• 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.

unmerged(200028)

Colonel
18 Badges
Mar 18, 2010
954
1
  • March of the Eagles
  • Victoria 2 A House Divided Beta
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sengoku
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Deus Vult
Hello, I bought MotE on the day of the release, but haven't really played it. I read the manual, played the tutorial, read a lot of the hints and tips included in the UI, so I have a basic theoretical understanding of how the game works and the general rules and concepts, but little to no practical experience in how the game plays out and behaves.

Apparently, this game's primary focus is that of war in the Napoleonic Era, with all other features and considerations peripheral. On the surface, it seems a little arcade-like and simplistic - a fun diversion rather than a serious strategy game. "Sit down, declare war on your neighbor, toss some armies around and recruit some brigades while having a good time" - etc., seems like the mood rather than legitimate number crunching and tactical considerations. I don't come here to attack the game, but I want to compare it to EU3 as a war game in terms of complexity and function. Though it does seem to 'zoom-in' a little more on warfare in terms of detail and features (the supply system is probably the most significant example) than EU3 does, it doesn't really seem all that different essentially. Functionally, is it really that different?

I often hear people say that this is an excellent game for what it is supposed to be, but how does it compare to EU3 in its primary aspect, warfare?
 
Way more detailed then EUIII so much so I don't think you could compare them as remotely similar.
 
Way more detailed then EUIII so much so I don't think you could compare them as remotely similar.

Really? Aren't outcomes in both games usually decided by numbers, terrain, troop quality, morale, and things of that nature?
 
The armies you build and the strategy you use. While it seems the same there is a lot you can influence in an army by the units you put in it, its not just infantry cavalry artillery.
 
Really? Aren't outcomes in both games usually decided by numbers, terrain, troop quality, morale, and things of that nature?


In MOTE you can customize your army builds, assigning brigades to each different flank and the reserve and positioning each brigade in each flank. You should assign appropriate commanders to each flank and set tactics which are appropriate to your army composition and what you are trying to achieve. Failing to plan and organize your armies in at least a half decent manner will result in crushing defeats. Terrain is a much more important consideration with hills and mountains giving more serious penalties than in EU3. Rivers are a very important consideration and give big penalties when you are attacking across them.

The siege system is also a good step up from EU3, though similar. I haven't read much into EU4 but I'm hoping it works similar to the MOTE style as this makes for better tactical considerations. Provinces without forts or towns are occupied immediately upon entering, however if you move through a province without first capturing the neighboring fort then the province will revert back to enemy control, requiring you to either leave a small force to occupy the province or to capture the fortress to secure your supply route and control of this region

While in SP the computer, like in most strategy games, can be easily outwitted, you had best take care with the disposition and actions of your forces in MP games. Mistakes lead to disasters, and lost armies take time and effort to replace and re-organize.
 
Really? Aren't outcomes in both games usually decided by numbers, terrain, troop quality, morale, and things of that nature?

Yes and no, EUIII is a very base version I would say is the only way to compare them, of course that is my opinion.
 
Yes, I imagine that MP would be much more challenging and rewarding than SP, as many of the details and complexities, I'm sure, can be overlooked for simple exploits and means of manipulating the AI. Still, in that regard, we can compare the MOTE AI to the EUIII AI.

I suppose it would be in my best interest to do some comparisons of actual mechanics and statistics.