VH post 1.02: still way too easy...

[AussieGiant]

I'd go back to chess mate.

[JAG]

Agreed, still far, far too easy - but I don't know what they can really do about it now except for compeltely re writing the AI to actually be a challenge. Getting naval invasions working probably will help, but that could make the game just as easy... Post patch the game is a lil bit tougher, purely because the AI will attack back every now and then, especially after you have taken one of their territories - but the problems with diplomacy remain etc. Who knows they might make some improvements to make the game harder, but I think I will stop playing until the next patch, like I did last time. :/

[Slaists]

Agreed, still far, far too easy - but I don't know what they can really do about it now except for compeltely re writing the AI to actually be a challenge. Getting naval invasions working probably will help, but that could make the game just as easy... Post patch the game is a lil bit tougher, purely because the AI will attack back every now and then, especially after you have taken one of their territories - but the problems with diplomacy remain etc. Who knows they might make some improvements to make the game harder, but I think I will stop playing until the next patch, like I did last time. :/

I could throw in several suggestions:

1. Allow AI make peace with each other (CA is supposedly working on this)
2. Allow AI to make anti-player diplomatic blocks
3. Add a theater or two which would allow for ANOTHER huge empire to arise by the mid-game
4. #3 would definitely need naval invasions to be fixed
5. Reoptimize the economic AI

As to #5: I see most of AI factions being "feeble and destitute" by late mid-game. As I conquered a few trade nodes from the Dutch, I realized part of the reason: the huge blue stacks sitting on the trade nodes contained mostly fluyts (350 upkeep), warships and an occasional Indiaman. No wonder, a trading nation like the Dutch is not making money. They are spending more in fleet upkeep than they are getting back in trade revenue...

On the same token, I have tried gifting/trading for techs AI factions 100,000 a turn for several turns. The AI faction would still show up as "feeble and destitute". I wonder what are they doing with the money.

[anweRU]

The AI's territorial economic development is also very poor. The AI has a fetish for religious buildings, at the expense of industrial buildings.

It also taxes heavily, so that town wealth does not grow, and new towns don't pop up late into the game, after it has managed to researched several farming & enlightenment techs.

The AI prioritizes unit recruitment at the expense of economic development, and thus fails to utilize whatever financial bonuses it gets from CA in the long term...

In my pre-patch Swedish game, whatever money I gave to the AI was used to recruit more units. As a result, the AI nations fought some pretty epic battles amongst themselves, which I watched from the sidelines (it was a semi-peaceful campaign, only ~35 regions in the end). 600K can buy a lot of units...

[AussieGiant]

I can't help but remain positive.

based on what you guy's are explaining here, if CA manage to get the sea invasions sorted out, which seems to be a product of their new infinity location map they implemented for this game, AND get the socio-economic-political AI sorted out...then we might just have more than we can handle.

Did I just say "socio-economic-political"?

[Slaists]

1The AI's territorial economic development is also very poor. The AI has a fetish for religious buildings, at the expense of industrial buildings.

2It also taxes heavily, so that town wealth does not grow, and new towns don't pop up late into the game, after it has managed to researched several farming & enlightenment techs.

The AI prioritizes unit recruitment at the expense of economic development, and thus fails to utilize whatever financial bonuses it gets from CA in the long term...

3In my pre-patch Swedish game, whatever money I gave to the AI was used to recruit more units. As a result, the AI nations fought some pretty epic battles amongst themselves, which I watched from the sidelines (it was a semi-peaceful campaign, only ~35 regions in the end). 600K can buy a lot of units...

#1: It's reasonable to build lots of religious buildings to bring a conquered province under control fast. However, the AI should be coded to be able to DESTROY the unnecessary religious buildings once the province is pacified. On the same token, the AI should be coded to destroy unnecessary fisheries and replace them with trade harbors.

#2: That IS a problem. In my campaign, economic growth (due to enlightenment techs and medium taxes) was the key to my treasury staying above the water. Interestingly enough, due to bonuses on VH, AI out-teched me by a good margin all through the game, but seemingly the AI DID NOT USE the techs to develop provinces. I purposely did not try to rush the research though. I did not build any other universities just the starting one and added more only as part of the conquest (if there was a university in the conquered province; I left it and used it).

#3: I did the same thing and wondered what the AI was doing with the money. I would give a destitute faction 100K + for several turns just to see it still being "destitute" 5 turns later. In my case, I even did not see them raise more troops and go on a rampage... No idea, what they did with the cash.

I can't help but remain positive.

based on what you guy's are explaining here, if CA manage to get the sea invasions sorted out, which seems to be a product of their new infinity location map they implemented for this game, AND get the socio-economic-political AI sorted out...then we might just have more than we can handle.

I keep my fingers crossed. I'd love to have a meaningful (as opposed to how VH was handled in MTW2 and RTW) and challenging campaign game on VH; Easy should probably be easier than it is now though to serve the pool of players that are new to the game.

[AussieGiant]

As you both describe (Slaists, anweRU) I also saw this in my Prussian campaign.

I took France in 1780...it had 4 fully developed churches...that is just nuts. They could have been a real powerhouse if they had (The French AI) done a better job of managing their resources. And that's what it is really. Managing resources and al the variations available to it. If they can get that done well then we can would really see the difficulty levels come into play. Or if they could just get the AI to work properly and then allocate money or take it away to provide a difference in what the well tuned AI can spend money on. That seems like the simplist way to provide for difficulty levels while keeping the AI logic flat and standardised throughout.

In the end game there were stupid trade stacks of 2 Indiamen with 5 to 6 warships. That would be very pertinent if the AI sent military flotillas to the trade regions to reek havoc and then take over the trade nodes, but it doesn't do this.

It was so funny in my campaign. Pirates dominated the sea lanes by 1765. There were 3 or 4 full stacks of Pirates romaing around with no one to kill. They'd literally killed off most of the worlds shipping except the ships that made it to the trade nodes in the opening few decades. It took my best Admiral two full stack naval engagements to get rid of them. The make up was 2x1st rates, 6x2nd rates and a few 3rd rates. It was an amazing battle.

[Slaists]

As you both describe (Slaists, anweRU) I also saw this in my Prussian campaign.

It was so funny in my campaign. Pirates dominated the sea lanes by 1765. There were 3 or 4 full stacks of Pirates romaing around with no one to kill. They'd literally killed off most of the worlds shipping except the ships that made it to the trade nodes in the opening few decades. It took my best Admiral two full stack naval engagements to get rid of them. The make up was 2x1st rates, 6x2nd rates and a few 3rd rates. It was an amazing battle.

It's true, if you let them survive (I usually have conquering their islands as my campaign goal #1 or #2 since their raiding tends to kill my trade income), the Pirates are the only maritime challenge in the mid-to-end-game...

[Monsieur Alphonse]

The AI's territorial economic development is also very poor. The AI has a fetish for religious buildings, at the expense of industrial buildings.

The AI is also very poor in its decision to always build fisheries instead of trade ports. Hanover's only port was for fish only; great move. Most factions can only have limited trade because they don't build extra trade ports. I assume that most human players maximize their amount of trade ports to have a maximum amount of trade partners.

[Slaists]

As someone requested (in another forum): I have added screenshots with minimaps showing the extent of Russian holdings across all three theaters in 1799 (they have been such since 1780 though).

[Veresov]

Other than a few tweaks to the AI, I don't see CA continuing to work on the AI despite promises that they will. They have already most likely started on an expansion. That expansion will likely feature some AI enhancements just like CA did in Kingdoms.

[Fisherking]

It may be easy for you but it sure is not for the AI.

When you look around all the factions are feeble and destitute and never recover.

The AI is having trouble adapting to the economic changes that made it more difficult for the players. So now instead of facing challenging opponents with large armies and fleets you only face meager opposition.

Before the changes I took the required provinces and had enough money to hold off any attacks. I would expand to perhaps 30 regions.

Now in order to build troops effective enough to hold may primary areas I have to take 50 or more regions to have enough money. So every campaign turns into world domination, even if that is not what I am playing.

The AI doesn’t have the funds to put up good opposition. It is stretched to the limit and can’t cope with the changes.

It is still the same game with the same battle AI so you are going to win, it just takes longer and there are fewer large fights, especially at sea.

The AI now builds churches everywhere because it can be developed to the top but it never has funds for higher level building of other kinds. It can not afford any more than anyone else to build the levels that cause unrest because there is no money for garrisons.

I do the same thing. I need field armies and not garrisons. When there was more money in the game it was no problem to do both. Now that it is tight the AI builds cheap troops and buildings that don’t require a garrison.

The AI and the game were balanced to the old values and now it need lost of rework.

Further changes are going to so weaknesses in much the same way. When one thing gets changed it causes a chain reaction. People will adapt but the AI is going to require a lot more work.

Let them sort it all out before you yell too much.

Yes I know I have done a lot of complaining about the changes because it slowed the game down so much. But now you are only beginning to see what needs adjusted so it can get back to the level it was before.

[Slaists]

It may be easy for you but it sure is not for the AI.

When you look around all the factions are feeble and destitute and never recover.

Unfortunately: quite true. However, there were three notable exceptions in my campaign: Marathas (they took out Mughals and Mysore), Spanish (in mid-game they suddenly 'woke up' and took out Morocco, 2 beber provinces + New Mexico and still had Florida by the end of the game), and French who managed to take out all their North American indian threats. All three of these factions were "terrifying and spectacular" by the end of the game. Unfortunately, they could not get their act together to challenge Russian domination.

The AI is having trouble adapting to the economic changes that made it more difficult for the players. So now instead of facing challenging opponents with large armies and fleets you only face meager opposition.

Before 1.02, post beginning years: there was no opposition whatsoever. The AI just went completely passive. So, I disagree with your point.

Before the changes I took the required provinces and had enough money to hold off any attacks. I would expand to perhaps 30 regions.

Now in order to build troops effective enough to hold may primary areas I have to take 50 or more regions to have enough money. So every campaign turns into world domination, even if that is not what I am playing.

Hmm, I disagree again. As you can see in my main post, I am holding 32 provinces not 50 and more... and still my treasury is overflowing even playing such an economic backwater faction as Russia. In fact, in the end-game I was granting AI factions 100K bonuses per turn, just to see if that would kick them into action. No luck there...

The AI doesn’t have the funds to put up good opposition. It is stretched to the limit and can’t cope with the changes.

It is still the same game with the same battle AI so you are going to win, it just takes longer and there are fewer large fights, especially at sea.

Hmm, I had plenty of large fights. True: not so much at sea, but then again, as Russia, I did not do much sea development until late in the game.

The AI now builds churches everywhere because it can be developed to the top but it never has funds for higher level building of other kinds. It can not afford any more than anyone else to build the levels that cause unrest because there is no money for garrisons.

The church part is true, but I disagree the AI is doing to minimize garrisons. Poland, for example had 3 churches in POLAND... That's their core province and they definitely did not need 3 churches to convert the populace. It's just AI stupidity.

I do the same thing. I need field armies and not garrisons. When there was more money in the game it was no problem to do both. Now that it is tight the AI builds cheap troops and buildings that don’t require a garrison.

Hmm, the Russian empire I described had no problem fielding 3 professional field armies (I did not need more) + garrison forces where needed. The central Russian holdings had no garrison whatsoever.

The AI and the game were balanced to the old values and now it need lost of rework.

Nothing was balanced before patch 1.02. The game was duller than dull unless one enjoyed fighting North American Indian melee supermen hordes; besides them - no AI did anything. At least now we see something happening in the first 30-50 years. My complaint now is about late game activity.

Further changes are going to so weaknesses in much the same way. When one thing gets changed it causes a chain reaction. People will adapt but the AI is going to require a lot more work.

That I cannot agree with more. The AI IS going to require a lot more work. I hope CA is up for the task...

Yes I know I have done a lot of complaining about the changes because it slowed the game down so much. But now you are only beginning to see what needs adjusted so it can get back to the level it was before.

Hmm, that I disagree with wholeheartedly. I personally would not want to see 'the level it was before'.