-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The gist of your arguments is that everything happens too soon in EU. That's true. The (human) English player has most of North America before the first permanent English settlement (1607) occurred in real life. If that doesn't happen, then the Spanish are dug in too far north. Everything is moved up in time when the human player is capable and aggressive. But that's true in every game. Large forts won't retard this by much; I can still conquer China by 1550 if I want to.
As for me "cheating" I just take advantage of the game features, like everyone else. That's not cheating.
Giving the Chinese mighty forts is a computer cheat. If that's how the designers want to do it, then fine. But it's still a computer cheat, because it is not realistic and it is not a feature that is applied across the board.
I also don't like giving England small forts, like the IGC does. That makes England even easier for me to play, takes away one of the "challenges" of the GC which I would prefer to keep in the game.
In fact, the IGC has skewed the GC so much (in the name of "historical accuracy" of course) that I finally tossed the IGC. Part of the reason was I was tired of so many changes in such a short time, but another part was that a level playing field for all countries should not be a feature in this game.
As for me "cheating" I just take advantage of the game features, like everyone else. That's not cheating.
Giving the Chinese mighty forts is a computer cheat. If that's how the designers want to do it, then fine. But it's still a computer cheat, because it is not realistic and it is not a feature that is applied across the board.
I also don't like giving England small forts, like the IGC does. That makes England even easier for me to play, takes away one of the "challenges" of the GC which I would prefer to keep in the game.
In fact, the IGC has skewed the GC so much (in the name of "historical accuracy" of course) that I finally tossed the IGC. Part of the reason was I was tired of so many changes in such a short time, but another part was that a level playing field for all countries should not be a feature in this game.
Self-contradiction renders your whole argument worthless. Wanna think this one out again?
Heyesey, where do you see any "self-contradiction"? Maybe you didn't understand what I said?
Galadriel, conquering China is easy after you find it, and you can find it by 1530. After that, just send in fast armies to suppress the Chinese armies; after all provinces are occupied send in infantry/artillery teams to reduce the forts. Might take a few years, but 1550 is an easy target.
In the GC, I might capture the Chinese CoT early, but I generally leave the Chinese alone until near the end-game. Reason is, taking China in one war adds about 21 BB points which I don't like, and taking them in a series of wars adds too many stability hits while research is going on.
If the Chinese have stronger forts, it would probably be better to take them out in an early war, so they wouldn't be a threat later in the game. Seems like their land tech does get better. In this case, I wouldn't mind absorbing the BB points (only takes 84 years to lose them) and a few BB wars would help my expansion, after all. Plus, some of the Chinese provinces are rich.
If the Chinese have stronger forts, it would probably be better to take them out in an early war, so they wouldn't be a threat later in the game. Seems like their land tech does get better. In this case, I wouldn't mind absorbing the BB points (only takes 84 years to lose them) and a few BB wars would help my expansion, after all. Plus, some of the Chinese provinces are rich.