Impressions of Faction balance.

[anweRU]

Yep. Resistance used to be 8 points for regular regions, and 20 for national capitals. It is much worse now, 13 for normal and quite a bit more for capitals.

I'm for one happy about it - it does make blitzing much more difficult. I haven't tried Prussia at all, pre- or post-1.2, but I can't imagine it would be conducive to blitzing until dragoons come into play.

[AussieGiant]

Without going into details, I think CA have done a very good job with this patch.

Many of the things you point out Fisherking, I disagree with so we will see what happens in the future patches with game balancing.

Bottom line...and from a macro point of view, did anyone notice the number of people in the E:TW section once the patch came out?

It declined substantially as it seemed most people decided to play, and stay playing, because of the changes made. That's a good sign that stability and difficulty have increased.

[Fisherking]

Without going into details, I think CA have done a very good job with this patch.

Many of the things you point out Fisherking, I disagree with so we will see what happens in the future patches with game balancing.

Bottom line...and from a macro point of view, did anyone notice the number of people in the E:TW section once the patch came out?

It declined substantially as it seemed most people decided to play, and stay playing, because of the changes made. That's a good sign that stability and difficulty have increased.

The difficulty has not increased equally.

Now the factions not depending on trade dominate the AI factions and playing those is just too darned easy.

It was better when the minors just spammed armies. The more aggressive AI is just a joke.

They did a good job fixing bugs but the play is not more fun. The trading nations are tedious to play and the difficulties of playing Prussia, Poland, and Russia are no longer a challenge.

The reduction in unrest has made garrisons mostly unnecessary in home regions. The increase in unrest in conquered regions is a challenge.

Originally regional wealth was a bonus and a cushion you could fall back on. Now it is the key to building an army. Most higher buildings are too expensive to warrant building them. The changes in upkeep and trade have made the game difficult enough for the trading nations but not difficult at all for those not dependant on trade. Those higher costs don’t have much effect on them at all for the land based Powers. They have the money they need to raise and army and can acquire more by taking it from those who can’t afford the troops.

As Prussia I played a dozen turns. Conquered Poland the first turn then Saxony and some other region on the second. In six years I had made Poland a protectorate which also brought Coreland along. Other nations declaring war had no impact.

As Poland I took it a bit slower but still held everything I needed by 1720. Again DOWs had little or no impact. Killing off Prussia only took about 4 or 5 turns. Austria was nothing. Once a port was acquired I had little difficulty with money and the only thing I could trade was other goods.

Some factions have it every easy while others have it pretty hard. The trading nations can not afford to keep ships or troops which makes it difficult to gain ground. They need economic growth and cheap units. The land based powers befit from others not being able to build troops and are now steamrollers.

Spain is particularly bad off.

As I said, the more aggressive AI only has an impact on the trading nations. They lack the troops to put up a fight but a single ship is enough to bankrupt a trading country. For the land based powers belligerent little regions are nothing but plumbs for the picking.

As the game was before, it was a bit of a struggle for 25 to 40 years, depending on the faction, then it got easy. That was not so bad as things go. It gave you a sense of accomplishment.

Now for some factions it starts easy and gets better with every conquest…where does that leave you?

[AussieGiant]

I can see your point Fisherking and I'm sure there will be changes.

But they may not be to everyone's liking.

As I said in another post.

With around 5 types of basic playing styles, 16 different combinations of difficulty and 12 Nations, this leaves CA and anyone who wishes to comment from an informed position, at least 960 feedback options.

You have clearly got a good deep knowledge of the game already, but I'd say no one is going to be able to speak to the CA AI guy's on even terms until you're at least half way though the 960 possible scenario’s.

It's like discussing something with Einstein.

He understands a lot about relativity, the other person also, but not as much. When talking to Einstein about relativity you need to be pretty informed for him to take your criticism or a particular argument seriously. Why? Because he can see your arguments, but because you don't understand the "whole" topic he can't explain to your satisfaction why things are the way they are.

Essentially there is "stuff" you don't know that you don't know. That "stuff" Einstein does know. That makes things frustrating.

So...

960 options...and I haven't even thought about the economic variables that need to be adjusted based on just 1 of the 960 selections...pricing alone needs an macro/micro economist just to analyse the various impacts, then there's repression, 3 different politcal systems, unit upkeep, trade etc etc.

This game is massive, really really massive and as a person managing a global application development and roll out for a relatively simple concept, it's pretty damn impressive to me.

And I know, I don't know a bunch of stuff about what they are doing in this game.