Vel and Yin Discuss EU

[yin26]

We are both (EDIT: Actually, Vel is Master and Yin is pupil) newbies to the game, and Vel asked me what I don't really like about the game so far (after re-installing and giving it a better chance). I have tried to work some of my criticism in my other thread, but I'm also interested in what Vel has to say...so here's the thread. Others are most welcomed to chime in:

Vel,

I think you hit on the major ones so far. My list would be something like this at this point:

• A lot of little things are an intial turn off. The long load times, the inability to delete saved games in-game, the fact that you 'surrender' instead of exit and have to watch a burning empire each time. Little stuff.
• Inconsistencies all over the place: I have to have ships out of port in order to board troops on them? And yet, colonists manage to just up and run toward the nearest port and *bam* they are off sailing!
• Not being able to explore Terra Incognita with just normal troops seems a strange way to limit the player. I personally just would have made the attrition rates much higher (due to fear or something) rather than basically saying: Our men refuse to go into that uncharted territory! ???
• It takes a good long while to figure out what you have to click to find/manipulate something. Religious tolerance being a good example. I won't go over the entire interface...
• You can sit for entire 1-2 hour sessions with little or nothing happening on a grand scale. This combined with all the above makes the beginning player easily feel: 'Gee, ain't much to this game, and it's all a bit confusing anway.'

That's basically it for now. So what I have done after re-installing is to say: "O.K. This isn't the kind of game where you get immediate satisfaction or can always dictate the pace. Instead, this is a much more subtle game of spending wisely, expanding with caution and looking for exactly the right moment to leverage your power."

Looked at that way, I'm finding the IGC as Spain up to 1533 to be quite fascinating. Paradox has been quite clever in the numerous ways they have kept the player from being able to ignore the big picture. Just one example: France kept really giving me a tough time, and I never seemed to be able to do much damage back when France attacked. So I gave up a province, signed a peace treaty and planned. I diverted more money to my land force and waited. Sure enough, France had pissed off a lot of other people, too, and had even sacrificed some of is own stability. So as I saw France over-extended and some of its cities in riot, I took my chance to attack Navarra (France's allied buffer state) with my now fully replenished forces. Laying seige, I squashed that pesky state like a bug. And France could do nothing about it...and since I didn't attack France directly, I have kept them out of the battle until I am ready for Phase 2.

THAT is the kind of game that EU is...but it takes a while to realize it.

[Velociryx]

::nods:: dead on, brother Yin! And I agree on all counts. The WORST thing for me is the cursedly slow load times, and the odd way that the game just kinna minimizes to the desktop all by itself....GRRR...and it sounds like we have comparable systems. I too, have an 800mhz, 128 megs of ram, yada yada yada, and I experience all the same stuff you've mentioned.

Still, I gotta hand it to the folks at Paradox, they did a lot of things right.

For anybody reading this, if you're looking for a fast-paced game, or a conquest oriented game, this is not for you. There's an internal counter called a "Bad Boy" rating which keeps track of how much territory you grab and how many nations you absorb. Let that get too high, and EVERYBODY will jump you.....yes, you'll be the recipient of a European Gang Bang, and odds are that you will not survive.

GREAT attention must be paid to the diplomatic picture, and the information screens are a HUGE boon. You don't get exact numbers, but you can, for example, see when France is building wampum many new troops, which is probably a forecast of war in the not-too-distant future. Good thing to check every year or so, just to see what's what.

Also, the early game can be very frustrating because there's so much to do and so little money. One way to offset that is to eat a few points of inflation in the early game to get some cash coming in so you can do all the stuff that needs doing to set yourself up well....BUT, inflation will kill you if you're not careful. In my first game, for example, I was doing really well until I ate one too many of the little Germanic states and everybody attacked me. That put me in the position of having to constantly keep a cash-heavy footing, taking out lossa loans and such, and I finally gave up the cause when my inflation hit 93% and I had no additional territories to promote governors in. With inflation that flippin' high, there's just no way to succeed.

Anyway, all that to say, a resounding YES! I find myself in agreement with pretty much everything Yin says here. It's not a game of instant gratification. Given the layers of complexity, the little stuff that gets sooo annoying after a while, and the immense subtlty of the game, it's bound to turn more than a few people off. BUT....if you stick with it, if you forget about instant gratification and such, I think most players will find a lot of style and finesse under the hood.



-=Vel=-
Author of the "Lands of Lorraine" AAR-in-progress

PS: I hadn't thought about the inability to load ships while in port compared to the colonists....excellent point! I think though, in that case, since ships cannot be attacked in port, that particular decision was made for game balance....otherwise, you could protect all your ports forever by installing a smallish garrison, loading them onto ships in port and forgetting them. Enemy can't besiege the castle cos you've got troops in the province, but he can't fight them, because the ships are "in port."

Still, you're right, that IS inconsistent....

[Velociryx]

Notes about exploring terra incognita:

Actually, eventually (land tech 11), your regular troops are able to explore the unknown wilds of the new world. I think this was done to give certain countries their proper historical advantage where new world explorations are concerned, and to "slow the game down" to a degree.

And not to worry...:: in my very first game, I killed Columbus too! LOL.....I didn't know the first thing about attrition, and it came as a rude surprise!

Also, I was recently told that your ships move faster for each level of naval tech you research.....handy, and it makes sense....I just didn't realize it....

-=Vel=-

[yin26]

Wait, you don't sound like a newbie! I should edit my first post...

Could you please help me on the trade aspect? I have no idea what I am doing with it, so I just let the comp go wild, but as you say I must be losing money.

[Velociryx]

LOL....nope, you got it right....still very much a newbie, but after getting badly burned by the computer handling my merchants, I sat down and stared at it until I had it figured out.

First thing: Focus on your own CoT (Andalusia, in Spain's case). Each Center of Trade has 20 "slots." Every merchant you place in a CoT gives you 1/20 (5%) of that CoT's trade value. Each player can have no more than five merchants in a given CoT.

Exception!: Once you reach Trade Level 3, you can gain monopolies at CoT's. To do this, you must successfully place a 6th merchant. Once he's there, you get all the money for the unoccupied slots in the CoT. The best way to clear a CoT out is this:
First, flood it with your own merchants till you get six in there.

Second, take a look at who's got merchants there.

Third, institute a trade embargo on them (note - this will lower your stability unless you do it while at war with the nation in question. It will also give that nation a Casus Belli against you).

Finally, keep flooding the CoT with your own merchants until you've driven off all the competing ones. What you're left with is six merchants in place, and 100% of that CoT's annual trade revenue.

Alternate plan: Don't know if you've read the notes I posted in the "Stuff I've learned" thread or no, but the essence of the trade portion is this - Put a LOT of emphasis on researching trade techs, until you have a clear lead in that department. Once you have a trade tech lead, it's relatively harder for the merchants of other nations to out-compete you. Once you have that lead, you can steadily increase your market presnece in CoT's all over Europe, kicking out rival traders and installing your own. True, you don't get the kind of massive cash that you do by utterly controlling your native CoT, but you also don't have half a dozen countries mad at your for the trade embargo thing....

The Monopolistic approach takes cash and a pretty serious investment in time, since the act of placing a merchant in a CoT takes at least a nominal amount of cash, but if you get the Andalusia CoT's annual value up over a thousand ducats (as you explore more lands and develop new colonies the trade values of those territories are added to your CoT's value), it may well be worth it!

-=Vel=-

[yin26]

I see. VERY helpful post, Vel. Stupid question now: How do I locate all the COTs? Surely there must be some easily read chart or something. I have seen the screen showing how many merchants in what place...do I just toggle from there? And how do I find the most profitable ones besides my own?

If you feel like saying: "Hey, Yin, just play the damn game!" I'll fully understand. Then again, you might need help on that EU strate guide some day, and I can make a mean Table of Contents.

[Velociryx]

Are you kidding? I love this stuff!

Now....as to locating the CoT's. First thing is, you can only see CoT's in areas of the world you have explored. (Though if you wanna, you can hit f12, and type "Columbus" which will reveal the map....then hit f12 & enter to turn the cheat mode off)

Anyway, what you wanna do is, click on the CoT graphic in Andalusia (when you highlight it, it'll say "view CoT information for Andalusia).

Once you click on it, the map of Europe changes to a color-coded map, showing where each territory on the map trades its goods at.

Each CoT is identified by a shield on the map of Europe and has two numbers by it. The first (and larger) number is the annual trade value of that CoT. The second number (in parenthesis), is your annual take from that CoT.

And, I'll take you up on the offer, btw! I think we'd make a kicka$$ team!

-=Vel=-

[yin26]

Cool! I realize I haven't even SEEN that screen yet! LOL By the way, are you planning to buy Civ3 or MOO3? That could really mess up plans for a EU strat guide. I don't plan (honestly) to buy Civ 3 until the Gold edition or whatever. I'm going to watch the first MOO3 reviews carefully. But if that doesn't pan out, I'm in with EU for the long-haul, I think.

Then again, I should at least finish one IGC before planning to name my next child "Universalis," don't you think?

[Velociryx]

::chuckling:: A goodish name for a chil' I must say!

I'll definately buy Civ3, but I'm not yet sure 'bout MOO....I'm planning to adopt your "wait and see" stance on that one, and in the meantime, fill in the days with...EU!

One of the tricky things about writing a strat guide for this game though, is that there's SO much depth....::shakes head:: I dunno....I wrote almost 90,000 words about SMAC/AC....to cover every nuance and aspect and interdependency in this game, it'd take significantly more than that, I think....::shiver:: BUT, once written, and filled up with topics like: "Unlocking the secrets of CoT" and "Smother & Siege" and a zillion other things, I think it'd certainly be a worthy addition to the collection!

-=Vel=-

[yin26]

90,000 words!!!!!!!!!!

I imagine if you begin the daunting task on EU, you'd end up doing all kinds of historical and financial research as well. Would end up looking like a Ph.D. thesis, I think.

Dr. Vel's EU Primer for Diplomats and World Leaders

[Velociryx]

Ya....there'd almost have to be a lot of research, especially in the area of economics....might have to break out my old college texts on the subject and start refreshing my memory....::sigh::

But, I love that kinna stuff, especially if it's all being done in support of a great game, and the more I play EU, the more I'm inclined to put it into that category....there's just so much depth to it!

::grinning:: I like the title, by the way!

(and, I'll be keeping my fingers and toes crossed that you enjoy the Lorraine AAR. If we're not slammed at work tomorrow, I'll copy/paste what I've got so far and post it here)

-=Vel=-
PS - I've never even looked, DOES EU have an MP feature? Hmmm....

[Garth Vader]

My advice for trading is not to try and get a monopoly in any European CoT. There are just too many other countries trading there. After a while a colony will turn into a CoT like Singapore or Isle Royale and they will be worth mucho bucks.

One thing I found out which greatly increased my tech rate was building manufactories in bulk. Wait until you get naval tech 5, and infrastructure 5 (try and get them about the same time). Then divert all cash into the treasury for about 10 years. When you have a load of cash promote governors to get rid of the inflation, and build like 15 manufactories, all at the cheap price. After that I really focus on getting trade to 10, then infra to 10.

[faded glory]

been playing EU for awhile. Especially the Improved GC. What really gets me is how the AI responds. They are very good...almost too good. Simply put ; when things are good, things are good. When things are bad, things are real bad

Ok I have played usaully as smaller nations. I have my best luck with Russia, Sweden, Bradenburg)prussia, and Netherlands. I have failed on so many fronts! For example, I have never united germany. I have tried with Saxony and Bradenburg. No luck, poland will role right in after annexing 4 or 5 catholic countrys So the trick, wait till the basterds become protestants

[Jeje2]

So you tried it again, despite all you rproblems...
... and looks like you begin to understand the impossible...

Would be nice to join in, but have already deleated EU from my CPU...
But keep on writing - it's good to remember the "good old golden days"

[Velociryx]

Wow....interesting notion about mass-producing the Manufactories at the cheaper rate, Garth! I'd not considered that....excellent!

What year (on average) do you finally get started building them tho? How long does it take you to save the money for it?

Faded Glory - I know what you mean....man, the AI is a hawk sometimes....you make one mistake, and they're all over your a$$! I'm really starting to enjoy playing with the nuances of the game tho....I mean, it's fun to get in wars and expand that way, but I'm finding that the more I play, the more I enjoy simply persuing more limited objectives.....playing instrumental roles in breaking up alliances, weakening one group here to strengthen another there....sometimes making land grabs in odd places to further my strategic position (port in the med, an island here, another wine producing territory there....)...good stuff!

-=Vel=-

[faded glory]

One of my more interesting games is the Hedjaz IGC one. I conquered Oman, Aden, colonized Qatuar and Bahrain. Move troops and conquered all 5 Ethiopian provicnes, plus somalian colony. All of which is ****in impossible because the land is so freakin barren and rugged. Its not worth conquering!!!!

I then pursued my conquests and added Judea and Sinia to my collective

That was my most awesome game. Im still playing it! Its saved

[Garth Vader]

What year? Hmm I have to think about that. It depends on the country. I am playing England right now, I would guess somewhere around 1540. I'll try and remember to check when I get home.

It also depends on what you are doing for the first 50 years. A lot of wars will slow your cashflow down. A lot of provinces takes longer to get your tax collector's and CJ's built.

I usually save up for 8-10 years. I like to build one FA in the capitol and then at least 5 Naval and 5 Refinery so you can calculate how much that will cost. If you have a lot of wine or suger it's always nice to get more refineries!

After that I jack my trade to about 60% land to 10% and infra to 30%. I finished researching trade before 1600 with Spain and England. Russia took until ~1650 although that was my first try at this.

[rwprice]

Vel and Vin,
Would you be willing to do a head-to-head comparison of EU and Civ2? Give us your opinion of each of the major areas of these two games and how they compare to each other. For instance, you might touch on things like trade/economics, diplomacy, military/combat, AI strength, etc. Maybe even assign some sort of rating points to each of these and come up with a final score.

I just picked up EU off the bargain bin, but haven't played it yet. I'm curious to know how you think it compares to Civ2. Thanks for the VERY helpful posts, and for considering this.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm...Okay, I'm game to try for a head to head comparison....

First, keep in mind that the games really ARE quite similar....EU bills itself as RTS, which it is...technically, but with the adjustable speed and pause feature, it plays and feels an awful lot like TBS, so at least in that, you will not be overwhelmed, I don't think.

Head to head:

Economics/Resource balancing: EU 8/10 CIV 7/10
Both games excel at this, but in dramatically different ways. Civ-sytle, it's all about micro-management....deploy this worker here cos you get an extra food...put this worker here to pick up more shields...all that stuff.

Economics in EU are HIGHLY abstracted. Each territory produces ONE item...that's it (though there are some 20 individual items that a territory CAN produce, giving a pretty broad variety). EU has two kinds of income - monthly and annual. Both types of income are made up from a number of elements (including goods produced in your territories, tarriffs and tolls--if you own a center of trade--gold--if you own gold producing territories--taxation, etc.). The calculations of all this are all "under the hood." They happen automatically, and you don't have to lose sleep over micromanaging for it.

The "Tech-Tree" Civ 9/10 EU 5/10
Tied in with the economics is research, and I have to hand it to Civ...the tech tree beats EU's system, no doubt in my mind at all.

In EU, techs fall into four categories (Land, Naval, Trade, and Infrastructure). You can allocate monthly income to any or all of these categories in whatever amount you choose. Like Civ, EU's tech cost is higher for the leader in a given category, and cheaper for those lagging behind (expressed as a "neighbor bonus" if you're behind in a given area).

The weakness in my mind, however, is that the techs in EU are bland (they're literally called: Land Tech 1, Land Tech 2....), and the linear nature of it makes research somewhat predictable. Civ's techs are MUCH more dynamic. EU could be greatly strengthened by requiring pre-requisites from other branches before continuing up the tree (ie - in order to get Naval Tech 6, you must have Naval Tech 5 and Infrastructure 4...something like that) - even making it just marginally more complex in EU would strengthen it greatly, IMO.

Combat: Civ 4/10 EU 6/10
Neither game is a "war game" in the classic sense, and it's not surprising that the war element is a little weak for both. Still, it IS slightly stronger for EU, despite the fact that EU has only 3 types of combat units. Differences between nations are accomplished simply by varying the cost of the three basic units (ie - Russia has heinously cheap infantry, England's is pretty expensive...Austria gets Artillery for a steal...etc.).

Diplomacy: Civ 6/10 EU 9/10
VERY robust AI and sharp Diplomacy system....essentially, you've got a series of dynamics in place that absolutely PREVENT you from being friends with everybody....differences in religious believes will simply cause you to drift apart from the "Heathens" (pretty much anybody of any religion besides the one YOU are) of the world, even if you bankrupt yourself trying to stay in their good graces.

Sweep of Time/History: Civ 8/10 EU 9/10
When you're playing EU, you truly feel as though you're neck deep in one of history's "might have beens." The game has a very realistic flavor to it, using actual historical events, places, and people....it's outstanding in that regard!

Lack of PIA Factor (Number of annoying "little things")
Civ 9/10 EU 3/10

Civ2 was an almost perfect game. Even the bugs were likable. Not so with EU, and there are a number of annoyances....things like choppy intros, slow load times, ten minutes to exit the program (I have yet to exit normally....I just end task from tsk manager...sheesh!). Still....the game is ambrosia....

Totals:
Civ 42
EU 40

Note - I didn't bother to add these up till I was done with my comments, and the numbers bear out my feelings for the game pretty well, I think. It's not quite on par with Civ2, but despite its flaws, it's pretty darn close....

-=Vel=-

[yin26]

Jeje: If EU2 looks good, maybe I'll send you a copy.

rwprice:

Vel did an excellent job, I must say. So I'll take a slightly difference approach in my comparison...

For me, it all boils down to this: How many times in Civ2 did you ever have the feeling that you were NOT in control? Sure, you could play Diety, get a bad start, run into a bunch of barbarians or something, but that kind of thing aside, isn't it the case in Civ2 that from economy to diplomacy, there just aren't too many bumps in the road? Even if an enemy declares war on you, his attacks are typically ineffectual and his allies most likely never to be seen. So with your easily stockpiled cash and the easily handled AI opponents, it's really just a matter of seeing how well you'll mop up this time around.

EU is vastly different in that regard. If you go on autopilot, you WILL get crushed. First, it's no easy trick to fill your coffers. And if you overspend one year to improve your infrastructure, better pray you won't have to wage war the next...cause you won't be able to afford it, and you will lose territory (and, therefore, more money). So you really have to be cautious as to how you make your money and even more wise as to how to spend it and when. Second, the diplomacy and AI attacks in EU are outstanding. If you piss people off (and you WILL for being of a different religion or for being in another alliance, etc.), they have friends. And if war breaks out, those friends WILL show up if they can at all reach you. Once again you'll be forced to spend your way out of total disaster, perhaps even taking high-interest rate loans, which will cripple you long after the war is over.

And it's just a great feeling to look at that huge world map, see real names and places, and have history limited to 300 years so that the passing of time seems somehow 'real.' So where Civ2 feels like a kind of cartoonish and breezy abstration, EU approaches something like a abstact simulation. While I wouldn't base a Ph.D. paper on a game of EU, I do feel that I walk away each time understanding a bit more about the time period and the difficulty of waging war in such an unstable setting. And in the downloadable Improved Grand Campaign (IGC), you can pick any of something like 90 countries to play! So you'll never run out of a challenge.

Now, EU isn't as pretty to look at or hear as Civ2. Nor is it nearly as easy to get the hang of. In fact, I deleted EU my first time around. I found it at first to be just too slow and subtle. But if you enjoy having to balance all those delicate relationships of diplomacy, economy and war...and enjoy being thoroughly pounded for making mistakes...then EU simply crushes Civ2 in the area that means the most to me personally:

A Challenge.

[rwprice]

Vel and Yin,
Thanks so much for your lucid explations of what you like about each game and how you compare the two. I found your comments to be very helpful to me as I evaluate whether to "take the plunge" and get into EU. I had no intention of purchasing it, but when I found it on a clearance rack for $10, I just couldn't resist. The problem is that I still haven't really gotten the hang of Civ2, so part of me says that I'm not ready for EU. On the other hand, maybe EU is just different enough so that the things that have bothered me about Civ2 will not be issues in EU.

I'm still not sure that I'll fire up EU just yet. Yin, I read your notes in another thread about why you deleted EU the first time, and I could see myself in the things you said. That made me think that I might just come to the same conclusion.

At some point, I'm sure that curiosity will get the better of me. Until then, thanks again for your help!

[yin26]

You're welcome. At $10, you made a great purchase. If you run into any problems figuring out EU, drop a note here and I'm sure you'll get a helpful answer (like I have been getting from Vel ).

[Velociryx]

Go Yin! Awesome synopsis indeed!

-=Vel=-
PS: Rwprice - c'mon in! The water's fine! An' if you get stuck on something, just shout!

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by yin26
Jeje: If EU2 looks good, maybe I'll send you a copy.

Any guess on why I deleated the game already?
Yup, so I can sell my copy of EU and buy EUII instead...
(Not that I would need the money from EU, but because I'm a little afraid that EUII gonna be quite alike EU and having two copies of frankly the same game sounds wrong to me.)


Yin: you are in for a ride in learnng all the small tricks etc. Or atleast I did get a ride for my money until I learnt it. Then the AI is just as stupid as in Civ2/SMAC. (For example computer still keeps to small armies during peace, so when they declare war they spend the first year making troops - now in that time I'd taken the capital + 2-3 other provinces and made peace with 2 new provinces just attached to my empire. Take the capital and AI will accept almost any peace always )


A good proof of AI badness is thefact onseveralreports of whole globe concuring in a game of EU. (I tried it but I'm not that good player myself - maybe if I'd played standard GC but IGC was too hard for me.)


And I do agree on that IGC is what the doctor ordered for EU. IGC improves the AI a lot.

So I have high hopes for EUII - since EU is a good game, despite it's problems. And I will buy EUII if they just fixthe damm pause... Oh and I heard a rumor that Sweden had something to do with EU

[faded glory]

Yes when I first played the game a few months back. I was shocked.....I had lost almost every war I went in. I figured i would put the game one the shelf and let it collect dust. Then I got angry, and I looked for a challenge in CTP2. It wasnt there, so again I reinstalled EU. And after getting the hang of it! I had the time of my life

What more can you ask for!? AI players and there allies conspiring against Human players and there AI allies? Foriegn armys exerting there long arm sending troops to far off lands to help you out(France once landed 30k to help us swedes kill Russia!). The reality of losing actualy provinces...and the consequences of being over ambitous. The smallest opponents are not to be Underestimated! A simple attack on a nation like Ethiopia could leave your nation in peril..


And an invasion of Russia may have seen the door being kicked down and the house falling down all over again.

Dont you love when 6 or 7 Nations in a political alliance declare war on your alliance? I do! I once was france and I had Papal, Savoy, Poland, Navarra, Austria, hungary and Scotland. Vs England, Spain, Sweden, Hansa,Naples, denmark and Cologne. Huge battles on every continent insue..they go on for ages as the AI's tactical skills are unmatched.

Do you feel this game leaves you gasping your air? Clenching your fists? Drooling at the thought of revenge!?

It does me

I love every minute of it!

[Velociryx]

Here here! I totally agree! Last evening, when I sent 100% of the Portugese army into the Papal States, only to be driven off by a superb 9k army, I found myself thinking...that's it. It's all over....we're about to lose our first major engagement.

And in truth, we did get hammered. The army went from 30k to just over 12k during the course of the war...and then there was the French/Savoinese forces landing in Tago...UGH...

Great stuff tho!

-=Vel=-

[rwprice]

I've got another Civ2 vs. EU question for you. One of the things that bothers me about Civ2 is the feeling I get that sometimes I'm just moving units around on the board to give me something to do. Most of the time it's done without a real idea of where they ought to be, since I likely don't know yet where they'll be needed. Does EU have this same "move units every turn" kind of thing? Or is it more like Imperialism in which you only move certain types of units as needed, and only move the military when a conflict erupts?

[yin26]

That's a great question, and one that highlights a major difference between Civ2 and EU: In EU, you MUST have "the right amount" of troops in "the right area." At least in the IGC, it seems the AI is quite opportunistic. If you leave a contested border undefended by pulling all your troops away, it seems like you get attacked there. So you find yourself either A) keeping your troops in one general area (or close enough to be moved there quickly) or B) taking big risks and opening up a two-front war/build-up.

So, you HAVE to move troops wisely.

Of course, the AI gets pulled away in similar ways, so you can time your attacks on a country to when he has had to fight on another border and will have a hard time raising the cash to fight you back. There are a lot of 'nibble campaigns' like that. It's also a bit like dominoes: Once a few keys pieces fall, the whole thing can go to waste quite quickly...and that adds to the drama of having the right troops on hand in the right area for the right purpose.

[Velociryx]

I second Yin's assessment. Troop placement is vitally important, and for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, for the security of the realm in general. A big, well-proportioned army along an enemy's border sends a strong signal, but...it's not as simple as that.

If you've recently expanded your territory via conquest, then you will have to deal with the nationalism of that province for a number of years (ie- there's a chance, calculated each month, that the territory will revolt.....if you don't have troops close at hand to deal with the possibility, the province will be plundered (causing you to lose half the revenue from it), and the pesky rebels may even take the castle, forcing you to spend time and possibly resources to take it back.

And, if the rebels DO take the castle, they'll then move onto neighboring territories and start causing trouble there.

Then of course, the diplomatic front is constantly in a state of flux.

Let's say you're playing Austria. You've got a permanant CB against Bohemia, so rather than invite them into an alliance, you leave them hanging. Eventually, they form their own alliance with Brandenburg and Saxony. Now's NOT a good time to attack them, especially with an unruly Venice to your south, but you (wisely) keep a decent-sized army on your northern (Bohemian) border to await an opportunistic land-grab.

Sooner or later, Poland declares war on Bohemia, and the Bohemian allies refuse to support them. BAM! Golden opportunity....now Bohemia is all alone, and her troops are moving away from your front....good time for a quick land grab....IF your troops are properly positioned.

That kind of analysis was NEVER required to play Civ....


-=Vel=-

PS: Something else to consider - Attrition will nibble your forces any time you move them! Not a lot, mind you, but you'll lose 20-40 guys just by physically relocating your troops! Thus, there IS a very real cost associated with deploying your forces.....if you're constantly marching them from one place to another, your annual losses to attrition (guys that simply wander off) will run into the hundreds!

[Jools]

Got EU when it came out and in short, EU is the game of my dreams! Can't wait untill winter for EU2!!!

BTW, visit the www.europa-universalis.com forums, they are very good.

If anyone wants any help, I can give tips...

I played an IGC 2.3 game with Austria and Diplo annexed Bohemia and Hungary, then took Serbia and European Ottoman provinces + Thrace. I rule Only those venetians! God damnt their Islands, it's so hard to invade them!

Ciao