• 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.
Originally posted by strategy


I think the problem for most people who consider world conquest is that it really gets boring at the end. Up till now, I have never completed a game of EU. :) I'll see if I can make the Empire of the North the first I do complete (though its hard...)

Yeah, I rather think it's tedium that puts most people off the project. The problem is that the tedium comes early in the game - I don't recall ever having any interesting situations after 1570 or so... just a lot of hard work.

As for Empire of the North, why don't you give up? We'll never let the Danes go through with that! :)
 
Originally posted by Ironikinit
EU gets compared to Civ2 a lot for some reason, but the big fun being in the early years seems real familiar.

And who got elected HRE?

Which is a real shame, since EU is structurally a lot more like Imperialism than Civ, and Imperialism doesn't suffer form end-game tedium (much).

HRE? The last guy was a knight of Saint John, and since the ksj where the last to go he was HRE emperor till the big red (er, brown) machine came for him. What use he might have had from being Emperor sitting on Crete in a Russki world is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
Originally posted by tim554
Russia is Probably the easiest of the countries for world conquest, In the first 10 years you can always conquer Kazan the Horde, Astrakan,Georgia, Sibir, Uzbecs, Teutonic Knights, Prussia, and if not at least a good portion of Persia and Sweden, And of course a big portion of Poland but I go slow there and use it also as a Hostile buffer the first 10 years. Crimea is more useful allied for the first 10 years as a buffer state, I think, or you could take that too.



BS. You can't do all that in 10 years. Even if you can actually raise the troops for it, you couldn't move them around fast enough to annex all those countries.
:mad:
 
I just browsed the screen shots. Impressive! The micro management must have been awesome!

One question though: as I understand it, it has some consequences to choose no majors in the IGC. Ie. they do not play by the major power rules.

From my messing around with the AI I can see that the majors have seperate AI scripts for their behaviour as majors. Every non-major country uses a standard script. Now, if you degrade a major nation to a non-major via the IGC (in order to be able to annex them), I suspect those majors might be using the standard AI script, which is ofc. less efficient since it doesn't include the special attention to the specific location and strategies of the majors.

So IMO the right thing to do is probably to use the IGC (or edit the save file) to make the majors non-majors only just before you are about to annex them. That way they should perform up to their best the rest of the time. The AI is weak allready - no reason to handicap it any further IMO.

It's just theory though. I'm not asking you to replay your campaign to test it :D :D :D

Can anyone prove me right or wrong?
 
Originally posted by Sgt. Bulldog

Can anyone prove me right or wrong?
AFAIK, ai scripts are assigned to country, regardless if they are 'major' or not. Though it's quite long time since i played EU I...
 
Sorry for explaining it so poorly. :?

2nd try: there are seperate AI files. One seperate file (script, I gather) for each of the major nations.

And then one file called 'standard'. Ie. there's no special AI for Teutonic Order - they play by the same (standard) AI as the Incas.

That should iron out that little misunderstanding.

Now, anyone?
 
Now thats agression at its best :)
Who said nice guys dont finish last?
 
They were saying "Stalin's dead" or what ? :)
Lucky us, that's only a game.

These screens look like cancer photos.
Terrible but impressive.

Congrats

Guloo