused to accept a peace treaty afterwards. However, hoping to get the Mohguls and Mysorian's to do most of the fighting for me. I'm operating a self-imposed limit of one unit per Fluyt for sea transport so invasion fleets can get expensive, its easier to get the locals to do the killing for you.

So, the Flutes have arrived at Ceylon, the VOC army of mercenaries and sepoys is ready to embark, its just a question of deciding where best to strike. The war between the Muhgal Empire, Mysore and the Maratha Confederacy is in full swing. Mysore has secured most of the sorthern provinces and the Muhgal Empire still holds the Northern and Eastern ones, but its a three way fight, all of them at war with each other. So, its a question of where to inject my forces to maximum advantage, whilst avoiding getting squished in the meat grinder. I'm temped to land in Sindh on the border between Maratha and Ottoman territory. The Ottoman's are the Maratha's only trading partner and Sinhd is the only land route still open between them. Capturing Sindh would cut the Marathas final trade route, its also the farthest point from the fighting which means its probably lightly defended. The mere presence of the VOC in Sindh would force the Maratha's to divert troops from the main fight around Goa and Bijapur to the north, or simply let me have it. But if they do that then I notice that Rajpootana the neighbouring province is currently in revolt and thus ripe for the picking, and perhaps an indication that all is not well in other provinces in this area.

The alternative would be to wait for Mysore to make another major thrust into Goa or Bijapur, then when the Maratha's drive them back and pursue them with the bulk of the armies, to land and ninja the Regional capitals in their rear. The only risk with that strategy is that the VOC will be between the Maratha and Mysorian armies, and although Mysore accepted my peace treaty and my money, I know they really want Goa. In fact they attacked me before the Maratha did when I purchased it from Portugal, its just that once I got kicked out by the Maratha's they had the sense to accept peace, and concentrate on kicking the Maratha's out of it instead of being stubborn and trying to take on the Dutch Navy with a bunch of Dhow's.

Dutch Invasion of India.

Decided to go for Plan A and invade at Sindh as both Goa nd Bijapur were thick with Maratha and Mysore Armies.
https://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1184/invasiond.jpg
[The Dutch invasion fleet arrives of Kolachi.]

[Note: The huge number of flugts are necessary because of my self-imposed limit of one unit per flugt for naval transport. Likewise, the escort squadron is necessary because the fluyts are deemed to be rigged 'en-flute' with their guns unshipped and stored as ballast to make room for the troops. So, if attacked I would have to fight the battle with 'fire at will' off and unable to fire my guns, and any flugt's sunk would necessitate the deletion of an army unit.]

My theories proved correct, Sindh was hardly defended at all. In fact, the only troops in the Regional Capital were two units of armed populace and these had been depleted by the siege which was in progress when we landed. I think the main defence force had been sent to Rajpodana to try and put down the uprising in that neighbouring province.

Anyway captured the province at a cost of 6 casualties and I'm now consolidating before moving east to take Rajpodana.

I actually thought I'd find out if the Maratha's were more reasonable now that I had cut their only trade route, and had to smile when they gratiously agreed to consider a peace treaty in return for 28,000 gold.

Incidently, I witnessed by first AI naval landing the turn before this when the Muhgal Empire landed a small force on the coast of Bijapur. Up till then the only thing I'd seen ships loaded with troops do is sit on trade ports, and rot.

Didz was the Dutch campaign you had problems with one you started befor the patch? Maybe the AI tweaks maid it do odd things.
I have a Prussia campaign on the go form be for the patch and 1 turn after the patch the Dutch went to war the next turn Austria went to war and the 3rd turn Russia joined in. Hopefully my European empire is big enough to soak up the armies of Austria and Russia an till I've dealt with the Dutch. Hopefully the German Empire will emerge stronger as a result.

Zerg, depending on your game's difficulty settings and comparative level of tech to other factions, you should be ok. I played a short (M/M) Prussia campaign through that I started post patch 3 and did not face such a mob near the game ending, I was at war with Austria, Russia and Danemark though. I had also been aiming for the finish which, no disrespect to didz, I'm not sure he really was in his game -probably due to his entertaining (for me, reading his AARs) tendency to roleplay.

It is a bit gamey but it's often easiest to go for the hardest to hold regions in a last minute blitzkrieg -hopefully you've at least been building up to that or have some plan to deal with getting hold of them!

If you've already satisfied the victory conditions, I doubt you will face more of an onslaught that you already are. At least as Prussia most of your income comes from internal revenue (farm & industry "taxes"), so having your trade routes blockaded should be more than a nuisance.

I believe him.

I just played about 21 turns of a UP campaign and everyone was either lining up to go to war with me or just plane refusing to trade with me.

Either way it makes it hard on the Dutch.

Difficulty levels have nothing to do with how belligerent the AI is. They are all the same.

Who wouldnd't trade with you? Were you offering cash too? What was their disposition to you? It's usually a lot easier to smooth the way for a trade agreement first with state gifts, then accompany the contract with a fat bribe. Its just down to the size of the bribe then.

I completely agree that the AI makes irrational decisions and that sometimes conquest of a masochistic faction is the only way to stop the madness. I admit to making liberal use of reloads to avoid or "reroll" annoying AI decisions, I run a cycle of 6 saves +quick save to make sure I don't lose campaigns in that way (once was enough).

That said, I can't remember if I've ever had an ally DoW on me in patch3 ETW yet(although I have had protectorates doing it, but I count that as a kind of rebellion) , I generally manage to stay on goods terms with the factions who start as your allies all through the campaign (not to mention those with whom i trade). I also take any opportunity the AI hands to me, i.e. as the UP, receiving a DoW (however random) from Spain/France or an Indian faction is as much an inevitability as a blessing -these are wars you would end up waging anyway so as long as you expect them, its all good IMO.

As to the 3rd kind of DoW that happens, e.g. random and unprovoked DoWs from factions miles away from you (playing as UP, Russia DoW for example), well I'm happy to ignore them tbh.

The tricky thing, is of course when a gaggle of neighbours gang up on you -as often happens with the Indians & colonists of North America. However, when that happens I only kick myself for not allying or at least befriending one of them beforehand.

I'm on my Dutch campaign right now, around year 1730. All my alliances hold. Spain accepted a peace treaty when I offered France as a compensation, kept peace for about 10 turns and started a new war after. All my allies joined right in. Usual problems with Cherokee and Pueblo in America, but apart of that, no irrational AI. Only the Mughals refuse any trade agreement, no matter how nicely packed. They must be hating the Dutch accent. Oh, and I'm playing H/H.

I've noticed different AI responses in Total War series depending on how aggressive you act. I don't fancy blitz so I never had huge problems with everybody declaring war on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

That said, I can't remember if I've ever had an ally DoW on me in patch3 ETW yet(although I have had protectorates doing it, but I count that as a kind of rebellion) ,

---

Never had it pre-patch. Post-patch, I was pretty darn surprised when UP declared war on my GB on turn 7! Just because I captured French Guyana and Flanders, from France and Spain respectively. Mind you, they were still "friendly" when they declared war.

I don't like the "lets go back to METW2 style war-with-everybody diplomacy" that we got with patch 1.2. I am otherwise happy with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anweRU

I was pretty darn surprised when UP declared war on my GB on turn 7! Just because I captured French Guyana and Flanders, from France and Spain respectively. Mind you, they were still "friendly" when they declared war.

I don't like the "lets go back to METW2 style war-with-everybody diplomacy" that we got with patch 1.2. I am otherwise happy with it.

---

I'm not sure one should be surprised that the UP go to war with factions holding these provinces. I assume the AI for the major factions plays to the same list of conquests that a human player would (is that a huge over-estimation of the game though?). So, as the UP are required to capture both of these territories they, as the player would, inevitably are forced to sacrifice the alliance in order to satisfy their imposed victory conditions.

I do have a huge nagging doubt that I'm giving the AI and game design too much credit in that assumption though.

The problem with the assumption is that the Dutch AI did not want to buy the territories when I offered to sell/ trade them. It didn't even request them via diplomacy as it did pre-patch.

In my pre-patch game, I had managed to sell Flanders to UP for 6K. This time the Dutch AI wouldn't give a single cent for Flanders when I offered it...

ah, ok then.

But maybe they didn't have the money? It takes turns as the player to save enough to buy a province for nothing but cash. When you have a standing army, its often simpler to conquer the province and just to move your defensive position into the captured territory as it becomes the new border?

What you have described would annoy me though, especially as your expeditionary force would have cost money and could have captured you something more usefull and profitable to your empire than something you end up gifting a retarded Ally. I guess the one benefit of gifting them the territory would be their gratitude -their disposition to you should go up immesurably if the territory means that much to them.

Unfortunately, gifting a territory doesn't seem to do much for the diplomatic rating. The 2500 state gift gives a 100 points. Gifting territory not that much - IIRC, before I absorbed the 13 colonies, I was getting only a 1 point boost per region. I'll need to load an older save and double-check.