No Graduation in Difficulty!

[Fisherking]

If you have not noticed Trade Income is affected. Ivory which was once as high as 55 is now 19, and all other commodities are likewise much lower. Not that this in and of its self is so bad. It is just the overall result of all the changes.

All of the town improvements have increased to the point of being not worth building.

Military upkeep places a full stack army into a bankrupting proposition.

Maintaining a navy of ships better than sloops is also out of the question.

Any of these taken alone is not bad. It is just the compound effect.

That in its self isn’t even that bad if you want the added difficulty on H or VH. It just shouldn’t be there on N or E.

As to history, Prussia was not exactly the powerhouse some seem to think it was. It did manage to unite the German States in the 19th century but it did not destroy Austria or anyone else. Russia and Prussia managed to absorbed most of Poland. Sweden managed to loose its other lands to Russia. It was the Russian Tsar who lead the ground forces that occupied Paris and forced Napoleon’s first abdication.

However, Great Brittan did become the economic powerhouse due to its trade and its vast Indian holding, in the 19th century. It did manage to defeat the French in the Iberian Campaign, while Prussia was still subservient to France.

Great Brittan also maintained the worlds strongest navy. Not something that is now possible even on the lowest game settings.

There is nothing wrong with the game being hard to even impossible at upper difficulty settings. It just should not be that was on the lower ones.

[Slaists]

If you have not noticed Trade Income is affected. Ivory which was once as high as 55 is now 19, and all other commodities are likewise much lower. Not that this in and of its self is so bad. It is just the overall result of all the changes.

All of the town improvements have increased to the point of being not worth building.

Military upkeep places a full stack army into a bankrupting proposition.

Maintaining a navy of ships better than sloops is also out of the question.

Any of these taken alone is not bad. It is just the compound effect.

That in its self isn’t even that bad if you want the added difficulty on H or VH. It just shouldn’t be there on N or E.

As to history, Prussia was not exactly the powerhouse some seem to think it was. It did manage to unite the German States in the 19th century but it did not destroy Austria or anyone else. Russia and Prussia managed to absorbed most of Poland. Sweden managed to loose its other lands to Russia. It was the Russian Tsar who lead the ground forces that occupied Paris and forced Napoleon’s first abdication.

However, Great Brittan did become the economic powerhouse due to its trade and its vast Indian holding, in the 19th century. It did manage to defeat the French in the Iberian Campaign, while Prussia was still subservient to France.

Great Brittan also maintained the worlds strongest navy. Not something that is now possible even on the lowest game settings.

There is nothing wrong with the game being hard to even impossible at upper difficulty settings. It just should not be that was on the lower ones.

I agree about the lower settings. It just does not make sense to have a difficulty slider if the difficulty is the same in all positions.

There is a post by alpaca on the twcenter page: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=256090, which details adjustment coefficients for different difficulty settings. It seems, at least by design intent, there is a difference between difficulty levels in how expensive it is for the player to raise troops.

Maybe that difference is not sufficiently 'different' though. Maybe it does not function. But sure, from that list it seems, most of the modifiers are on the AI side rather than on the player's side.

As to the game: I like it how it plays no on Hard campaign setting. I have not tried Normal and Easy though, so I cannot tell about differences.

[Eusebius86]

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

You're rich till you go to war with the wrong faction. One campaign I made the mistake of going to war against France, before GB was at war with them. This meant that French warships outnumbered mine 4:1 on the unfriendly seas. My trade income dropped from 36k to 20k a turn for about 12 turns till I could deal with them properly...

[Dayve]

I have had to abandon my first ever campaign due to being economically defeated.

Britain, VH/M. I've been at war with the Huron since they attacked me on turn 2 or 3, they never accept peace. I had an army ready to go on the offensive but the 13-states started getting torn apart from all sides by the Cherokee, French and Iroquois, so i diverted it over there to help them out. Ever since then, it's all been downhill. All told i have about a stack and a half across my entire empire, and 10 4th rates split between Europe and America 70/30.

I've been hanging by a thread on +/- 700 income for around 5 years, but when you constantly have to retrain units after battle the treasury slowly sneaks into bankruptcy. The USA emerged with 2 of the former 13 colonies nations, but the rest remained 13 colony protectorates of mine. I took a province from the Cherokee so i would have a base closer to my protectorate so i could protect them. I offered the USA an alliance numerous times but they absolutely hate me, and now they've declared war on me, putting me at war with absolutely everybody in the America theater except for the Plains nation, enemies coming at me from all sides and no money to retrain troops i lose.

To make matters worse my government lost an election, replacing my 7-star admiral with a 3-star one, my 7-star treasurer with a 3-star one, and my 6-star governor of America with a 2-star one. An emergency election has not solved this, nor has kicking a candidate every turn.

To make matters even worse, my fleet was away close to Italy helping my Austrian trading partners with their Barbary states problem, and France blockaded my main trading port in London. At least 4 turns before i can get back to do anything about it... in the meantime i'm hemmoraging over 4,000 a turn.

So i quit.

[Slaists]

I have had to abandon my first ever campaign due to being economically defeated.

Britain, VH/M. I've been at war with the Huron since they attacked me on turn 2 or 3, they never accept peace. I had an army ready to go on the offensive but the 13-states started getting torn apart from all sides by the Cherokee, French and Iroquois, so i diverted it over there to help them out. Ever since then, it's all been downhill. All told i have about a stack and a half across my entire empire, and 10 4th rates split between Europe and America 70/30.

I've been hanging by a thread on +/- 700 income for around 5 years, but when you constantly have to retrain units after battle the treasury slowly sneaks into bankruptcy. The USA emerged with 2 of the former 13 colonies nations, but the rest remained 13 colony protectorates of mine. I took a province from the Cherokee so i would have a base closer to my protectorate so i could protect them. I offered the USA an alliance numerous times but they absolutely hate me, and now they've declared war on me, putting me at war with absolutely everybody in the America theater except for the Plains nation, enemies coming at me from all sides and no money to retrain troops i lose.

To make matters worse my government lost an election, replacing my 7-star admiral with a 3-star one, my 7-star treasurer with a 3-star one, and my 6-star governor of America with a 2-star one. An emergency election has not solved this, nor has kicking a candidate every turn.

To make matters even worse, my fleet was away close to Italy helping my Austrian trading partners with their Barbary states problem, and France blockaded my main trading port in London. At least 4 turns before i can get back to do anything about it... in the meantime i'm hemmoraging over 4,000 a turn.

So i quit.

Hehe, sounds like a tragedy of a great nation. I had the same situation with Hurons & while the 13 colonies were being torn apart by the French, Iroquois and Cherokees. I decided to concentrate on Hurons (with Hessians [which are cheaper] and some auxiliaries) and conquering the pirate bases instead of helping the 13 colonies. Once the Hurons and the pirates were dead, I marched the Huron army into New France and sailed the pirate defeaters to Carolinas. It was fun cleaning out tipis from Maryland, New York and Boston and granting the provinces back to the "13 colonies". Took about 10 years, but I restored them to their original glory, so I could 'finish the mission', LOL.

By the way, on VH, French seem quite willing to accept a ceasefire if you hand it to them in a battle time or two... Keeping a fleet near the channel seemed critical for this.

The Spanish (who get dragged into war along with the French) tend to agree to a ceasefire outright (on the same turn), I guess, because I have no provinces that border theirs.

[Fisherking]

There are other modifiers at work also. I made peace with France. They gave me two regions worth 2200 each. I had no garrisons there of course. Well, my income went down. I had exempt them from taxes to grow the wealth and ease unrest but I had to reverse that. Then of course the Inuit declared war. And this is a test on easy!

I don’t mean that my income went down a little. It went down to 2000 per turn. I don’t know what is at work here but it is a bit silly, especially on easy.

[Ordani]

Depending on the population of the region and various governmental factors you have town watch costs independent of their taxation state.

[Dayve]

I've also begun a new game as the Spanish, which is even more difficult than the British. All neighbours declared war immediately. UP took Flanders, Italian States took southern Italy, Genoa is raiding in Milan, Cherokee took California, Portugal raided towns and farms in Madrid, Louisiana declared war, France broke alliance, income is 2,000 a turn, navy is practically non-existant, army consists of 3 units of line infantry and a general, king is mad, ministers are crap, and 3 of 4 trade routes are being raided.

There's 1 option open to me... Go on the offensive with what i have (3 units of line infantry and a general) or sit and go bankrupt and eventually be conquered by Portugal, who can afford a full stack navy and army.

[Slaists]

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.

So, here's my final answer, especially about that 'rushing/Prussia gang' part ;)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...52#post2227252

[JAG]

Fisherking - ever thought you just suck at this game? From what you post, that is all I can come up with.

Plus, you have no concept of history, read wikipedia one more time my friend, and then post your crap again. :)

[Fisherking]

Fisherking - ever thought you just suck at this game? From what you post, that is all I can come up with.

Plus, you have no concept of history, read wikipedia one more time my friend, and then post your crap again. :)

@JAG


Rather than launching a personal attack on others, don’t you think it wiser or clearer to point out the areas of disagreement?

To everyone else:

The way the game is set up now is not a problem at higher difficulties.

It is however a bit extreme for those wishing a slower or easier approach, and should not be set up to favor one factions position over another’s.

[seireikhaan]

Plus, you have no concept of history, read wikipedia one more time my friend, and then post your crap again. :)

Weird, I don't seem to recall the history of Europe from 1700-1800 consisting of a single, giant, century long deathmatch. From what wikipedia tells me(), Prussia didn't get west Prussia from Poland until 1772, not 1700, as they do EVERY time now. Get some concept of history.

[AussieGiant]

Well I'm having a great time on H/M with Prussia.

I always play the prestige game to make sure it isn't just about Tora Tora Tora all the time.

I'm in year 1760 and it's been a great game. Money has been tight, there has only been 6 huge full stack battles between my Austria and Poland, and they were impressive.

Otherwise it's been a great deal of maneuvering, haggling and fun. There are a few things still to be done but I've managed to build a good economy and use 2 full stack armies for the last 30 to 40 years.

I didn't have a navy until about 1730 and now I've got my 5 ship 3rd rate stack and my 2 ship 5 rate frigate stack. They have done a good job with this patch and there has been zero CTD's.

I've got only 2 provinces to take based on my requirements but France, Great Britain and Martha are in the low thousands in prestige and I don't think I can knock them off as I only about around high 500's.

The AI has not gone on all out blitzes with this game.

[andrewt]

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.

Since you started flaming on the next page, I'll flame you as well. Do you have any concept what a game means? If we have to do the same thing the countries did historically, why even bother playing? Might as well just pick up a history book. It ends up the same way. Seriously, I'm getting tired of the uber-historical grognards here who can't seem to grasp why people play games based on history. The point is to change history, not mimic it to the letter.

This seems to be going down the same route as Civ 4 did. The constant war people ruined that game. By the time they finished with BTS, there was no point to building any improvements or researching anything anymore, just mass troops, conquer and get all your research by conquest. Bleh.

[andrewt]

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.

Do the math. Even before the patch, the higher level buildings are barely worth it. If you look at the increase in income from the higher level buildings versus their costs, it would take 30-50 game turns to pay it back. If you're a min-maxer, it's only worth it to build one of the higher level buildings, to access the techs that they unlock.

[anweRU]

Even before the patch, the higher level buildings are barely worth it. If you look at the increase in income from the higher level buildings versus their costs, it would take 30-50 game turns to pay it back. If you're a min-maxer, it's only worth it to build one of the higher level buildings, to access the techs that they unlock.

In my pre-patch Swedish campaign, I built every single building (including very poor ones) to its maximum level. Based on my (then) 120K tax vs 80K trade income by 1745, with only ~35 regions, I would say it was worth it. People forget about the +xx to town wealth income modifier.

Now, how will it affect my post-patch start-from-scratch campaigns? I'll find out in a couple of weeks.

[Nelson]

Do you have any concept what a game means? If we have to do the same thing the countries did historically, why even bother playing? Might as well just pick up a history book. It ends up the same way. Seriously, I'm getting tired of the uber-historical grognards here who can't seem to grasp why people play games based on history. The point is to change history, not mimic it to the letter.

I think what the history fans (myself included) are looking for is a game where yes, we can do what we want while remaining fettered, at least somewhat, by the confines of historically accurate capacities and circumstances.

[AussieGiant]

I think what the history fans (myself included) are looking for is a game where yes, we can do what we want while remaining fettered, at least somewhat, by the confines of historically accurate capacities and circumstances.

This sounds dangerous like making the game too hard to me Nelson. You should not be so radical in your thinking there my friend.