Peace Negotiation System seems Broken!

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Mark_Everson
I'll probably return to EU2 after a bit to try a "breakout" scenario being a small fry. The MM shouldn't be particularly bad that way!

May I suggest Byzantium in that case? I agree with you btw. The only fun countries are probably the small ones. So I think I'll never play Castile or England because they're too easy.

[Shadowstrike]

The beauty of the EU peace negotiation system is that it mirrors the political situation of the time (in Europe, anyhow). You aren't going to overrrun your neighbor in one gulp. You'd whittle them down and make them your vassals, then annex them, gradually convincing the locals that you indeed have the God-given right ot rule them.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Shadowstrike, I hear you. But... Lets say there's a game that very accurately reflects what happens when one goes grocery shopping (God I hope there isn't Really!) While its a good representation of reality, I expect I'd be fully as engaged and excited playing it as I would by going grocery shopping. I feel somewhat that way about the EU peace resolution system...

[Shadowstrike]

Stubborn AIs and monarchs were things of the time though. Consider that in EU, it is usually likely that a one province nation will accept annexation under any circumstance. Now consider that many, many of the HRE states refused to hand over their claims to their domain, even through they haven't ruled in them for decades. Getting the big powers to cede lands should be difficult as choking a cat. After all, they are the big shots of Europe and its a lot harder breaking their will (have you ceded land for peace as a player? )

Of course if you want the AI to surrender meekly, play EU1. Overrun, anex, rince, repeat. Kinda repetative after the first dozen annexations and the third world conquest game.

[vishniac]

Mark

Talking about sending merchants to CoT: it's tedious. I own EU and not EU2, but there is a simple 'check' which automatizes it for you.

I hope it is in EU2 too.

[Grumbold]

Yes thats a good point. If you want a military dominance game, EU1 is more the thing for you. You can claim up to 3 provinces from a partial war but swallow the whole country if you take everything (excepting the 8 major powers who can never be eliminated entirely).

I love EU2 because it is more historical than any other strategy game on the market. Leaders will refuse to surrender and attack when its crazy to do so. Provinces you've owned for generations will still revolt against your rule if you oppress them. Being the biggest warmonger in the world will make you feared and hated, not loved or fawned upon, and everyone will jump on the bandwagon if an alliance screws up the courage to attack you. Its a lot more fun than overrunning the world in one unstoppable tidal wave like in Civ.

Mark if I have enough free time that I think I can seriously absorb a whole new game system and then provide intelligent comment, I'll start with Clash I've steered clear of the Alt Civ projects so far becasue I know I won't be able to devote time to any of them with any consistency.

[Havard]

Re: Mark

Originally posted by vishniac
Talking about sending merchants to CoT: it's tedious. I own EU and not EU2, but there is a simple 'check' which automatizes it for you.

I hope it is in EU2 too.

Yup. It's there. I never use it though...

[Mark_Everson]

Hi All:

Shadowstrike, I don't want a game where the AI rolls over. I just hate having to conquer the same ground over and over.

Hey, vishniac, yes the same auto-Merchant feature is there and that's what I use because I'm too lazy to do it by hand. But as I understand it, the auto-M thing is Very poor because of the way the COT rules work.

Grumbold:

On EU1 vs EU2, as I understand it EU2 is more balanced and harder. That's why I bought it to try out the series and not EU1. As far as I can tell, all the IMO defective territory transfer rules is delay the inevitable. It just makes it feel to me more tedious to defeat the AI, not necessarily harder. It all comes down to the amount of fun per unit playing time. Since I can see myself fighting the same wars over and over again the gratification (conquering in this case) is delayed a lot longer than it has to be. What I Really would like is for them to make the AI better, so that you just can't militarily take over major countries in one shot.

On Clash... you don't really need to devote a lot of time if you haven't got it. Downloading demo 6, reading the short manual, and playing it a few times would take about an hour, and allow you to give us some critical feedback on what is good and what sucks so far (its only like 10% of the real game so far). Feedback while we're working on things is Much more important than after everything is polished. A little time now could give good leverage in making Clash a year from now a kind of game you'd like to play. Only if you like things enough to be interested in serious contributions would you need to read lots of game models etc. We will try to lure you to the dark side of the force in small easily-digestable steps.

[Grumbold]

EU2 is the better game, but by "better" I mean that the dsigners have tried to inject even more realism into the model, like all the historical events and domestic policies. Its not designed as a conquer the world game and certainly is less fun to play if that is what you try to do. I can assure you that if you play on the higher difficulty settings then the "badboy" rules will ensure you a world of pain if you try to go that route as the AI goes postal on you, but it won't alter the fact that you will need to take more territory than you can then claim in each war. To grab whole countries in one go you can only vasselise+access, leaving you to attack the next country while you slowly diplo-annex your new vassal.

I'll try and check out Clash sometime soon. You may have to wait until Morrowind is out of my system first