No Graduation in Difficulty!

[Fisherking]

With change #3:

In the economic game there is no graduation in difficulty. Easy is just like Very Hard. Pricing is all the same, upkeep the same, all is all the same.

That boils down to only one formula for playing the game. Spend all you have on troops and take what other build. In other words “Blitz”!

Just what I did not want to see!

The increase in upkeep, recruitment, building costs, and even some tech penalties all have too stifling an effect on the player who wants to carefully build an economy to support troop strength. Couple that with the reduction in trade income and it only leaves conquest.

The game now only favors factions which build troops and don’t trade. It seems tailored for the Prussian Mafia. Those who play the one faction and concentrate on conquest from turn one.

The more aggressive AI also means that Trade Income is a very iffy prospect. It is just too expensive to keep a fleet to defend trade lanes and as soon as you can’t afford the troops you loose half of them.

This may be a perfect game for those who only play Prussia on VH/VH but for those who like to examine different approaches or don’t need to brag about only playing VH it turns the game into painful drudgery.

[knoddy]

while i can see where ur comin from i think the fact that trade income is iffy is a GOOD thing, this is how it should be, u shouldnt be able to sit there and laugh as you rake in 20k a turn with ur enemies not touching ur trade lanes even tho they have full stacks of navies.

the impact of war on your income SHOULD be felt like this. i know in my marthras camp, i got to the point where i didnt want to go to war with any1 else cos the choices i had meant losing MAJOR trade partners and therefore major income and the possiblity of them pirating trade routes.

Cheers Knoddy

[seireikhaan]

My issue is that the game now becomes entirely predictable. Prussia will go after Poland and Austria, Spanish/Dutch every time, Russians/Swedes every time, Danes/Swedes every time, Brits/Native Americans every time, all usually in the first couple of terms. The AI is too aggressive at this point, and income is not nearly enough to cover expenses as a general rule.

[Vlad Tzepes]

I'm still on my pre-patch France campaign, now around year 1780 and I've noticed some worrying facts about income.

Before patch, it was really too easy. I control around 70 provinces on all theatres, fully upgraded, and all but one trade spot, each with 4-6 indiamen. I'm a republic and there's no minister below 3 stars. I have something like 8 stacks of 3rd rates (with 6-7 ships in each) and about 10 army stacks scattered all over. There's some garrisoning around, but not much. Taxes are set to 1/3. Tech is completely researched, all universities are now gone (that's not nice). This campaign was N/N.

I reached an incredible 6 million in budget before patch.

And now my budget is going down. I'm losing like 10K every turn.

So 70 provinces, fully upgraded, cannot sustain 10 army stacks + 8 fleet stacks.

It's getting interesting. I still don't know if it's playable - I'll see in my new campaign - to start next week, but it really looks tough.

[Graphic]

The overall difficulty does seem a little ridiculous now.

As GB I can only afford one fully army.
I lost Moose Factory because I can't afford to garrison it.
I've had to disband almost all garrison units except one in each city and most of my navy, in order to not go bakrupt.
It costs somewhere around ~2000 to replenish an army after it's been in a tough battle.

On top of all of this, the Natives are waaaaay too aggressive now. Cherokee are running around with way more troops than they should even be able to support. I got a stack to North America as fast as I could and half the 13 C's territory was already wiped out. Only like 7 turns in, when I set foot on NA, the Cherokee had their starting territory, plus Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia. Iroquois took New York. Then on the other hand, the 13 C's do absolutely nothing, it's almost like they don't have A.I. at all.

I didn't mind because I was fixing to start a new campaign on a lower difficulty so I could actually have some money and troops to work with, but if there actually isn't any graduation in difficulty like you say, then this is starting to suck. The patch notes said there should be.

[AussieGiant]

So...now it's too hard?

Too predictable, boring, too aggressive, not enough money. Can't sustain my total domination of all other factions combined?

If I was a CA developer I'd be going out of my mind right now and saying to my program managers;

"£$^£ em, we can't tailor a game to 675 789 different people and their personal opinions."

I mean really guy's, can we for one minute think about how this comes across if you we a CA developer?

[knoddy]

So...now it's too hard?

Too predictable, boring, too aggressive, not enough money. Can't sustain my total domination of all other factions combined?

If I was a CA developer I'd be going out of my mind right now and saying to my program managers;

"£$^£ em, we can't tailor a game to 675 789 different people and their personal opinions."

I mean really guy's, can we for one minute think about how this comes across if you we a CA developer?

this man speaks words of wisdom

although i will say as developers id say they are used to this. u can never please everyone and the number of people complaining usually overshadows those praising because those praising are too busy enjoying the product to praise :D

[Ordani]

The lack of graduation due to difficulty settings is yet another obvious bug, but the game really isn't as bad as a lot of people are making it out. You really need to start over in a new game to appropriately play through the new economic settings -- all of your decisions in past savegames were predicated on a completely different set of assumptions and expectations about what you could do at any given level of expansion.

Restarting my Prussian campaign, in which I'd previously conquered Africa with pikemen just for something to do, just prior to my first landing in Morocco resulted in a massive change in events -- none of the factions I'd been sending money to so they would even field troops could support their armies and it was absolute pandemonium for a few turns. And for a change, it was fun.

[Graphic]

So...now it's too hard?

Too predictable, boring, too aggressive, not enough money. Can't sustain my total domination of all other factions combined?

If I was a CA developer I'd be going out of my mind right now and saying to my program managers;

"£$^£ em, we can't tailor a game to 675 789 different people and their personal opinions."

I mean really guy's, can we for one minute think about how this comes across if you we a CA developer?

Because people complained when it was at one extreme, they have no right to when the developer takes it to the opposite extreme? How does the logic on that work?

People just want a good balance.

[Skott]

So...now it's too hard?

Too predictable, boring, too aggressive, not enough money. Can't sustain my total domination of all other factions combined?

If I was a CA developer I'd be going out of my mind right now and saying to my program managers;

"£$^£ em, we can't tailor a game to 675 789 different people and their personal opinions."

I mean really guy's, can we for one minute think about how this comes across if you we a CA developer?

This has always been a problem for developers. The modders will probably do more for this complaint than CA ever will or could. You'll find some modders making the game easier. Some will make it a little harder and strike a good balance. And some modders will make it so frickin hard at all levels you'll pull out your hair and trash your pc. I usually avoid this last group. Those guys are far too much into pain for my liking. Seriously though, with the modding community you'll get more choices to find something that appeals to the level and balance you are comfortable with. CA cant do that. They do however allow for modders to do it for them which is nice.

[nafod]

So...now it's too hard?

Too predictable, boring, too aggressive, not enough money. Can't sustain my total domination of all other factions combined?

If I was a CA developer I'd be going out of my mind right now and saying to my program managers;

"£$^£ em, we can't tailor a game to 675 789 different people and their personal opinions."

I mean really guy's, can we for one minute think about how this comes across if you we a CA developer?

Well yes to an extent I agree, but when you go on the record stating that recruitment and upkeep costs will scale with difficulty and they in fact do not.....it's a bit of a different case then trying to please 675 789 people.

[nafod]

I posted a thread MUCH earlier inquiring about the public beta. My main concern with such an approach is that the most active players of a game are generally not representative of the market.

It appears the min/maxers got a tad too involved here.

[AussieGiant]

I understand everyone's position.

What I'd just like everyone to keep in mind here is that a "technical requirements" document on AI functionality is a massive undertaking.

Ironically the AI technical requirements document in the end is an opinion on how the AI should work.

Now it seems too hard, which should be no surprise to anyone after we collectively spent the last 6 weeks saying how easy it is.

If the graduation of difficulty is not work on newly started campaigns, then that is a problem.

However if a developer took our comments back the AI team without confirming we had started a new game they would tell him to get out of the room and come back when it was confirmed.

Why?

Because point 3 of the 15 page 550 point technical requirements document on AI behaviour, says;

"AI logic must have a start point in order to allow programming a baseline to work from."

[Fisherking]

I may be wrong, but the impression I have is that all the beta testers just love to play Prussia on VH and attack everything in site.

Hence the name “Prussian Mafia”.

Not everyone enjoys fighting every AI faction on the first turn. It is no longer about being able to build an empire based on trade to finance armies. Income has to be based on taxes and only what can be supported can be built. It is to costly to have troops. It is barely possible to up grand your economy and hardly worth the investment. Navies are too expensive to bother with.

Only the Central European factions or perhaps the Indian factions are viable. Far flung regions are not worth holding. It only increases the number of potential enemies.

If you cannot build an economy that will support your armies and navies what is the point?

In my current campaign I can not afforded to build a one stack army and a fleet to take the Pirates on…I certainly cannot take on the Cherokee, French, and defend the sea lanes!

[Tillan]

Continueing a UK game was fun. Before the patch I had 10k coming in per tern, with about 26 terretories.
After the patch I was losing about 6k a turn. I was planning on blitzing the remaining terretories needed to win, I had armies, and a good size navy, and more money then i knew what to do with. 2 years after (5 turns), ive taken only one terretory that i was forced into taking to defend my holding addequetly, been forced to scupper most of my navy, leaving only a few ships in europe and the americas, and had to disband an army stack.

I also had to try and get peace with a couple of nations who started to raid my trade routes. Great fun ^_^

[Graphic]

If you cannot build an economy that will support your armies and navies what is the point?

In my current campaign I can not afforded to build a one stack army and a fleet to take the Pirates on…I certainly cannot take on the Cherokee, French, and defend the sea lanes!

Exactly. They could have tweaked it so it's good, but as it is, I had to disband almost all of my starting units (navies included) and completely abandon one of my territories (Moose Factory) to support one army. You should be able to support one army at the beginning of the game without having to declare a national state of emergency

You can't even get indiaman into trade lanes barely, they keep getting raped by pirates, and your military vessels are so expensive to replace that you can't even fight back. I'm afraid to do anything with my navy besides raid the trade route off the U.S. east coast.

[Dayve]

I don't think it's as bad as some are making out. It's a little screwy i know, but not all that bad. With my GB campaign i have trade rights with a lot of people, Austria, Savoy, UP, Prussia, Sweden, Maratha, and so on and so forth. In the America theatre i've taken the two pirate islands and one from France and built trade ports in them, giving me a lot of sugar to export. I have also managed to hold on to moose factory, despite constant attacks from barbarians.

Now, i haven't invested anything in my economy at all except a farm upgrade because population was having trouble growing, so it's all gone on naval and military technology. These regions were bringing me a nice profit until the crap hit the fan a few years ago and i ended up with enemies on all sides and had to start recruiting.

I had close to a full stack in moose factory, and my navy altogether was 3 4th rates in Europe and 3 in America. I took 2/3 of that army from moose factory and began to march toward 13 colonies to help them out, and built a fort to defend moose. I raised another half stack from one of my island holdings in America to ship out to 13 colonies to help out in the north, because they're getting spanked from all sides.

I also went to war with France and had to expand my navy in Europe from 3 to 8 ships. I was going to do the same in America but by the time i had done everything else my income was hanging by a thread at 200 a turn.

So... what's wrong with this? Nothing, actually. It should be very expensive to increase fleet size by 160% and army size by 50%, whilst at the same time losing trade due to chain reactions of war declarations all around you.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

honestly for me it isnt upkeep that anger me so much as the huge cost for buildings. I am starting to think it is no longer worth it to industrialize, the cost is just to great (4000 for a weavers factory, seriously!) for me this is a problem, I am trying to roleplay a austrian campaign, and I have the feeling the game basically needs me to blitz, which I dont want to do.

and the problem is the benefit of making these buildings is so tiny it dosnt even recoup the cost!

[Graphic]

They inflated the building costs too? That sucks. I wouldn't know personally, I was busy spending all my money on reinforcing my one army as it was constantly fighting.

None of this would be an issue if there wasn't the bug Fisherking mentioned. This should be hot-fix level priority, I think. CA please hear us!

[Fisherking]

honestly for me it isnt upkeep that anger me so much as the huge cost for buildings. I am starting to think it is no longer worth it to industrialize, the cost is just to great (4000 for a weavers factory, seriously!) for me this is a problem, I am trying to roleplay a austrian campaign, and I have the feeling the game basically needs me to blitz, which I dont want to do.

and the problem is the benefit of making these buildings is so tiny it dosnt even recoup the cost!

EXACTELY!

There should not be JUST ONE APPROCH to the game.

This is what frustrates me so much. They seem to be catering to the gang that just attacks. And if they can afford an army then the game is too easy.

There is no point in investing in the economy. There is no point in reducing taxes to grow population or wealth. There isn’t any real point in building trade vessels.

It has taken away the wealth of depth from the game. Now it is just a war game. You may as well give us all the armies up front and take everything else out.

If armies were not unaffordable enough the two 6% increases as you tech up have a serious effect.

The game may have seemed too easy for those who do nothing but war but it has ruined it for those who wish to build something more lasting.

The game is not supposed to cater to the VH/VH Grognoids! But that is what they always seem to turn into.

War and the military should place a strain on the economy. The trouble now is that you have no economy substantial enough to defend your self, much less fueling an expansionist policy, unless you base the military on taxes and conquering new near by regions.

Taking a mainland European Region may net you several thousand, while taking Georgia or the Windward Islands will only cover the upkeep for a single line infantry unit. It makes it rather hard to justify their capture other than it is a victory condition.

But if those testing the game ever played a faction other than Prussia they would have already found this out.

[Slaists]

honestly for me it isnt upkeep that anger me so much as the huge cost for buildings. I am starting to think it is no longer worth it to industrialize, the cost is just to great (4000 for a weavers factory, seriously!) for me this is a problem, I am trying to roleplay a austrian campaign, and I have the feeling the game basically needs me to blitz, which I dont want to do.

and the problem is the benefit of making these buildings is so tiny it dosnt even recoup the cost!

So, it went up from 3000 (I think that's what it was) to 4000. Is it that big of a deal? In the pre-patch game game there was a point in mid-game from which my tax revenue started shooting up almost exponentially (without me taking any extra provinces); so, in no time, my treasury had huge surplus, which in its due order rendered the game non-enjoyable.

I like the new cost system; maybe (just maybe) the new tax modifier is a bit overdone. As it stands now, one can give up a fully developed province and that results in an aggregate tax revenue INCREASE because the global tax rate goes up.

However, that increase in total tax revenue is balanced out by loss in trade revenue so the total revenue still goes down. I tested this on an American colony: so, not sure how the effects would balance out for a European province.

Trade is much more important now. Trade and keeping the trade routes clean, including the trade routes to your trade partners... Playing as England, one actually needs a foothold in Meditarranean (like Malta with almost no income) to have a place to harbor/repair ships damaged while cleaning trade routes. And, you know what? It makes sense...

EXACTELY!

... while taking Georgia or the Windward Islands will only cover the upkeep for a single line infantry unit. It makes it rather hard to justify their capture other than it is a victory condition.

But if those testing the game ever played a faction other than Prussia they would have already found this out.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here... Tax increase from taking Winward islands used to cover one unit of line infantry at best and taking a European province (France for example) used to net WAY MORE than any province in the colonial theaters also before the patch. The fact is though, that the tax from Winward islands is actually just a small portion of the total income increase. At least in my campaign, they generate way more in trade income than from tax. As long as I keep my trade routes clean (including helping out my trade partners blocked by their enemies).

[al Roumi]

I would agree with Slaists. After reading the change list and noticing the large cut in income the patch caused to my (then current) GB campaign, I started a new UP campaign (as opposed to a central european state's) -precisely because i thought the earnings from trade would be less affected by the changes and hence even more important.

As far as I am concerned, the economic changes of patch 3 have only accentuated the already apparent trend that tax revenue doesn't fund much untill you industrialise (or have rich farms). Historically, the 1700's were all about colonial land grabbing for new/more resources, on which trading empires where built. Only in the 1800's did industry really kick off and states acquire wealth from anything other than farming or trade in commodities.

So, in ETW i'm happy that you shouldn't be able to be rich in a land-locked central european state with no overseas colonies untill you research the techs and can industrialise.

[JAG]

Welcome to a REAL game, one in which you have to think about priorities.

If you are GB you CANNOT send lots of armies in to the field and maintain your trade - THAT IS THE POINT. Not only is it historical but it makes the game interesting.

Prussia can build more armies and go on a rampage - BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY DID - go look at a history book of the Prussians in the 18th century. Plus not only is it historically accurate, it is interesting and different, exactly how I wanted the game to be when it was released.

You could go on and on, basically what we have here is people who have played the game as it was - terrible - for too long and now the game is somewhat like it should be, people are going crazy. If you can't handle it, get better if you don't understand it, go read some books.

[Dayve]

Welcome to a REAL game, one in which you have to think about priorities.

If you are GB you CANNOT send lots of armies in to the field and maintain your trade - THAT IS THE POINT. Not only is it historical but it makes the game interesting.

Prussia can build more armies and go on a rampage - BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY DID - go look at a history book of the Prussians in the 18th century. Plus not only is it historically accurate, it is interesting and different, exactly how I wanted the game to be when it was released.

You could go on and on, basically what we have here is people who have played the game as it was - terrible - for too long and now the game is somewhat like it should be, people are going crazy. If you can't handle it, get better if you don't understand it, go read some books.

Agreed.

As GB i'm now torn between going on an offensive against the Huron or defending my American territory and my protectorate, the 13 colonies, against the French, Iroquois, Huron and Cherokee. In the previous patch i would have been making enough money to simply build 3 or 4 huge armies and go on the offensive against everyone in the region, and still maintain an enormous fleet too.

[Slaists]

By the way, Cherokees & Iroquois do take peace offers nowadays if they feel like it... It's a shame it's not possible to force them to make peace with other parties of the war (13 colonies) as part of the ceasefire deal.

[AussieGiant]

Please start a new campaign before take a position on the situation.

I've started again as Prussia who I never play on h/m and it's been a very tough thought provoking 40 years of rule.

Choices choices choices. They are all over the place now.

Clearly continuing a current campaign is going to throw untold amounts of variables into the mix with the old and new code.

They've said flat out that is what we should do, so spend a bit of time on a new campaign and get back here with thoughts.

I'd go banana's if this place turned into the neurotic, kindergarten that TWcentre is.

[Graphic]

By the way, Cherokees & Iroquois do take peace offers nowadays if they feel like it... It's a shame it's not possible to force them to make peace with other parties of the war (13 colonies) as part of the ceasefire deal.

A mod that removed the ability of protectorates to have foreign policy would be so excellent. Protectorates should always have the exact same diplomatic relations as the protector.

Anyway, I started a campaign as the Dutch, and at least for them it's MUCH more reasonable than GB. I'm so fithy stinking rich....

[nafod]

Yes start a new campaign. The native americans and european minors are no longer the juggernauts they used to be. a 3/4 stack is usually enough to go on the offensive. Simply put one no longer needs, nor can they afford the ridiculous amounts of troops as they did prior to patch #3.

However affording decent land forces and a large navy seems pretty difficult.

[Slaists]

Anyway, I started a campaign as the Dutch, and at least for them it's MUCH more reasonable than GB. I'm so fithy stinking rich....

that's exactly why I abandoned my Dutch campaign :) felt boring being so rich, lol.

[Graphic]

that's exactly why I abandoned my Dutch campaign :) felt boring being so rich, lol.

We'll see. I'm completely dependant on trade income, so if I go to war with the wrong person and they decide to actually raid my trade route, I'll be crippled. Yeah I'm filthy rich but it's still a very fragile thing.