Balancing Issues:

[loony]

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)

[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.

[anweRU]

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.

[mmk]

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.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

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.

[Slaists]

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.