Should Countries be Balanced?

[Liberius]

Should countries that start weaker be given advantages that help them expand, or should the game start as close to "as things were" in 1700AD?

I say they should not be balanced. I prefer the way its currently set up with certain nations in the big leagues and others in the minor leagues.

[TehSuperPete]

Should countries that start weaker be given advantages that help them expand, or should the game start as close to "as things were" in 1700AD?

I say they should not be balanced. I prefer the way its currently set up with certain nations in the big leagues and others in the minor leagues.

I agree. If you want everything completely balanced, then you may as well just go play a fantasy game.

[Von Kickyourass]

If they were balanced then it would not be historically accurate, so i say stay the same!

[Black Prince IV]

I want it to be less balanced than it is now. It adds to the challenge of the game. In Rome TW:BI all the factions had different difficulty ratings which was nice. I'm also big into realism so I'd like it to be as close to history as possible.

[VINDIC]

I want it to be less balanced than it is now. It adds to the challenge of the game. In Rome TW:BI all the factions had different difficulty ratings which was nice. I'm also big into realism so I'd like it to be as close to history as possible.

I agree totally with you mate

[Reiver]

Countries should not be balanced, imo. Raising Wurtenburg or even the UP to power should be a sign of your prowess and not something you can do on VH from the get go.

The balancing is rather weird. There's a balance within the game yet it's a perverted one. Britain will always have the best ships in the game. Smash it back to Scotland and leave the threat of landborne invasion, strip it of all its overseas possessions and one of their 3rd rates will still be better than one of yours.

The game isn't fluid enough. History should stop at 1700 and after that the differences between units should be a result of choices. Spend money here, research here, favour this discipline over that... etc. That's the sort of balancing I want! The opportunity to become equal.

[Tullaris]

Ehm the UP were one of the major powers in Europe at the start of the game. 12 years before the game starts (1688) they invaded England and occupied London for two years. Their stadholder William III was one of the most powerful men in Europe.

Biggest fleet, rich colonies, but sure only one home province makes them vunerable. They start with 4 regions vs. Prussia 2. Sweden 2 (3?).

[Reiver]

Ehm the UP were one of the major powers in Europe at the start of the game. 12 years before the game starts (1688) they invaded England and occupied London for two years. Their stadholder William III was one of the most powerful men in Europe.

Biggest fleet, rich colonies, but sure only one home province makes them vunerable. They start with 4 regions vs. Prussia 2. Sweden 2 (3?).

They were invited to Britain so that's pretty meaningless. They had a good position and they even bloodied the sun kings nose but ultimately they were never going to be a continental power. Their position at the start of the game was pretty much their peak. Don't really understand why you felt i was denigrating the UP though. Highlighting them as an unlikely nation to conquer the 40 provinces necessary for winning the game seems fair.

[Angrychris]

same, just as long as they have their units and what not.

[BlackPirate]

Nations must differ in difficulty

[Timefool]

Make it more unbalanced, at least unit wise.

[Guderian's Duck]

I want historical accuracy.

[Timefool]

Make it identical with history with mixed unit stats, and include an arcade mode where everything is simplified.

[AytchMan]

For realism's sake, the game should remain unbalanced in keeping with historical accuracy. For playability, the victory conditions for each nation should provide an equal challenge (adjusted for difficulty level). That way, if you start with a pipsqueak, you don't have to take over the world to win. Or you can govern one of the big powers and try to accomplish a great deal more.

[Hannibolico]

In previous games the factions were balanced by requiring a different kind of strategy for each faction, based on their units, religion, and geographic position. Factions may have similar armies, but the little differences in army composition could change drastically how your faction fought. That's the way it should be in this game too. Maybe give France better artillery in the campaign, or Prussia gets the best line infantry. Each faction should fight in a slightly different way. That isn't how the game is now.....
All of the major factions get essentially the same units, with slightly tweaked stats to reflect what their country became.
in 1700 there was no clear leader amongst the major powers, i would believe. Nothing in history is going to happen, things just turn out the way they do. Britain wasn't out to grab an empire and rule over a quarter of the worlds surface, at the time they were merely trying to get ahead of their rivals, and protect themselves.
I guess what i'm getting at is that each country should be in a position to rule the world, not all in the same way, with the same armies, navies, or tactics. Every faction should require a great deal of finesse to do this and so it shouldn't be easy, and this would be what could make it balanced. It should be just as inconceivable for Britain to conquer the world in this game, as it is for the Dutch.

[Lord Nova]

They only need to be balanced according to their real historical strengths and weakness and according to their rival nations. For instance Russia is just fine to fight the Ottomans, Poland, and Sweden but it doesn't need to be balanced out to fight France, Britain, or Prussia. This is all related to SP balance.

MP balance should be way closer but then again I always thought of MP in total war games as super unbalanced anyways.

[Flavius Silvanus]

I think the main balance needs to be in the way the AI behaves.

Major Powers should be fairly aggressive, and minor powers should be mostly defensive in their diplomatic posturing.

But I would like like to see the major powers "balanced" to where the same major power isn't your opponent all the time in the endgame. Some times France should end up getting huge, sometimes Russia, and sometimes the Ottomans.

The variation in RTW was pretty good, but in vanilla I felt I always eneded up fighting the Egyptians at the end way too much, because they were not balanced.

[Big Pacha]

I think the main balance needs to be in the way the AI behaves.

Major Powers should be fairly aggressive, and minor powers should be mostly defensive in their diplomatic posturing.

But I would like like to see the major powers "balanced" to where the same major power isn't your opponent all the time in the endgame. Some times France should end up getting huge, sometimes Russia, and sometimes the Ottomans.

The variation in RTW was pretty good, but in vanilla I felt I always eneded up fighting the Egyptians at the end way too much, because they were not balanced.

Absolutely right. One of the flaws of ETW (if not the flaw) is AI majors being too cautious, even getting defeated by minors. I mean, France invaded by Savoy...
Also starting settings could be better balanced: some alliances block the expansion ex. good relations between Prussia and Poland+Saxony+Hanover = AI Prussia never really expands as It should. As for the AI Ottomans they need a real army in the Balkans at start. So It's not about "balancing" any faction but small adjustments at start.

There are slight changes that could make any ETW campaign much much better.

You do realize that by 1811 the Netherlands annexed France?

Yes of course. Napoleon was Dutch everybody knows that

[pefwin]

Yes of course. Napoleon was Dutch everybody knows that

That's the problem with British education, not Dutch centric enough.

Turning round one of these Empires nearing the end of their shelf life should be the challenge, for UP stopping the French steamroller should be one of the initial priorities in the game.

[Magno]

the factions should be as they were historically from the 1700 and from then on you take the reigns and make decisions to your liking but things like starting treasury should vary greatly (not 7500 for everyone) and starting armies should also vary according to historical fact