Wow. Newbie lost.

[Micha]

Hm, they also made games of Roman era (Pax Romana), early middle ages (crusader kings), industrialization era (victoria) and early 20th century (hearts of iron). So I guess there´s something for everyone.

Btw, I think the era of renaissance, exploration and trade empires was the most interesting one

Plus, I cannot understand how people say the interface was bad. I know many saying so, but I can´t see their problem... I like the UI, for it is easy to learn and easy to handle. Also the game works excellent in terms of information. You aren´t supposed to know whether you win or you lose before the battle, just like in reality. It would be boring if you could determine the outcome of a war before it has begun
Also check civ2 / smac, reloading before battles produces different outcomes...

[Micha]

As a rule of thumb:

Infantry determines morale loss, while cavalry determines enemy casualties. So if you want to kill an enemy, use cav, if you just want to win the battle, use inf.

[pg]

EU2 is mainly about economics not about superior tactics in battle. Most wars are decided by sheer manpower and money not tactics. I don't see why you are so upset over losing battles where the outcome is by no means certain(10k vs 4k). If the 4k were in defense terrain like mountain(brown province) and they had all infantry vs you having all cavalry they'd even be favored to win I think. If you are losing you can always retreat too before you lose totally.

Byzantine Empire is one the hardest nations to play in all of EU2. They are small, but have decent economy/manpower. However they have fairly bad slider settings IIRC and worst of all they start next to the Ottoman Empire! I learned to play by doing a couple American Civil War games as Americans. If you want to go on a conquering spree play the Mughal Empire in 1492 scenario or Ottoman Empire as they are very strong nations for war mongering.

[Akka]

Well, I'm upset because of the lack of information feedback from the game.

When all the indications I can get are green (superior numbers, adequate constitution of army for the terrain, superior leadership, equal morale), the game is basically telling me I'm going to win. And then, one time out of two or three, it goes apparently completely random, probably because there is plenty of hidden factors that I can't imagine.

It's irritating and frustrating. Strategy and planning consist of knowing how the world work, at least roughly, and making plans according to that. Playing russian roulette, with the "well, no luck this time", isn't fun.

The difficulty itself isn't really a problem. I'm playing on easy, so that I can get used to the mechanics while playing.
What's frustrating, is losing and not knowing why. Again, it makes the game feels random and arbitrary, not strategic. If there is a reason, at least make it clearly visible. If not, then it's excessively random.

[Micha]

Maybe it´s meant not to tell you what happens, to give it a more authemtic look. In those times, the monarchs sent their generals out to battle, waited for some days and hoped there´d be someone left to tell you about the outcome

[ravagon]

Two things I would suggest -

1) Don't start out playing Byzantium. Even if you really really want to. It just isn't worth the frustration if you're still trying to get the feel of the game as you have a lot of things you have to get right straight away to survive let alone prosper.
England, France, Aragon, Denmark, Sweden or Austria would all be much better choices starting out. Give the Byzantines another try once you have a better grasp of the system.

2) In the early game before nations have had much of a chance to tech-up combat does tend to be much more random. If the opposing forces have a better setting wrt monarch/stability/sliders then you might have a big problem until things start to even out a bit.
If you can get 10:1 odds in a battle you'll annihilate the enemy almost instantly. A spare 10k Cav wandering around (if you can spare them - As the Byzantines you probably can't early on) targetting his new-built formations of 1000 men is a godsend.
You were probably just unlucky losing to his 2k Inf with your 11k Inf/Cav though - most of the time this would have gone in your favour.
Cavalry is great in plains terrain but very poor in mountains/forests - the rule for those terrain types is to get there first with infantry if you're going to fight there.


Above all, don't give up on it. EU2 really is one of the better strategy games out there for a very good reason.

[Akka]

Ok, I'm feeling better to know that it's mainly during the early game that it's so random ^^

Well, I'm starting to getting the feel of it, and enjoying the game. After some game of alliances, I diplo-annexed Serbia, Athens and Moldavia, and some nifty rebels from made me absorb the rest of Turkey (but the grey one, allied to Golden Horde... Don't want to mess up with these guys ^^).

So, discovering about merchants, diplomacy and so on. Getting the grip. Getting some dose of addiction, and the desire to get back my core provinces (wonder why I have Azerbaijan in them, but not Naple :hmm: ).

Prepared a big attack against the Ottomans, allied with nubia (they were asking it for decades, anyway), massed armies, and then declaring war against them (that's coward, I know, but I suppose it's a widely used method ?).
They couldn't even defend themselves. Lost all their provinces north of Arabia and east of Quattara.
BUT...
I'm now at 93 % victory, and I consider it's time to end the war.
But these idiots refuse. I ask for only 52 % of territories, barely one half of the victory, and they refuse 0_o
So I'm wondering : what can I do ? I mean, they are already beaten to the pulp, two third of their country occupied, and I've 1000 ducats in reserve with a steady positive income if I need more military power. And I only ask for 52 out of 93 % of victory. Why don't they accept, and how can I force them to accept ?

[ravagon]

It's a bit of an oddity with the AI that they can often refuse rather generous peace deals only to come back a month or so later and offer you far more than you'd asked for.
I'm not sure if they still receive a stability hit if you're asking for substantially less than you've earned (might have to check the 1.08 readme file) but if they do then keep it up. Once their stability is into the red they'll start getting revolts and a government collapse will give you all of the provinces you occupy.
If the stab hit was removed in the last patch then you might just have to keep at it for a while - continue smashing any newly-built forces (they should be pretty small if you control most of their territory, hence income) and sieging provinces. They should collapse fairly soon.
If they have allies hit them too as they may feel they have a chance of coming back otherwise.
Similarly if they're still at war with anyody else and occupy another nations territories.
Same goes for their navy - if they still have one undefeated try engaging them a few times. Be careful though - from what I remember they start out with a lot of ships.

One last thing - try a save and reload. The EU2 AI has a tendency to go 'to sleep' after you've been at it for a while so it's a good idea to reload every decade or so.

[Akka]

Damn, I find myself locked into an absurd situation...

I've conquered ALL Mameluk empire. Every single of their provinces are occupied by my troops, except one that is occupied by Algier, and one which is occupied by Nubia.

I've 99 % victory. I still only ask them every three monthes for 52 %. They still refuse the peace (I wonder how, they don't even have any land units left, and they don't control anything...), and seem to still not take stability hits enough for the government collapsing (I wonder WHERE this government is...).

I can't have a go at their navy, if they have any (I've quite neglected mine own, a bit too busy on land ^^), and I can't reach their Oman allies, because of the countries in the way that don't want to sign a military access (and I don't feel like I should yet another war, with a +5 war exhaustion already in the way...).

When I started the war, and only took them their territory up to Jordan, they were asking me for peace against four of their provinces.
Now that they have been entirely conquered, they only accept a peace against three of their provinces (all three that were included in the previous deal of four...)

The victor being obliged to cow to the vainquished, simply because the non-existent vainquished is able to say "no" indefinitely...

It's getting a bit ridiculous...

[Micha]

No, if they didn´t control anything, you´d have 100%. They almost surely have occupied an enemy´s province (check if they are in a war against someone else) or have a colony left.

What you could do is try to trigger the civil war by decreasing your nation´s tolerance towards the enemie´s religion. This will mean some of the provinces you occupied will revolt, and if you´re lucky they get the "government falls" event which leaves you owning anything you control.

[Akka]

Ah, yes, they had Mekka under siege, but not still conquered.
I was fooled because there wasn't the health bar under the fortress ^^

Well, I'll see to it, and see if they listen to reason, then.

[Akka]

Conquered Mekka. Made peace with Oman, so now they are really alone against me.

No change at all.

I'm starting to be seriously stuffed with that. Most of their territories are now without my graps since more than five years, and I still can't do anything with them, nor sign peace, and as such have plenty of unrest due to war exhaustion (wonder why, it's not really like my home provinces had a lot of efforts to do...
And some utterly beaten ennemy can hold all my possibilities just because they can say "no" as long as they want, with no ill effect.

Edit : asked to some guys on the official forums.
Seems that the AI will sometimes simply refuse anything that is higher than half the victory rating. I don't know if it's a bug or a design decision, but it sure is completely stupid...

[Micha]

You now have 100% war score? If not, try demanding different provinces that make up less than 50% altogether. If yes, it should work with anything less than 75% demand...

[Akka]

Nah, I don't have 100 %. Ottomans have a last one province (Sahara) which I am unable to reach. I could settle a peace by asking for four provinces that made up for 48 % of victory, and the Ottomans would consistently and systematically refuse anything worth 50 % of more...

Now, I'm wondering on even another point : I'm now level 2 in land tech, infrastructure and trade. But according to my sliders, I will gain the next level in each, in a VERY distant future (something like 1560 for infra, 1730 for trade an so on).
I've an income of roughly 30, with 5 going to military, and all the rest being distributed between the different fields (except for stability, which I don't require), and only 1,5 going to the treasury.
Each time I can, I make the donation of 200 ducats to boost the research, but with 15000 to reach...

Considering the prices goes up during the game, how am I supposed to reach even the level 5 before the end of the game ? 0_o

[Micha]

lol, fear not!

don´t pay the 200d boost! It isn´t worth it!

Concentrate on key techs, like land or infra. For most countries the amount of money that goes into research is determined by monarch skills and neighbour´s techs anyway. When you change the policy sliders, the tech rate changes quite a bit, and with trade and infra going up, your income also increases greatly.

Also the tech level costs vary extremely, they are neither linear nor exponential. In Land tech, levels 11 to 14 cost almost nothing, you will rush through them within ten years, while it takes decades to reach level 5...

Just ignore any predictions in the budget screen, let the future come.

When you centralize your country, you will decrease research times, and whenever another country reaches a tech level you don´t have, your research budget in that category rises automatically at no cost (industrial espionage )