No Graduation in Difficulty!

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

honestly for me it isnt upkeep that anger me so much as the huge cost for buildings. I am starting to think it is no longer worth it to industrialize, the cost is just to great (4000 for a weavers factory, seriously!) for me this is a problem, I am trying to roleplay a austrian campaign, and I have the feeling the game basically needs me to blitz, which I dont want to do.

and the problem is the benefit of making these buildings is so tiny it dosnt even recoup the cost!

[Graphic]

They inflated the building costs too? That sucks. I wouldn't know personally, I was busy spending all my money on reinforcing my one army as it was constantly fighting.

None of this would be an issue if there wasn't the bug Fisherking mentioned. This should be hot-fix level priority, I think. CA please hear us!

[Fisherking]

honestly for me it isnt upkeep that anger me so much as the huge cost for buildings. I am starting to think it is no longer worth it to industrialize, the cost is just to great (4000 for a weavers factory, seriously!) for me this is a problem, I am trying to roleplay a austrian campaign, and I have the feeling the game basically needs me to blitz, which I dont want to do.

and the problem is the benefit of making these buildings is so tiny it dosnt even recoup the cost!

EXACTELY!

There should not be JUST ONE APPROCH to the game.

This is what frustrates me so much. They seem to be catering to the gang that just attacks. And if they can afford an army then the game is too easy.

There is no point in investing in the economy. There is no point in reducing taxes to grow population or wealth. There isn’t any real point in building trade vessels.

It has taken away the wealth of depth from the game. Now it is just a war game. You may as well give us all the armies up front and take everything else out.

If armies were not unaffordable enough the two 6% increases as you tech up have a serious effect.

The game may have seemed too easy for those who do nothing but war but it has ruined it for those who wish to build something more lasting.

The game is not supposed to cater to the VH/VH Grognoids! But that is what they always seem to turn into.

War and the military should place a strain on the economy. The trouble now is that you have no economy substantial enough to defend your self, much less fueling an expansionist policy, unless you base the military on taxes and conquering new near by regions.

Taking a mainland European Region may net you several thousand, while taking Georgia or the Windward Islands will only cover the upkeep for a single line infantry unit. It makes it rather hard to justify their capture other than it is a victory condition.

But if those testing the game ever played a faction other than Prussia they would have already found this out.

[Slaists]

honestly for me it isnt upkeep that anger me so much as the huge cost for buildings. I am starting to think it is no longer worth it to industrialize, the cost is just to great (4000 for a weavers factory, seriously!) for me this is a problem, I am trying to roleplay a austrian campaign, and I have the feeling the game basically needs me to blitz, which I dont want to do.

and the problem is the benefit of making these buildings is so tiny it dosnt even recoup the cost!

So, it went up from 3000 (I think that's what it was) to 4000. Is it that big of a deal? In the pre-patch game game there was a point in mid-game from which my tax revenue started shooting up almost exponentially (without me taking any extra provinces); so, in no time, my treasury had huge surplus, which in its due order rendered the game non-enjoyable.

I like the new cost system; maybe (just maybe) the new tax modifier is a bit overdone. As it stands now, one can give up a fully developed province and that results in an aggregate tax revenue INCREASE because the global tax rate goes up.

However, that increase in total tax revenue is balanced out by loss in trade revenue so the total revenue still goes down. I tested this on an American colony: so, not sure how the effects would balance out for a European province.

Trade is much more important now. Trade and keeping the trade routes clean, including the trade routes to your trade partners... Playing as England, one actually needs a foothold in Meditarranean (like Malta with almost no income) to have a place to harbor/repair ships damaged while cleaning trade routes. And, you know what? It makes sense...

EXACTELY!

... while taking Georgia or the Windward Islands will only cover the upkeep for a single line infantry unit. It makes it rather hard to justify their capture other than it is a victory condition.

But if those testing the game ever played a faction other than Prussia they would have already found this out.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here... Tax increase from taking Winward islands used to cover one unit of line infantry at best and taking a European province (France for example) used to net WAY MORE than any province in the colonial theaters also before the patch. The fact is though, that the tax from Winward islands is actually just a small portion of the total income increase. At least in my campaign, they generate way more in trade income than from tax. As long as I keep my trade routes clean (including helping out my trade partners blocked by their enemies).

[al Roumi]

I would agree with Slaists. After reading the change list and noticing the large cut in income the patch caused to my (then current) GB campaign, I started a new UP campaign (as opposed to a central european state's) -precisely because i thought the earnings from trade would be less affected by the changes and hence even more important.

As far as I am concerned, the economic changes of patch 3 have only accentuated the already apparent trend that tax revenue doesn't fund much untill you industrialise (or have rich farms). Historically, the 1700's were all about colonial land grabbing for new/more resources, on which trading empires where built. Only in the 1800's did industry really kick off and states acquire wealth from anything other than farming or trade in commodities.

So, in ETW i'm happy that you shouldn't be able to be rich in a land-locked central european state with no overseas colonies untill you research the techs and can industrialise.

[JAG]

Welcome to a REAL game, one in which you have to think about priorities.

If you are GB you CANNOT send lots of armies in to the field and maintain your trade - THAT IS THE POINT. Not only is it historical but it makes the game interesting.

Prussia can build more armies and go on a rampage - BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY DID - go look at a history book of the Prussians in the 18th century. Plus not only is it historically accurate, it is interesting and different, exactly how I wanted the game to be when it was released.

You could go on and on, basically what we have here is people who have played the game as it was - terrible - for too long and now the game is somewhat like it should be, people are going crazy. If you can't handle it, get better if you don't understand it, go read some books.

[Dayve]

Welcome to a REAL game, one in which you have to think about priorities.

If you are GB you CANNOT send lots of armies in to the field and maintain your trade - THAT IS THE POINT. Not only is it historical but it makes the game interesting.

Prussia can build more armies and go on a rampage - BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY DID - go look at a history book of the Prussians in the 18th century. Plus not only is it historically accurate, it is interesting and different, exactly how I wanted the game to be when it was released.

You could go on and on, basically what we have here is people who have played the game as it was - terrible - for too long and now the game is somewhat like it should be, people are going crazy. If you can't handle it, get better if you don't understand it, go read some books.

Agreed.

As GB i'm now torn between going on an offensive against the Huron or defending my American territory and my protectorate, the 13 colonies, against the French, Iroquois, Huron and Cherokee. In the previous patch i would have been making enough money to simply build 3 or 4 huge armies and go on the offensive against everyone in the region, and still maintain an enormous fleet too.

[Slaists]

By the way, Cherokees & Iroquois do take peace offers nowadays if they feel like it... It's a shame it's not possible to force them to make peace with other parties of the war (13 colonies) as part of the ceasefire deal.

[AussieGiant]

Please start a new campaign before take a position on the situation.

I've started again as Prussia who I never play on h/m and it's been a very tough thought provoking 40 years of rule.

Choices choices choices. They are all over the place now.

Clearly continuing a current campaign is going to throw untold amounts of variables into the mix with the old and new code.

They've said flat out that is what we should do, so spend a bit of time on a new campaign and get back here with thoughts.

I'd go banana's if this place turned into the neurotic, kindergarten that TWcentre is.

[Graphic]

By the way, Cherokees & Iroquois do take peace offers nowadays if they feel like it... It's a shame it's not possible to force them to make peace with other parties of the war (13 colonies) as part of the ceasefire deal.

A mod that removed the ability of protectorates to have foreign policy would be so excellent. Protectorates should always have the exact same diplomatic relations as the protector.

Anyway, I started a campaign as the Dutch, and at least for them it's MUCH more reasonable than GB. I'm so fithy stinking rich....

[andrewt]

Welcome to a REAL game, one in which you have to think about priorities.

If you are GB you CANNOT send lots of armies in to the field and maintain your trade - THAT IS THE POINT. Not only is it historical but it makes the game interesting.

Prussia can build more armies and go on a rampage - BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY DID - go look at a history book of the Prussians in the 18th century. Plus not only is it historically accurate, it is interesting and different, exactly how I wanted the game to be when it was released.

You could go on and on, basically what we have here is people who have played the game as it was - terrible - for too long and now the game is somewhat like it should be, people are going crazy. If you can't handle it, get better if you don't understand it, go read some books.

Since you started flaming on the next page, I'll flame you as well. Do you have any concept what a game means? If we have to do the same thing the countries did historically, why even bother playing? Might as well just pick up a history book. It ends up the same way. Seriously, I'm getting tired of the uber-historical grognards here who can't seem to grasp why people play games based on history. The point is to change history, not mimic it to the letter.

This seems to be going down the same route as Civ 4 did. The constant war people ruined that game. By the time they finished with BTS, there was no point to building any improvements or researching anything anymore, just mass troops, conquer and get all your research by conquest. Bleh.

[Nelson]

Do you have any concept what a game means? If we have to do the same thing the countries did historically, why even bother playing? Might as well just pick up a history book. It ends up the same way. Seriously, I'm getting tired of the uber-historical grognards here who can't seem to grasp why people play games based on history. The point is to change history, not mimic it to the letter.

I think what the history fans (myself included) are looking for is a game where yes, we can do what we want while remaining fettered, at least somewhat, by the confines of historically accurate capacities and circumstances.

[AussieGiant]

I think what the history fans (myself included) are looking for is a game where yes, we can do what we want while remaining fettered, at least somewhat, by the confines of historically accurate capacities and circumstances.

This sounds dangerous like making the game too hard to me Nelson. You should not be so radical in your thinking there my friend.

[andrewt]

So, it went up from 3000 (I think that's what it was) to 4000. Is it that big of a deal? In the pre-patch game game there was a point in mid-game from which my tax revenue started shooting up almost exponentially (without me taking any extra provinces); so, in no time, my treasury had huge surplus, which in its due order rendered the game non-enjoyable.

Do the math. Even before the patch, the higher level buildings are barely worth it. If you look at the increase in income from the higher level buildings versus their costs, it would take 30-50 game turns to pay it back. If you're a min-maxer, it's only worth it to build one of the higher level buildings, to access the techs that they unlock.

[anweRU]

Even before the patch, the higher level buildings are barely worth it. If you look at the increase in income from the higher level buildings versus their costs, it would take 30-50 game turns to pay it back. If you're a min-maxer, it's only worth it to build one of the higher level buildings, to access the techs that they unlock.

In my pre-patch Swedish campaign, I built every single building (including very poor ones) to its maximum level. Based on my (then) 120K tax vs 80K trade income by 1745, with only ~35 regions, I would say it was worth it. People forget about the +xx to town wealth income modifier.

Now, how will it affect my post-patch start-from-scratch campaigns? I'll find out in a couple of weeks.