VH post 1.02: still way too easy...

[JAG]

Fisherking you even play the game before the patch?... From the way you talk about it it seems you didn't and I seem to remember you saying you did not have the game when I was posting in here, what, 2-3 weeks after the launch.

Anyway, I think your points are not based on the reality of what the game was and is.

[anweRU]

The patch made the game more challenging by changing the economy. I think the changes went a bit too far, but it isn't insurmountable.

Patch 1.2 also made the minor nations more reasonable, in that Savoy (or Wurtemburg) didn't go and destroy France by 1720 or so... North America is more challenging, but the Natives are not nuts as they were pre-patch 1.2 (no more five-six full stacks from a two-region NA faction).

The diplomacy went to hell though. We're back to the irrational METW2 style AI. The AI at least had some glimmer of intelligence in the diplamtic routines pre-patch 1.2: maintaining its alliances, and trying to achieve its aims diplomatically (even if it was stuck in an endless loop, without any penalty to the player for refusing the AI offers...). I would much rather have the AI make me diplomatic offers to me for several turns, before declaring war - instead of the backstabbing allies from METW2 that have snuck into patch 1.2.

Overall, I'd rate the patch 7/10.

As for the late game being easy - the CA AI will never mount a challenge to the human player, unless scripted events occur. Note that it can't early in the game either. Instead of improving the AI, CA tried its best to hinder the human player artificially... I wouldn't be surprised if players 20 years down the line still make the same complaints. Artificial intelligence is not easy. That is a general truth, not anything particular to CA.

[Fisherking]

@ Slaists


LOL!!!

No one else ever has cash like that!

I was amazed when I looked at your totals.

I don’t think it is even the same game I am playing!!!

The commodity values are tremendously higher than any I have gotten and my ports are developed and I have more regions and more commodities.

I just finished as the French and it was not hard but the AI suffers form a lack of money.

We don’t want the AI to have all kinds of bonuses but it can not fight a decent game as it stands.

There has to be middle ground. Those who never have cash problems may not understand but it all hurts your opponents much more than you. And in single player it is the AI, and it just can not cope.

@ JAG

You are just too good. No mere mortals can compare.


I tend to agree more with anweRU‘s assessment.

[loony]

I think the real problem the AI faces is a buggy payback calculation of troop disbanding.

It counts like this:
if i disband this unit, i get 300 per turn, but in order to recruit it i need 1170, therefore, I effectively break even at turn 4. What is the % probability i would need the unit before then probablility=function(ongoing wars, unit location, enemy closeby, ability to transport the unit to required spots, population control requirements, etc). It is at war all the time, the function calc is improper, so it gets that it does not pay to disband a unit. it doesn't.

a human player thinks more like: if i disband this unit, i will cover what it does now with those other units I have, hence, risk is increased only marginally (e.g. i can keep both the rebellion down and defend against enemies with a single stack in a region, no need to sit in the city). I will probably need to recruit a unit soon, but i can invest the cash flow now, so I get paid back all throughout the campaign through wealth effect (or exports if it is a plantation.). moreover, I am not sure i will need the new unit in this precise spot as I have several hot zones. therefore, while money is more mobile than units (strategic benefit, hard to evaluate for the ai), I'd rather take the money

[Prodigal]

Dunno if this has been covered, but I'd like to see the AI get a steady income regardless of its trade etc. I guess an easy balance would be max 50% spend on troops with a stack cap based on number of territories, so 1 territory max stack would be lower than 2, 3, or more territories. Otherwise mid game would result in 8 stacks in hannover.

The AI is so stupid its almost painful at the moment, I hoped naval invasions would be a cure all, but that's failed, more aggression is good but still the behaviour remains horribly predictable.

The game actually feels smaller to me than MTW, mainly because you will encounter the same troop types, (with very slight variations), everywhere, the AI will always react in the same manner regardless of its strength, everywhere.

Sure its pretty, & has some interesting twists on the combat mechanic, but its got a massive void that previous versions did not suffer, the flags may be different but its all much of a muchness, which is a crying shame.

Anyway to conclude, I agree, it is too easy.

[Fisherking]

I had hoped that the diplomacy could be almost a game in its self. Staying out of war would bring benefits.

Sadly a lot were crying out for blind aggression. I find that so very predictable and it is never a surprise…even when seemingly friendly states now declare war. If they were stronger than you and could prosecute such a thing it would make it a tad more interesting, but sadly they lack any reason for going to war and not even enough troops most of the time to give a good account of themselves.
They just turn into the next target.

Naval invasions are okay but not coupled with blind aggression.

There should be some rewards for being at peace and penalties for war.

Aggression is only suitable if a faction has the means to actually accomplish something, and once accomplished they should search out grounds for peace.

Well it ain’t going to happen. But at least they can find a way that the AI can have some forces and we maybe have enough to counter them defensively.

Better battle AI is surely and sorely needed, but we will wait an see…

[Slaists]

I had hoped that the diplomacy could be almost a game in its self. Staying out of war would bring benefits.

Sadly a lot were crying out for blind aggression. I find that so very predictable and it is never a surprise…even when seemingly friendly states now declare war. If they were stronger than you and could prosecute such a thing it would make it a tad more interesting, but sadly they lack any reason for going to war and not even enough troops most of the time to give a good account of themselves.
They just turn into the next target.

Naval invasions are okay but not coupled with blind aggression.

There should be some rewards for being at peace and penalties for war.

Aggression is only suitable if a faction has the means to actually accomplish something, and once accomplished they should search out grounds for peace.

I had a diplomatic surprise playing as Spanish (on VH difficulty) the other day. Of course, on turn #2 the Dutch declared war on me and I dragged France (my ally) into the brawl. The next turn, France offered me Newfounland in exchange for Flanders, giving me an easy way out of the lowlands war activity, but that's not where the surprise was. A turn later, Westphalia declared war on the Dutch and was hammering their European armies hard from that point on. A turn later the surprise came in the form of Dutch peace proposal to ME... They even offered me some cash to leave them alone in their mess.

It made perfect sense to me. So, the AI IS ABLE to make peace. For some reason, it does not work between the AI factions themselves or happens only way too rarely.