Quote Originally Posted by Ghaust the Moor View Post
Well, I guess I worded my question wrong ,but I meant that I was wondering how hard it is to switch from battle field tactics of ancient times to modern era gun fighting. I play EB, and was was wondering if it was a huge learning curve. But Thanks for your input.
Okay, so you're actually asking about the tactical battles? I think everyone else was assuming it was the strategic level (the campaign map).

I just got the game, waiting for a few patch cycles (apparently not enough patch cycles). From my early impressions, I think the switch from RTW or M2TW isn't very difficult. You'll still engage the enemy at fairly short range, due to the limits of muskets of that period.

If anything, it's a little easier (IMO) because ranged units and melee units are combined in one "line infantry" type that does both. So you've got your main infantry battle line, maybe a few skirmishers, artillery (similar to RTW and M2TW but with longer range), cavalry for the flanks and to chase down runners, and the general. The basics are the same. The line infantry units don't seem to need as much baby-sitting as the earlier games (or maybe it's just that there aren't additional ranged units like archers to manage), so I have more time to micro-manage the cavalry units. I do like that aspect of the game.

Unfortunately, the enemy battle AI still has the same problem it's had ever since RTW -- it doesn't act like a single coherent army, usually arriving on the battlefield already broken up in independent units that act on their own. You can tell there's some kind of "AI general" in charge, because it will look for opportunities to flank, or go after your artillery. But it seldom maintains infantry in any kind of cohesive, single battle line. It can still be fun, but the AI operates at such a disadvantage in army cohesion, that I usually use house rules; fighting at a disadvantage in numbers, if I really want a challenge.

There is the new naval battle engine, which you'll either love or hate, based on reactions here. For me, it's a silly arcade game. It has very little relation to how the tactics of combat under sail in this period were totally determined by wind direction. With no meaningful restriction in angle of movement, the ships drive around like bumper cars and the combat is chaotic (unless you're sailing an overpowered flotilla and can cripple the enemy in one pass). I just auto-resolve all naval battles so I don't have to watch the mess. The auto-resolve seems fair... no unreasonable penalties, and you can still capture enemy ships. You may like the naval battles better than I do, if you're not into realistic sailing mechanics. At least the eye candy is nice.

On the campaign map, stragey side of the game... I'd just echo what the others have said here. It's more challenging than earlier games only because there's more to manage. Once you get your head around the economy, the trade mechanics and tech tree, it won't feel any harder.... except for having a few more things to juggle on each turn. What's frustrating is the inane campaign AI, which doesn't behave in any logical or consistent way for diplomacy and war. Hopefully this is being worked on for the next patch. If not, the game probably won't stay long on my hard drive. The potential is there, but it really needs better diplomatic/strategic AI.