Peace Negotiation System seems Broken!

[Mark_Everson]

I had a good stretch with EU2 for about ten hour of play, everything seemed to be going sensible. But my latest experience with peace negotiation was Very frustrating. How can I have 99% success, and yet the best the other side will agree to is to give me 20% of what I've conquered? I wouldn't care about the peace if I could actually derive economic benefit from the conquered provinces. But that is not available with the game design... I'll give a few more details in the hopes that someone more experienced can suggest a work-around.

I'm just learing the ropes, so I'm playing France at the weenie level in the age of exploration scenario. In my initial aggressions I was reasonably successful in this game, and ate about five provinces to the NE and another 5 in northern Italy. This earned me a "rather bad" badboy value. Then I built up and attacked Spain, both to my SE and southern Italy. I bungled handling my 2:1 troop superiority, so I couldn't take 'em over completely, but managed to conquer something like ten provinces total. I was able to get something like four of them in the peace, which I considered a bit frustrating, but workable.

Then I turned my sights upon England. I took basically everything they had, excluding colonies and trading posts because I didn't want to chase all over the map since this was just a learning game. I took 15 provinces. The Best I could get was three average ones (Calais, Wesex and one other) at the peace table even thought I had a 99% victory score! This was a little under Half the victory score worth... What gives? It took me like 3 hours of playing to take all of England, and I will pitch the game rather than have to do it 5 times to get what I've already earned on the battlefield.

For the small countries its practical to get it up to 100% and then you can annex them, but powers that have colonies makes that a rather lenghty exercise.

Thoughts Anyone? I'm going to post this on the EU board, once they see fit to approve me posting .

Thanks in advance,

Mark

[Havard]

What provinces were you asking for?

Most countries are very reluctant to give up any core provinces, and particularly if they have other provinces. Did you try asking for their colonies?

[Dauphin]

The English are just stubborn.

When they offered peace, what did they offer? Calais, Wessex...? Had you conquered Anglia?

[Maniac]

Frustrating I know. In my first game with Denmark I had conquered the entire Novgorod Kingdom, reaching a 100%, but I had to take satisfaction with a Vassalization and three provinces, while I was hoping to gain the Center of Trade. I personally think they should remove the rule that a country can only have one province to be annexed. Just controlling all provinces should be enough.

Anyway, I would advise to offer Vassalization (80% needed). You'll earn half their yearly income and you'll have no troubles with revolts. It's better than the alternative of earning some average provinces.

[Havard]

Originally posted by M@ni@c
Anyway, I would advise to offer Vassalization (80% needed). You'll earn half their yearly income and you'll have no troubles with revolts. It's better than the alternative of earning some average provinces.

Vassalisation is 70% AFAIK.

I like the 1 province annexation rule. It prevent too fast expansion for warmongers (and yes - I play warmonger games too ). Besides - there are very few historic examples on large annexations after one war too.

Speaking of stubborn: Playing the Ottomans today I was at war with the Knights of Rhodes. After annihilating their single army and taking their single province they still refused annexation...

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Gents, thanks for the repiles, ideas, and questions. First of all, I'm going to give a link to the same discussion on the EU2 forum, its here .

Havard, I am asking for some of thier core provinces, because that's what I want. I asked at first for pretty much the whole of western england, maybe 5 or six provinces that added to about 80%. I can't ask for colonies and trading posts because I haven't conquered those, and so can't request them. And anyway, I don't Want them . I was trying to keep it simple. You can see more of my reasoning if you want to check the thread linked above.

Sagacious Dolphin, when they offered peace it was Calais plus every two-bit colony and trading post they had, but other than Calais nothing I wanted in the least.

I did go with Vassalization plus Calais in the actual game, but I'm frankly pretty disgusted with the whole thing. You should be able to get ecnomic value from conquered territories after six months or a year whether there is peace or not! The game is no fun because of that design decision, combined with the refusal of powers to accept reality in peace negotiations. If I get badboy points as soon as conquered provinces became economically functional that would be reasonable, and should be the thing that holds expansion in check. Not IMO utterly arbitrary rules.

At this point I doubt I'm going to be interested enough start another game, and its a shame. The micromanagement required in EU2 has me at the breaking point... And needing to conquer territory what seems like may be six times to actually get it all is just too much. Vassalization might be ok, but I have no way to know if vassals actually stay that way or not through a whole game. Based on history they shouldn't.

Thanks for all the comments,

Mark

[Havard]

Originally posted by Mark_Everson
Hi Gents, thanks for the repiles, ideas, and questions. First of all, I'm going to give a link to the same discussion on the EU2 forum, its here .

Hm... I'll take a look there too then....

Havard, I am asking for some of thier core provinces, because that's what I want. I asked at first for pretty much the whole of western england, maybe 5 or six provinces that added to about 80%. I can't ask for colonies and trading posts because I haven't conquered those, and so can't request them. And anyway, I don't Want them . I was trying to keep it simple. You can see more of my reasoning if you want to check the thread linked above.

As has been mentioned - sometimes the AI can be stubborn... And as I mentioned the AI is not too keen on giving up core provinces if it can avoid it... would you be?

You should be able to get ecnomic value from conquered territories after six months or a year whether there is peace or not!

You do! You gain income from occupied territory, providing it isn't looted...

[Mark_Everson]

Mark Said:

You should be able to get ecnomic value from conquered territories after six months or a year whether there is peace or not!

Originally posted by Havard
You do! You gain income from occupied territory, providing it isn't looted...

Oh, how embarassing :0, I had assumed that since I couldn't build troops there or even get the standard provincial economy screen (with church etc.) that I was getting no income from them. So I am getting the province and trade income put into my country? While it doesn't completely satify me, its a lot better than I thought it was. Thanks Havard!

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Mark_Everson
At this point I doubt I'm going to be interested enough start another game, and its a shame. The micromanagement required in EU2 has me at the breaking point... And needing to conquer territory what seems like may be six times to actually get it all is just too much. Vassalization might be ok, but I have no way to know if vassals actually stay that way or not through a whole game. Based on history they shouldn't.

Micromanagement, please! Of course I'm only in 1450 now and I only have 8 provinces, but still, I don't think at all this game has much micromanagement. It's not like you have to keep an eye on everything all the time. Is it that hard to send some merchants to a CoT once in a while? Or to send diplomats to the few countries you are concentrating your efforts on? And armies, those you only have to move when there's war. And then it's still a lot of time waiting between sieges. Frankly, I think I have too [i[little[/i] to do in EU2; I think the game's too simple. Long live complex SMAC! Tell me, out of pure interest, do you think AoK has too micromanagement?

[Mark_Everson]

Hi M@ni@c:

Perhaps too much micromanagement (MM) for what I get out of it is more precise... It was when I tried to explore and start some colonies that it really got to me. Have you begun those activities yet? My other problem is that conquest must be done for each province, and, as I griped above, even when you win something you probably won't get to keep it. Units must be built with one mouse click per 1000 guys... I just have a very low tolerance for MM that isn't value-added YMMV. My problem with sending merchants to a COT is that I should be able to set very general guidelines and have it done automatically. Like "send two merchants to COT with best overall payoff" should be an order I could give.

I agree the fact that the econ developments are mostly one-choice-at-a-time (FE promote baliffs or not) makes the economic part of the game exremely shallow. The fact that there are just a few "tech lines" rather than a tree with choices is a big disappointment too.

[Maniac]

I'm afraid (or should I be happy ) I haven't started the rush to the Indias and Americas yet. After all it's only 1450 and I'm having some trouble with exchanging map information. Damn Portuguese! Personally I don't have much troubles with mouse clicking for each 1000 troops. But then again, I haven't arrived in the Napoleonic era where I will probably have to sent (and build!) 100000-men armies in the field. You're again right about the shallow choices... It already seems clear this game won't be the replacement of Civ3 I was hoping for. Still I think I will be able to enjoy this game for quite some time, trying out the different countries and strategies.

[St Leo]

Units must be built with one mouse click per 1000 guys...

Can't you click-and-hold as well? Or am I misremembering?

[Maniac]

I think I already tried it, but it didn't work. Though I'll retry. But in any case, they really should have included a better manual. It's not knowing for months those handy little things that makes the gameplay much more annoying.

[Grumbold]

Your complaint about the peace negotiations are understandable but its done this way becayse thats how it worked at this point in history. A country that lost a war would typically cede a few towns and a lot of money over to the victor but get most of the occupied territory back. If you score a 100% peace you can demand vasselisation and military access or (normally) choose up to 49% value in provinces. A rich home province with a COT might be worth 40% while you could get a dozen small colonial holdings for the same price. It takes some getting used to but I assure you that you can still expand faster and with less consequences than historically happened.

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks for the insight Grumbold, and the 49% limit is a handy thing to know about. But the fact that its "faster than history" doesn't make it any less tedious a game. As I said above, having to conquer the same turf 6 times is not my idea of fun.

I'm coming to the conclusion that EU2 and I just aren't meant for each other. Perhaps if there's an EU3 with a lot more automation of the current heavy-MM stuff, I'll give it another shot in the future. Thanks everyone for all the useful comments! 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!

And Grumbold, if you're still "Searching for unique Civilisation growth not predetermined racial templates" we could use your thoughts on how to achieve that in Clash of Civilizations! If you're interested check out our Social and Technology models off the web page. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how unique our civs can be without racial templates.