1.3.1. Ridiculous "gameplay" adjustments by CA

**Slaists** · 08-28-2009, 02:50

We know, if we play Britain, France, UP (possibly some other Western European factions) then Marathas are 99% likely to take over India by 1715. Now, try Russia on H and try getting a trade agreement with Marathas (who seem to be doing OK until that point). OK, you succeed. Guess what, by 1711, Marathas are eliminated by Mughals...

Complete

On a similar note. Playing as Russia, from the game start, the faction is allied with Denmark and Poland. Sweden declares war on Denmark. Fine. Russia joins in to defend its ally. Some 5 years into the war, Russia notices a huge buildup of Danish forces near the northern end of Karelia and Finland. Do you think, that buildup was created to attack the common enemy, Sweden, who was, at the time, blockading all Danish trade? No! Swedish rading parties were completely ignored by the Danish (likewise, the Danish [camping out on the Swedish ground] were ignored by the Swedish raiding parties), while the Danish force was being built up to break the alliance (having "very good relationship") and attack Russian Karelia a couple turns later...

Complete

again.

**pevergreen** · 08-28-2009, 06:32

What was your position with the Danes? Was it negative?

What! Factions become a force! Heavin forbid!

Not like Selucids could do it, or Egypt, or Persia, or Julii, Gauls, Spain, Britain.

Someone emerges as a clear winner, its always been like that.

as I see it, you take over your part of the world, someone else has become the major faction. Or would you rather have multiple small factions that are just steam roll material. Or an actual opponent.

**Iavorios** · 08-28-2009, 13:25

The AI in ETW is a joke. Once you have past the first 8-12 turns it is over. The only way it can create you some problems is if backstab's you, or to do something very stupid, witch it does very, very often. AI's only idea of strategy planing is to trow everything it has on you ASAP. And this is it. No logic, no planing no intelekt.

**Slaists** · 08-28-2009, 14:36

Originally Posted by pevergreen

What was your position with the Danes? Was it negative?

What! Factions become a force! Heavin forbid!

Not like Selucids could do it, or Egypt, or Persia, or Julii, Gauls, Spain, Britain.

Someone emerges as a clear winner, its always been like that.

as I see it, you take over your part of the world, someone else has become the major faction. Or would you rather have multiple small factions that are just steam roll material. Or an actual opponent.

My relationship meter with the Danish was around +150 at the time they declared war.

**Seyavash** · 08-28-2009, 18:00

Originally Posted by Slaists

We know, if we play Britain, France, UP (possibly some other Western European factions) then Marathas are 99% likely to take over India by 1715. Now, try Russia on H and try getting a trade agreement with Marathas (who seem to be doing OK until that point). OK, you succeed. Guess what, by 1711, Marathas are eliminated by Mughals...

Complete

On a similar note. Playing as Russia, from the game start, the faction is allied with Denmark and Poland. Sweden declares war on Denmark. Fine. Russia joins in to defend its ally. Some 5 years into the war, Russia notices a huge buildup of Danish forces near the northern end of Karelia and Finland. Do you think, that buildup was created to attack the common enemy, Sweden, who was, at the time, blockading all Danish trade? No! Swedish rading parties were completely ignored by the Danish (likewise, the Danish [camping out on the Swedish ground] were ignored by the Swedish raiding parties), while the Danish force was being built up to break the alliance (having "very good relationship") and attack Russian Karelia a couple turns later...

Complete

again.

While the AI decision making is ludicrous to non existent, my experience was completely different. Playing as Russia Marathas completely dominated India even with a trade agreement with me, while the Danes have never bothered me.

**antisocialmunky** · 08-29-2009, 00:29

Eh... the title of this thread is misleading, I thought you were going to talk about rifled dragoons and such quakery.

I want my money back!

**Slaists** · 08-30-2009, 15:37

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Eh... the title of this thread is misleading, I thought you were going to talk about rifled dragoons and such quakery.

I want my money back!

Nobody's stopping you from expanding from the OP here. The title covers it all.

**A1_Unit** · 09-10-2009, 00:24

It's only safe to ally with someone if you don't share a border with them.

**Fisherking** · 09-10-2009, 08:14

Originally Posted by A1_Unit

It's only safe to ally with someone if you don't share a border with them.

No! That is not safe either.

I played a French Campaign. The turn after I got a trade agreement with the Marathas they were blockaded. That lasted until I went to India and cleared the blockade in about 1780 or so.

Usually they clear ports every 20 years or so but not this time. A 75 year blockade is a bit much.

I think that other than the bugs and the over generous economy, this game started well but the AI and Diplomacy changes have mostly been mistakes.