Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[a1s]

I've been thinking, this being a paradox title (more precisely a EU-like) aren't over 90% of the players in the biggest multiplayer games still AIs?

[Micro102]

Omg.... all countries controlled by players multiplayer game... What would that be like.

[Sindain]

Omg.... all countries controlled by players multiplayer game... What would that be like.

Lots of people would lose reaallly quickly?

[Micro102]

You think? Would anyone want anyone else to get an advantage over them? I can imagine instant alliances and coalitions forming, and the only way anything is getting done is a literal world war.

[a1s]

Omg.... all countries controlled by players multiplayer game... What would that be like.

Lots of people would lose reaallly quickly?

Well, it's kinda like being eliminated from the first round of the World Championship: it might be short, but you were part of something memorable.
(plus imagine how amazing the decrease in lag will feel)

[Greenbane]

I haven't played EU4 in a while, and now am two expansions behind. Having some experience with modding, I can tell you guys that if truce times are such a big deal, you can edit common\defines.lua (preferably with Notepad++) and adjust the values to your liking. This is what you're looking for:

Code: [Select]

TRUCE_YEARS = 5, -- _DDEF_TRUCE_YEARS_; Years of Truce
SCALED_TRUCE_YEARS = 10, -- Additional years of truce based on % of warscore taken in war (100% warscore = full scaled truce years)
It'd seem truce lengths are variable, depending on the intensity of the previous war, as indicated on the comments.

As for losing to a smaller force, there's more than troop numbers and general quality at play. There's unit types, composition, tech and terrain. Terrain can not only provide bonuses to the defender, but also reduce the front width (which I don't think is maximized in the beginning even in optimal terrain), diminishing the viability of large armies until your technology is sufficiently advanced.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Did you attack them in mountains? What mil tech did you both have? Did they have a better army composition? What units were you using? What pips did the generals have? Did you have any military ideas? What year was it? Did you have any maluses in place like "increased serfdom"?
Savoy can take Defensive, Offensive and Quality for the record.

There's a lot that factors into military battles and if you miss something even minor it can completely floor your army.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Well, it's more like the issue with EU4's combat system is it's so opaque and you're bound to lose most battles anyway unless you get together doomstacks for warring. Because the only reliable way to actually play the game and win battles is to get the insta-wipe battles and nothing else. If you don't get into an insta-wipe battle you'll always lose a disproportionate amount of forces and/or morale in the first shock phase no matter the rolls, it's actually pretty neat to see. EU4 combat is more whack a mole than ever thanks to the useless [for you] and broken [for AI] shattered retreat, as well. Which is why you always want to instantly wipe, because 'battles' in EU consist of the AI getting ridiculous damage numbers and near-null damage without a 6+ advantage on rolls.

And don't lie to me about discipline/morale/tactics being the most important factors. I've been the one with the most discipline/morale/tactics since launch because EU4s combat system consists of rushing for discipline and morale bonuses, and yet despite this Nubian nationalists in mountains outnumbered 10-1 can still inflict significant casualties despite general bonuses *if* they get to actual combat. It's the fact that you're basically forced into doomstacking everything to combat that makes EU4 combat such a boring, boring slog, honestly.

I'm actually getting significant morale losses lately attacking shattered armies with .01 morale. That's something that's bound to make you delete the game.

[Tarran]

They really, honestly should play more single player. Yes, yes, the multiplayer is amazing, it's fantastic, it's some of the best fun you can have in 2014, but still. These things are not rocket surgery. AI that doesn't outright murder suspension of disbelief is always a bonus, Paradox!

*shake fist*

Even if they did, Johan seems determined to balance the game around multiplayer regardless based on his posts. He believes that, if something is balanced in multiplayer, it will also balance out in singleplayer if the AI behaves like a human does if I remember his wording correctly. You can find it somewhere on the same thread Rakonas linked to.

[Sheb]

I wish we had a better intelligence system. It's ridiculous that before declaring war on the UK I can tell their army if made of 35476 Infantrymen, 23124 Cavalrymen, 30495 Artillerymen and a three-legged mule named Bob, but I have no idea if their troops even are in the UK proper or in their colonies...

[jakeread1]

So many things wrong with this game, and so many things are going to get worse because of the patches; and yet I still find my self staying up 3 days straight trying to eating the world as Ryukyu...

[EnigmaticHat]

Is the game actually balanced in multiplayer anyway?  I have a hard time imagining that being true...

[Catastrophic lolcats]

God no. Not in any way shape or form. It's always been an accepted fact that to play any Paradox game in MP you have to enforce about a bajillion house rules. Why Johan is putting so much emphasis on MP boggles me, especially since their last MP focused game, March of the Eagles, bombed harder than a poor analogy.

[Sergarr]

So, is EU4 a total failure?

[WealthyRadish]

Rebels suck, AI cheats

Worth noting that for nationalists (and maybe patriots, can't remember), they'll spawn with the same tech level and base morale as your units, though possibly in a different tech group. It means that basically you're going to be fighting armies of around the same quality as your own armies, which seems disproportionately tough when you consider how far ahead players usually are over their neighbors. When you add on top the 10-25% morale bonus some types get (though many get a malus), and the fact that you'll almost always be the one attacking, it's natural that you'll need a larger army to beat them, and that they'll inflict more casualties. Really all that it means is that you shouldn't be lazy and leave conquered provinces alone with revolt risk, you should always be using harsh treatment and an occupying army for high base tax provinces.

If you want to avoid ping ponging, you can either raise the maximum dice roll (making combat more random) or increase the amount of minimum time armies have to stay engaged (at its extreme, one army would always eventually destroy the other to the last man).