The game is just TOO easy!!!!

[Fisherking]

I am just curious, is anyone who thinks it is too easy playing with small unit size?

I have been lead to understand that the AI handles small units better than large one.

I could be totally wrong, of course. I am still waiting for my copy to arrive, while you guys have already been playing for a week.

I can’t say I will be too disappointed if the AI is not an insane warmongering conquer which will never make peace on any terms. I have had that in the last several games. One that looks out for its best interests may be a good thing.

By the same token, naval invasions are risky to undertake with a lot at stake if anything goes wrong. So if the AI isn’t spamming fleets and armies to invade every scrap of land, that is ok too. If you go cranking it up you are going to wined up with the silly junk you did in M2. Iceland will be attacked by the Barbary states on turn 2, and so on.

Who the heck launched massive sea invasions in this era or any other? If you mess with this too much you will have totally ridiculous happenings and it is just best tweaked a tiny bit or just left alone.
Armies far from home need continued support to win. Leave it to the human players to do that.
I am sure it will be fine when we get the MP campaigns and you can be worries that someone real will be on your doorstep with 3 fleets and full stacks.

Changing some of the AI’s aggressiveness is going to wreck a lot of the history. You may or may not care but some do. It will spoil a lot for the newer players and those who RP the games, and you are still going to beat the AI some how. If you couldn’t the game wouldn’t sell.

Use some imagination to make it harder for your self! Don’t tech up and use small armies.

Napoleon managed to do much the same thing as you are managing to do, so no big deal and no surprises there.

Maybe I will be singing a different tune once I have played for a week, but for now, I just see it as a bit of boasting.

[knoddy]

who remembers what M2TW was like when they increased the frequency of naval invasions ?

playing as marthras (SP>?>>????) i have never been invaded from the ocean BUT mughal dominated me on the sea for many years because i didnt have a fleet and couldnt build one with them blockading my ports. aside from that everyone ive been at war with has been able to invade by land cept teh spanish BUT they were at war with england and their navy got smashed.

i would rather not have every state going crazy with naval invasions but thats just my 2 cents

[BeeSting]

who remembers what M2TW was like when they increased the frequency of naval invasions ?

playing as marthras (SP>?>>????) i have never been invaded from the ocean BUT mughal dominated me on the sea for many years because i didnt have a fleet and couldnt build one with them blockading my ports. aside from that everyone ive been at war with has been able to invade by land cept teh spanish BUT they were at war with england and their navy got smashed.

i would rather not have every state going crazy with naval invasions but thats just my 2 cents

I'm clamoring for reform. We need seaborne invasions in this game or it is an EPIC FAIL in my opinion, especially given the time period of this game. I hope CA patches this ASAP.

[ironanvil1]

I suspect the smaller number of provinces and ease of making money has something to do with how easy ETW feels even on VH.

When the Dutch declared war on me as Prussia I was hoping for a few epic battles given they're a major faction but it ended up them being destroyed as a faction in a siege of Amsterdam.
Five turns from being a world power to being a disorder stat in my province details.

My Maratha campaign I purposely stopped myself from attacking the Mughals for years to try and build up a challenge but I'm rolling in so much money I could annihilate them at any point.

A larger number of provinces might give the AI more strategic depth and prevent the easy blitzes by making you have to deal with conquered territories.

Having the army stacks of defeated factions remain as rebels would also be good. Atm you can decapitate a large military force by taking out the faction capital and they disappear.

[amritochates]

Concerning Naval invasions:

It is a major problem because now there are three theatres of war instead of a single unified camapaign map, that are connected only through naval fleets. So if the AI is incapable of transporting fleets it implies that for the GC the AI factions will be restricted to their respective theatres, incapable of reinforcing one theatre from the other.I doubt that you think it desirable that I can besiege and take over Paris,France while the AI retains 20 stacks in new France.

Also since the AI is ignorant of the fact that it cannot transport units, it tends treat Islands as normal provinces building up large stacks that then do nothing for the remainder of the campaign except suck up army upkeep and will only come into play If and whwn the player decides to invade.

Read a more detailed expose in my thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114186

[knoddy]

Concerning Naval invasions:

It is a major problem because now there are three theatres of war instead of a single unified camapaign map, that are connected only through naval fleets. So if the AI is incapable of transporting fleets it implies that for the GC the AI factions will be restricted to their respective theatres, incapable of reinforcing one theatre from the other.I doubt that you think it desirable that I can besiege and take over Paris,France while the AI retains 20 stacks in new France.

Also since the AI is ignorant of the fact that it cannot transport units, it tends treat Islands as normal provinces building up large stacks that then do nothing for the remainder of the campaign except suck up army upkeep and will only come into play If and whwn the player decides to invade.

Read a more detailed expose in my thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114186

not entirely true u can walk through from persia to india and back, but thats a moot point, im all for naval invasions BUT! i dont want them done like the M2 Patch where it was just stupid, every faction would launch naval invasions to the other side of the freakin camp map.

[Julius_Nepos]

As Austria on Hard/Hard I just got annihilated by the Prussian military, not by numbers but by the seeming omnipotence of their soldiery. I had done an example campaign as Sweden on M/M and things were really quite passive for 100 turns. I decided to change nations/difficulty to see what would happen. In this case the Crimean Khanate was eliminated early by Russia and I had a good 10 turns to just build improvements to my nation. Eventually Prussia declared war, and historically went for Silesia, which they took easilly. My relief army came by a turn later and was attacked in the forests south of the city. Even though I had my men behind fenced cover, the AI overcame this by having ring bayonets earlier than I did, and by firing once and charging my entire line all at once such that the battle became little more than one big melee. out of 1500 men I had, 200 survived. I did win the battle.

Somehow despite a 3 to 1 disadvantage in schools, Prussia had out teched me militarily. I'm not sure how they did it, possibly by buying techs, cheating (perhaps due to Hard Difficulty), perhaps a country specific modifier for certain technologies or something else. They got to ring bayonets early somehow, and I paid the price. Later I sent a near-full stack to attack Brandenburg, that stack was also annihilated by Prussia's line infantry, despite tactics that worked on medium. I need more time to digest the AI behavior on hard (battle wise) before I decide if I want to keep it there. On every other Total War title I've used Hard/Hard settings, I might have to change that this time. I'm still learning new battle strategies too though so perhaps in time I'll figure out something better. I wouldn't say the game is too easy though, just a touch too passive.

And you guys should be careful what you ask for, if you want more aggressive AI you might get it, then we'll be fending off full stacks every turn while 6 or 7 amphibious landings are choking our shores with enemy units. Some of you may enjoy spending a whole day on one turn of battles, but I lack actually having down time and fewer but more intense wars. The last thing we need is a hyperactive AI similar to RTW/M2TW in which the game sends wave after wave of full stack armies at you, will never accept a truce/peace and has unlimited man power. ETW is far from perfect but I pray they don't roll things back to earlier installments, the game needs tweaks, fixes and more factions, not a new "attack the player every three minutes" routine. Anyway sorry to rant on this, I just -really- don't want to go back to how things were done before with AI mindless-warmongering.

[Polemists]

Yes try to remeber one of the major complaints of MTW2 was the fact that by turn 6 you could end up at war with 4-5 factions and nearly excommunicated.

Several things have been improved.

You can now actually have peace and allies for a number of years if you want them. I kept the dutch as my ally for 50 years.

The AI now has mobs, they arn't a fullproof, but they do make it to where even if the AI only has 2 units it will double it's size with armed citizens.

The AI has a very aggressive navy. That will already pirate you, choke sea ports, and blockade and cut off your sea trade completly.


If you want a aggressive land AI go fight the natives in either India or North America who are both quite aggressive and will send full stacks against your settlements if you go to war with them.


At least that's my view. I don't really want a harder AI, only because I know even if they did UBER hard AI half these people still would not be happy.

CA should patch what it can and focus on the Multiplayer.

[Fisherking]

@ Polemists

I would agree.

I suppose a new AI level could be made…the pawn everything level…where all AI units become as tough as M2 elephants and rolls over all the earth!

[Namarie22]

It would be nice to see a more precise choice regarding AI's in games soon, the EASY/HARD/VERYHARD/IMPOSSIBLE thing is like, well, getting old?

How about adding a preference tab for the AI? "Naval invasions on/OFF", "Aggressive Guerilla raids on/OFF", "AI HP boost on/OFF", etc, instead?

[Polemists]

First off

Take CivIV for example, it took weeks for the community to collectively compose a playing style that could beat the hardest level, and for many players doing so was never possible, no matter how hard they tried.

CivIV I found the easiest game I think I have ever played in my life. Maybe impossible is bad but comparing medium CIVIV to RTW is like comparing Medium Red Alert 3 to Supreme Commander, it's not a contest in my mind.


I think perhaps more then all this jazz about new AI difficulties it might be better to go back to the old system of Eras. Such as MTW's early, middle, and late.

Not saying this works for all games (obviously etw had to short a time frame)

but for instance, let's take England.

For those of you who like the Euro theme you could pick early, holding the crown, securing yourself. Building up.

For those who liked more in the thick of it, they could choose middle. When France is a power, colonies are ready to rebel, and your navies are much larger and contesting with Spain.

For those who wanted a impossible difficult they could do late, you've lost the colonies, France's power dwarfs you, and rebellion is abound everywhere.

I honestly think those scenarios would be more amusing. Then say something like Defensive AI and Aggressive AI sliders or something.

I could be completely wrong, and everyone will probably complain but I liked the Eras that MTW 1 had, it didn't mean you couldn't start early and go into the medium, or start med and go into late. If you did the game stayed different because you were shapping it. Yet the later eras provided unique scenarios and gameplay perspectives that may not exist in your own games do to the AI.

Just a thought.

[Fisherking]

It would be nice to see a more precise choice regarding AI's in games soon, the EASY/HARD/VERYHARD/IMPOSSIBLE thing is like, well, getting old?

How about adding a preference tab for the AI? "Naval invasions on/OFF", "Aggressive Guerilla raids on/OFF", "AI HP boost on/OFF", etc, instead?

I would tend to agree, and I may even remember one or two being in MTW but not since.

Some people will not be happy until they loose. Some want other things, but everyone has to deal with the changes.

While you usually make a very vocal segment happy with a change you disappoint and discourage others.

I have no trouble with people who always play on Easy or VH. It is just that changing some things effect the whole game and not everyone was Iceland to be conquered by the Barbary States.

Not everyone wants to have their hat handed to them every time they go into battle. They should be interesting but not impossible to win.

Lots of people are still having trouble beating the AI, while we have some that want an impossible level.

In the end it is impossible to please everyone. So if it is too easy wait for a mod and don’t try to spoil the fun of those just learning.

[Pinxit]

Concerning Naval invasions:

It is a major problem because now there are three theatres of war instead of a single unified camapaign map, that are connected only through naval fleets. So if the AI is incapable of transporting fleets it implies that for the GC the AI factions will be restricted to their respective theatres, incapable of reinforcing one theatre from the other.I doubt that you think it desirable that I can besiege and take over Paris,France while the AI retains 20 stacks in new France.

Also since the AI is ignorant of the fact that it cannot transport units, it tends treat Islands as normal provinces building up large stacks that then do nothing for the remainder of the campaign except suck up army upkeep and will only come into play If and whwn the player decides to invade.

Read a more detailed expose in my thread:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=114186

A solution to the AI being to predictable and to passive, is to place the AI in the hands of the current ruler. Dont know if that has been done already, since I dont have the game yet, but that would be a good solution. That means that some rulers will be passive and morons, and some very aggressive. That would give your enemies some personality and make the game harder to predict.

I say that, because I live in the land of the

[Dradem]

hmm didn't play that much yet only 2 grand ones don't realy care for the short campaigns,

One with the United Provinces (the dutch) invaded Flanders turn 2 or 3 got it a turn or 2 later. yippie :); Since France was an ally of Spain. they Send in 3 small army blocking my small cities etc
they came with 2 navy's to block my ports. I directly attacked the navy but since there the two ports are close got the 2 navy's against me so lost only got my admiral out. Tried a few times to get those pesty little armies out, eventualy worked.

I had to take my navys back from India and the Americas to get rid of them, I only managed to get a peace treaty with france after capturing Paris by chance (and offering it back to them I couldn't keep it any way the army was almost gone) got lousiana in Return so not to bad, lucky I did that because Spain was ready to land turn later with 2 armies in Flanders and Holland and that was before 1705, now 5 years later things are a bit better but now those nasty Pirates are giving me a bad time.

Always play on the Hardest level since Shogun, and only lost a few times doing so
A well maybe I'll try the short campaign if that's easier

[Fisherking]

..., lucky I did that because Spain was ready to land turn later with 2 armies in Flanders and Holland and that was before 1705, ...

Spain launched a sea invasion?

Maybe there just has not been enough play to determine that it is not done!

[Dradem]

Spain launched a sea invasion?

Maybe there just has not been enough play to determine that it is not done!

What not done?

[Fisherking]

What not done?

It has been said that the AI will not launch sea invasions.

If Spain landed troops in Flanders, that would not seem to be the case!

[foop]

I see a thread like this for every TW game, and every time I see it my self confidence shrinks even more. I love the TW games, I'm obviously just not very good at them.

[Dradem]

It has been said that the AI will not launch sea invasions.

If Spain landed troops in Flanders, that would not seem to be the case!

I just went back to one of the safe games and they came from the East

I thought they came by Sea because I had a unit stack under brussels so they had to fight them first but since they came from the East it didn't matter

but still I think the AI wouldn't have done that in other TW games.

[Sir Moody]

Actually i think a lot of jags OP is because of his faction choice - Prussia

My first campaign was Great Britain and its an economical nightmare starting with colonies as you have far more work to set yourself up and you need to maintain a strong navy presence

Prussia is so easy its amazing - It took me 20 turns to get GB ready for war in the Americas and Europe - in 20 Turns Prussia had absorbed Sweeden and Poland and had a good chunk of Austria - not to mention most of the Small German states

Prussia is a small but heavily military nation (its line infantry is second only to GB's) with its total focus on Europe and its only major oponents are Sweeden and Austria (poland is too weak) - Sweeden is easy to crush if you ally with the danes and then move in fast - austria is usually busy with the ottomans and cant defend itself when the inevitable push comes (ive left them alive as a barrier between me and the ottomans for now)

My Navy consists of a single brig I built to move some troops to finland and all my opponents either have no Navy to worry about (Poland, Austria) or have no time to use their Navy effectivly (Sweeden)

Prussia is by far the best starting location with the second best troops - incredible easy (and fun )

[Bob the Insane]

Speaking for my first N/N GB campaign, the Native American factions certainly have no trouble with agressively and continously attacking both your resources and cities. Even if you garrison a border city they will sneak past to attack the interior.

I have lost settlements this way.

I do wonder if the AI strategic strength caluations are overrating the civilain militia automatically generated in large cities, discouraging the attacks...

[Eusebius86]

Has anyone tried sitting still for 10 years to give the AI a chance to do something? Sure, I could have taken over Poland as Prussia in 5 turns early on, but not anymore. Its 1718 and Poland is big that they are about to annhilate Austria. Russia is pushing back Sweden. I really think that your bordering neighbors need a chance to tech up, build up, and get alliances. Right now, its GB, UP, and Austria, verse Russia and Poland. I decided to seize the moment, and made a land grab against both Austria and Poland, so everyone's at war with me right now. Needless to say, I'm having severe economic difficulties right now...

[JAG]

Prussia was my second campaign, unfortunately I did a Great Britain campaign first which was, to be honest, even easier. The fact NO reinforcements come from the European nations to the other parts of the world, and you can leave Britain, literally, completely defenceless - I had NO military units in any place for my WHOLE game, except for when building armies to ship out. I took over the whole of the American continent, helpfully aided by the easy mission which gives you all the thirteen colonies territories... and I had all of India bar 3 territories, by 1730 ish.. Sigh. The fact I am now 4 turns into a Spain game and am about to take Amsterdam, having already taken Morocco and crushed the Cherokee.. Its just.. sad :(

If you find it hard, you are not being aggressive enough, at the start you can take territories easy, just because your stacks are not amazingly huge, it doesnt mean you can't use them.

I think some people here have got it spot on, Gal Civ 2 is probably the hardest Strat game I have ever played - if you haven't tried it, GO NOW! It has an amazing range of gameplay and AI, and the AI is super, duper smart - I don't know how they do it, but CA need to get a leaf out of their book. We need more of a range of difficulties or more options or something, so those who find hard too hard can and have the chance to get a level between medium and hard and those who find VH too easy can crank it up to get a real, significant challenge. Surely it wouldn't be too hard to do.

My first campaign was Great Britain and its an economical nightmare starting with colonies as you have far more work to set yourself up and you need to maintain a strong navy presence

By the way to get round that is to only build an army in America - it doesn't even need to be big, transporting your troops from Britain over is the best bet, it is what I did - and only build quality, big ships. Due to the good admirals the British have, and the crap ships the rest buy - except Spain - you can quite effectively control the seas with a roving single big stack, then building up another when you can.... Something I have seen which makes the game prety laughable is that when your trade ships are actually trading from the coast of Brazil or wherever, the AI will loot your routes rather than destroy the ship and take the trading post... Meaning that just get your ships there, asap and you will have them for the whole game.... I had pretty much all the foreign ports my whole game - if you need to go to war, destroy them all, then get peace do it - the revenue speaks for itself. Anyway enough of me giving my secrets away, back to the point - the game is too damn easy.

[Meneldil]

The game is just TOO easy!!!!

To be honest, set some house rules, and the game stop to be easy. Early game blitz are not a good way to enjoy a TW game.
Blitzing in MTW made the game easy, blitzing in RTW made the game easy, blitzing in M2TW made the game easy. I'm not surprised ETW is easy if you blitz the game.
Even mods such as EB are easy if you blitz early on. Heck, even Europa Universalis II/III turns easy if you blitz with some factions.

So yeah, as I've said, set some house rules, try to play in a historical way, and the game will be much more enjoyable. I'm not asking you to pretend to suck or what not, but things like not going at war with everybody without casus belli for example, does improve the game.
I'm still a bit baffled CA did not even try to make conquering huge chunks of lands harder. The era saw little territorial changes in Europe, yet you can conquer western europe in 5 turns in game.

I don't say the AI isn't bad. I haven't played enough to give a real opinion on it, and to be honest, I doubt it's vastly better than RTW or M2TW AI's. But still, playing agressively has always made the TW games retardingly easy. No news here.

[Sir Beane]

To be honest, set some house rules, and the game stop to be easy. Early game blitz are not a good way to enjoy a TW game.
Blitzing in MTW made the game easy, blitzing in RTW made the game easy, blitzing in M2TW made the game easy. I'm not surprised ETW is easy if you blitz the game.
Even mods such as EB are easy if you blitz early on. Heck, even Europa Universalis II/III turns easy if you blitz with some factions.

So yeah, as I've said, set some house rules, try to play in a historical way, and the game will be much more enjoyable. I'm not asking you to pretend to suck or what not, but things like not going at war with everybody without casus belli for example, does improve the game.
I'm still a bit baffled CA did not even try to make conquering huge chunks of lands harder. The era saw little territorial changes in Europe, yet you can conquer western europe in 5 turns in game.

I don't say the AI isn't bad. I haven't played enough to give a real opinion on it, and to be honest, I doubt it's vastly better than RTW or M2TW AI's. But still, playing agressively has always made the TW games retardingly easy. No news here.

Some of the previous quirks of the game that made blitzing easy have been removed from Empire. Off the top of my head:

1. It is much harder to hold a region
2. The AI are more prepared to form coalitions to stop the player.
3. No access to another province without military access or declaring war.
4. No loot for sacking a town.
5. Emergent and re-emergent factions make things more difficult
6. No rebel towns to take early on.

It's still a very effective tactic though.

[Susanna]

I don't say the AI isn't bad. I haven't played enough to give a real opinion on it, and to be honest, I doubt it's vastly better than RTW or M2TW AI's. But still, playing agressively has always made the TW games retardingly easy. No news here.

I kind of agree.

To be honest, personally I hardly play aggressive as I am much to busy building every improvement in my towns and keeping my little serfs happy.
But as soon as I've read some game or faction guide on 'How to conquer the world in 15 turns' I find it very hard not to follow on the advice, knowing its much more effective to spam units than spend the money on city walls.
Somewhat diminishes my game enjoyment :(

I am not sure what the best solution would be. Most probably the modders will come up with something clever.

Susanna/Calapine

[AussieGiant]

I'll say it again.

Please play the Prestige game on VH/VH...get back to me with your thoughts at 1799...

...and that should not be for a few days.

While I expect the AI to be tweaked and made far more challenging now that CA have 20 000 play testers, JAG's comments are telling. Especially about trade war behaviour.

All this should be patchable which is a good thing.

[Fisherking]

Ok! There is an AI problem. Here is where I see the problem stemming from.

It is resource management.

AI resource management and some sort of threat analyses should be put in place, so the AI doesn’t spam units in isolated areas and redistributes its forces based on thread or intentions, by the most expedient means. This will be by sea in most cases, of course.

It should examine resources (units & fleets) to see if any may be used to aid in its allies’ wars.

They should manage their territories and decide on a military posture toward their neighbors in each theater.

If that posture changes due to war or peace, then the AI should redistribute its forces to match its perceived threats.

How territory is acquired is not important. By diplomacy or invasion, by land or sea.

Does anyone see it as some other problem?

[zarkis]

I'll say it again.

Please play the Prestige game on VH/VH...get back to me with your thoughts at 1799...

...and that should not be for a few days.

While I expect the AI to be tweaked and made far more challenging now that CA have 20 000 play testers, JAG's comments are telling. Especially about trade war behaviour.

All this should be patchable which is a good thing.

I played Maratha on VH/VH. I reached my long campaign goals at about 1738. At the same time I was already leading the prestige scale (because I downed most of the the British Navy blocking my trade lanes). Sorry, but going for a prestige game is no solution. The solution is CA finishes coding the campaign AI. It's obvious that there a features missing and the whole thing isn't properly balanced yet.

[AussieGiant]

I played Maratha on VH/VH. I reached my long campaign goals at about 1738. At the same time I was already leading the prestige scale (because I downed most of the the British Navy blocking my trade lanes). Sorry, but going for a prestige game is no solution. The solution is CA finishes coding the campaign AI. It's obvious that there a features missing and the whole thing isn't properly balanced yet.

Well that is interesting to hear, and a little disappointing. Do you think that continuing the game would have lead to any large scale nations providing a viable opposition to you?