silber
Posts: 47
Joined: 7/22/2004 Status: offline
|
I played two games (or parts thereof). The first was from the 1792 scenario, as France. After some tough initial fighting, I defeated Austria and Prussia, added by the fact that Sweden attacked Prussia, and Russia attacked both of them. After that, the game degenerated into a wierd situation where everytime a clear leader emerged, everyone ganged up on them. (It reminded me rather of board games of Diplomacy). By 1805, Europe was a patchwork with Turkish provinces in Central Europe, Spanish provinces in Eastern Europe etc. I haven't tried 1796, but compared to 1805, there is no stability to political alignments. I think that the tendency of the AI to jump on the leader perhaps needs to be tempered by a tendency to remain at peace if the leader isn't too powerful. Or something. In 1805 (at least through 1808) everyone basically jumps on France, and, with the exception of a quick war between Turkey and Russia, I didn't see any European powers fight anyone other than the French/Spanish alliance, or an occasional neutral. However, the peacemaking AI seems to discount "Enforced Peace", so no one was knocked out of the "anti-French" dogpile for long. I then played 1805 for a few years as England. I gave France a powerup by one level. I was perpetually cash poor, and couldn't generate textile to save my life. BTW, the trading AI seems to want to trade money for food even if you have "export money" unchecked. Problems I had with the diplomatic AI in 1805: 1. Unwillingness to use "enforced peace" in a surrender, preferring far-flung provinces instead. You can't get the phenomana of the historical 1805 where France kocked Austria or Prussia out in a war (1805 and 1806 campaigns respectively) and dictate that they would remain neutral afterward. 2. Unwillingness (of France, and probably any "winning power") in a war to sign a ceasefire with one opponent in order to beat up on others. (In particular, unwillingness to sign a ceasefire with Britain. Without a ceasefire, a treaty of mutual enforced peace doesn't actually stop the war.) You can't really manage something like the Treaty of Amiens. In both games, I have yet to see a war that didn't end with surrenders on the part of someone. On the good side, probably because, through 1808, France was in the lead, was that we didn't get the same sort of free-for-all I saw in the 1792 scenario. Operational/Strategic AI: This was a nonsensical as in Crusader Kings (by Paradox, and quite a good game overall), in that a country would allow enemy forces to wander about its home territories, beseiging cities and plundering castles, while blithely trying to do the same in the enemies home territories. I don't know if this is a result of the "objectives" file or not. The French (at least) were strong enough at home to fend off the marauders, but I don't think that the Austrians were. The latter seemed perfectly happy to lose home provinces in order to attack others. There probably needs to be a stronger attraction (for the AI) to relieve a siege. Movement: I had great trouble getting fleets carrying units to sail. If I specificed a path from port to port, it never left the first port. Basically, it seemed that (unlike ground units), if it couldn't make the entire trip, it didn't make any of it.
|