| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sol Invictus |
#21 | |||
|
There are several ways to make Major Factions perform and survive like one would expect a Major to do, but whichever way is chosen, CA or a modder simply must
end this rediculous situation. My own preference would be to have Border Regions that could be fought over and have the Core National Regions of Major Factions
as simply immune from annexation. CA doesn't seem able or is not willing to move beyond the simple conquest system that they originally Developed for
Shogun. I would really like to see a more elegant and subtle system developed.
|
||||
|
|
||||
epicgent |
#22 | |||
|
Im not looking forward to more sieges, specially the way how they are today. In my opinion they can cut out all sieges in total. Just have a army suround a
town till its surrenders or that its attempted to liberated by a other army. .. That's it. But Forts and fortified cities were important in this area. That
doesnt mean they have to be fought. just a way to slow down a enemy approach till you (or the AI) can scramble a army to fight in the field....
|
||||
|
|
||||
JAMiAM |
#23 | |||
|
Patch 1.2 beefed up the unrest levels in the major European capital regions quite a bit, from an initial 20, up to 30. This is a good start, but what I think
needs to happen is that every turn that a capital region has a net unrest, there needs to spawn an army of size (unrest + 1d6) with a maximum
size of 20 per stack. As it is now, only on the third turn do you get the army spawning, it is usually fairly small, and never gets reinforced.
If you know that a region is going to be more trouble than it's worth to "conquer" you might instead take the more historical route of just traipsing through the enemy countryside, destroying their armies, looting their territory and then forcing them to sue for peace. It's usually pretty easy to get a nation to agree to a peace treaty and trade agreement on the turn that you take one of their regions. If you do this the turn that you take an enemy's capital, or on the turn after you've burned down all their buildings, it would be a lot more "realistic" than simply conquering them. |
||||
|
|
||||
ItsAllGravy |
#24 | |||
|
i think multiple regions would be better personally
i think all capitals of European nations should be fortified from the beginning tokeefe2088>>>"You can put more than one, you can make an entire trade fleet and move it onto one anchor and depending on the resource you can start making a candycane-load of cash with trading partners. " i tested this, adding more ships on an anchor and it doesn't increase cash from that trade rout. i put my pointer on the lane, and the cash flow was the same with one ship or with 4 ships. |
||||
|
|
||||
AviramG |
#25 | |||
|
Cool idea jamiam... whatever makes the game deeper in terms of strategic options
|
||||
|
|
||||
Dionysius the Mighty |
#26 | |||
ItsAllGravy wrote:Actually, tokeefe2088 is correct. The thing is, the amount of money showing on the tooltip doesn't update until the following turn. So if you have a single Indiaman on a trade spot, then move another one into the fleet, you won't see an increase that turn, but hit End Turn and look again and you will see it making more money. Have a full stack of Indiamen on each trade node you control, and you'll be raking it in! |
||||
|
|
||||
gazr |
what do you mean no seige warfare | #27 | ||
|
err - in this period whole campaigns were dominated by maneuvers designed to capture or forcing an enemy to raze a strategic fortress. The one thing there was
very little of was full scale battles for two reasons:
1) they were unpredictable - even if you out-maneuvered the enemy you might get unlucky on the day; and 2) armies were expensive and getting loads of your men killed in a set piece battle was not the best way to conserve cash If you want an accurate simulation there should be more seige warfare rather than less! |
||||
|
|
||||
Qman.searnfootballforum |
#28 | |||
|
Good point, and the right move in the begining.
This is another example of how the next generation of this game Empire Total War II, needs to have fluid borders. |
||||
|
|
||||
Phalanyxx |
#29 | |||
|
Posts: 472 05/06/09 12:17:42 |
Finally... my mods and patch issues seem to be sorted out.
Playing as GB early in my campaign, France declares war on 13 colonies, so I join my Ally/Protectorate. Mostly naval battles, blockades, and one border skirmish in the Americas. After taking Montreal and Quebec, and kicking their butts with my Navy all over the world, my forces money is somehow dwindling and my Armies are stretched too thin.(go figure, I captured 4regions, and finally have 1 standing army, and 2 fleets with 8 units each, my money has gone from 10k per turn, to less than 4000). Seeing the possibility of the Iroquois backdooring me and taking back all my gains, I sued for peace with France and they accepted. Looking across the channel throughout the war(I moved my rake to France from GB), I could have taken Paris at will, any time I wanted. It was completely unguarded for about 10 turns. I chose not to, to keep France in game. It's so bloody disappointing to see such crapasstic Campaign AI. You have to throttle yourself back, to keep the game interesting. Thinking back to Rome, or Medieval 2, you'd peer into your enemies backyard, and more often than not see multiple large enemy armies guarding their homeland, and wouldnt even consider going for their capital. If you did manage a naval landing and took a capital, you'd have the wrath descend upon you, multiple full stacks from all directions. Not so much the case in Empire. The game is at least playable now, but there are still game breaking deficiencies with Campaign and Battle AI. Not to mention the extremely weak reinforcement system in Empire, and sieges of forts, or fortified cities are so simplistic it's astonishing, and one of the most disappointing features of the game.
Last Edited By: Phalanyxx 05/06/09 12:22:52.
Edited 3 times.
|
|||
|
|
||||
Daniel Boone |
#30 | |||
|
Posts: 186 05/06/09 15:25:37 |
The monolithic megaregions make France and Spain too easy to conquer, particularly France. You can land an army at Le Havre and be in Paris in the same
turn. The AI has lost Paris as a recruiting center and thus can't raise an army for a counterattack. War with France is effectively over in one turn, its
ridiculous. I say again France needs to be split into multiple regions so the French defenders will still have recruiting centers if Paris falls.
|
|||
|
|
||||
impar |
#31 | |||
redduke wrote: You are correct. Those monster provinces need to be splitted. |
||||
|
|
||||
TheDeadeye27 |
#32 | |||
Daniel Boone wrote:Funny that the AI still cannot function even in the smallest sense adequately enough to present some sort of a challenge or do some sort of logic step ever since the game has been pratically dumped down in terms of complexity. Let me explain. In previous total war games there were loads and loads of buildings to build and units to recruit, therefore the AI may (or not) be overwhelmed and not building the most efficient units and buildings. NOW in Empire this has been reduced to a bare minimum and completely streamlined to a few buildings per province and a small unit roster and STILL the AI is not even capable of handling that. I don't know what CA is doing all day long in their offices apart form telling us to have a great weekend and and reminding us of impending UK bank holidays but this is really unsettling to put it in the mildest words. 2 months after release and the game still feels like years apart from being somewhat what we all had wet dreams over prior to the March 3rd release date. Boy..what did we have fantasies....and boy how we got disappointed. |
||||
|
|
||||
vallu751 |
#33 | |||
|
I agree that France and Spain are too easy to take out. I wouldn't want to see the regions split up, though. Personally I'd vote for the option that
major nations get a couple of turns to act until they dissipate, maybe 3. Their existing armies could try to relieve the capital in that time, and they should
also be supported by sizable rebels.
Or perhaps larger towns should get better units than just the citizen rabble? For example, if a city has 5 rabble available, one of them would actually be a better unit. They could be considered officer cadets in training, police forces, garrisons and so forth. And that number would go up. Facing a major power capital could see some 12 rabble and 8 real units. The MTW II concept of having free upkeep units at cities (in addition to the rabble) would be nice, but I don't think the AI could handle it... it couldn't utilize it well in MTW II. |
||||
|
|
||||
redduke |
#34 | |||
|
Well I hope they do something about it as its game-braking for me. I guess I should go and play someone other than Britian, France or Spain for a bit.
|
||||
|
|
||||
normandymaster |
#35 | |||
|
Posts: 1682 05/07/09 05:35:46 |
I agree that the GC map is as it is (GB is a third of France in reality but got 3 times more regions!). What we need is bigger mob armies, they are poor troops
but if you have 3 full staks of them to defend a city like Paris or Madrid it would change a lot. The more populated a region is the more "mob"
armies it should have, France had 20 millions of inhabitants, nobody could have taken this country easily (and no one did in the 18th). Unrest is also a way to
go if unrest is heavy during 10 years and lots of armies spam during this years you should be prepared to wage another war in those countries. You'd need
big armies to hold France or Spain, say 2-3 full stacks. Big mob armies (related to thez population of the country) + big unrest would make early blitzkrieg
stupid.....
|
|||
|
|
||||
Bzak |
#36 | |||
Dionysius the Mighty wrote:you can get it to update that turn if you move your ship off the trade node and then merge and move the merged fleet back on the trade node. |
||||
|
|
||||