GrossMurpel posted:

You can't raise Crown Authority to Medium because you're a Republic, it says that right in the requirements if you hover over it.

Dibujante posted:

Well, the whole "x year peace treaty" system is pretty euro-specific. Qing and Ming didn't do peace treaties. Maybe they should just get a special annex = yes CB against each other?

gradenko_2000 posted:

I think the reasoning in general is that when faced with a decision between something that'll work better in SP vs something that'll work better in MP, it's better to choose the former because the MP base tends to be much smaller in everything but the most MP-dedicated of games.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

There's still the issue of the massive over-extension that would result in. Perhaps an annex = yes CB for the relevant tags, plus an event that gives you the Mandate of Heaven granting cores on all of China, if you control all/most of the China region? It could even be a choice, either accepting the Mandate of Heaven and getting a modifier that handicaps you on top of the cores, or try to built a new system from scratch which does nothing.

Dibujante posted:

But there's an issue here. The complaint that people have is that a system that is designed to keep players from beating down players every 5 years like clockwork also keeps players from beating down AIs every five years like clockwork. That's just a difficulty complaint. Johan said "We're making the game more difficult for conquerors; this also has good multiplayer effects." and the fanbase is latching onto the latter part of that sentence to make what's ultimately just a difficulty complaint.

Bouchacha posted:

Why? Compared to all the other mods.

SeaTard posted:

However, if you form/inherit a kingdom that already has Medium CA, you'll keep it. This usually means starting as a Duke level republic, and then forming England as your first kingdom (it starts at Medium).

Or just mod the game to remove the CA cap for republics, which is what I did.

Sindai posted:

I honestly can't tell what you're trying to say here. Obviously strategy AI will always be at a huge diasadvantage because it can't do long-term planning the way a human can. What do you think it should get to make up for that, other than the lucky/AI bonuses that are already in the game?

Dibujante posted:

This is where my "layers of control" system should kick in. The Qing didn't conquer Ming like Germany conquered Poland: sweeping out every vestige of government and building their own de novo. They beat the official Ming armies, and then local bureaucrats, nobles, and merchants agreed to support the Qing. When the conquest of the Ming was completed, the Qing ruled over a large expanse of territory over which they did not have a great deal of direct control. They then worked on consolidating that control.

So if it was easy to conquer large swaths of territory as "semi-autonomous territory" or something, but much harder (read: more overextension) to conquer large swaths of territory as basically fully owned provinces, then it would make these sweeping conquests more realistic, and make the ensuing massive upswing in manpower, tax base, and overextension less likely to happen and more of an organic process. I mean, the southern third of China was under the rule of feudatories. That's practically vassalage. The Qing did things to moderate their overextension, but were still able to bring all of China to heel.

DStecks posted:

Everybody is missing the entire loving point of Johan's argument, that EU4 fundamentally is a multiplayer game, even if you're playing it alone. What exactly would "balancing it for single player" mean here? That the human player is playing by different rules than the AI? Because that's not how the game is supposed to work, or any strategy game, ideally.

So it doesn't matter if only 15% of the people are playing EU4 with another human, because everybody is playing it multiplayer.

DStecks posted:

Everybody is missing the entire loving point of Johan's argument, that EU4 fundamentally is a multiplayer game, even if you're playing it alone. What exactly would "balancing it for single player" mean here? That the human player is playing by different rules than the AI? Because that's not how the game is supposed to work, or any strategy game, ideally.

So it doesn't matter if only 15% of the people are playing EU4 with another human, because everybody is playing it multiplayer.

DStecks posted:

Everybody is missing the entire loving point of Johan's argument, that EU4 fundamentally is a multiplayer game, even if you're playing it alone. What exactly would "balancing it for single player" mean here? That the human player is playing by different rules than the AI? Because that's not how the game is supposed to work, or any strategy game, ideally.

So it doesn't matter if only 15% of the people are playing EU4 with another human, because everybody is playing it multiplayer.

TheMcD posted:

I'm trying to figure out what exactly I wanted to say myself now, because suddenly, I can't tell anymore either.

I think the gist of it was that I prefer a cheating AI to a boosted AI. Don't just say "this country gets 50% more resources because our AI is poo poo and it needs the help" and tell the player that right off the bat, but instead try to find ways to boost your AI without your players being able to tell, like being able to see through FOW to a certain degree to aid their positioning. I'm reminded of a quote by Jonny Ebert, lead designer of Dawn of War 2: "Cheat wherever you can. A.I.s are handicapped. They need to cheat from time to time if they're going to close the gap... Never get caught cheating. Nothing ruins the illusion of a good A.I. like seeing how they're cheating." Paradox does the first, but not the latter - they're laying their cheating right out in the open. Some might like that because it's more "transparent" or whatever, but I don't.

I can respect a cheating AI that actually tries not to get caught more than a boosted AI, but that might just be a warped sense of priority in my case.

There is of course the question how exactly that would get done in a game such as EUIV, but I'm not the one getting paid money to figure that out.

gradenko_2000 posted:

This is more of a general/philosophical point I'm going to make, so forgive if this isn't directly applicable to EU4, but "make the AI cheat, and don't get caught cheating" really depends on the game at hand. Take for example the aliens in XCOM - you're outnumbered all the time and the aliens have a bunch of abilities that the player doesn't really ever get to match, but the player just takes it in stride. Or if the player is running an RTS skirmish and it's kind of a given that the computer workers gather 20 gold per harvest to the player's 10.

Perhaps this is tied to the "theme" of the game, because people keep wanting a non-cheating AI in Civilization but don't really mind it in Space Hulk, but in any case I think simply convincing people that the AI shouldn't play on even terms in the first place is just as important as trying to hide it (because if they find out, oh boy ...)

CharlestheHammer posted:

Also I have no idea where you got the idea that the ai would be playing by different rules if the truce was five instead of 15.

DStecks posted:

Everybody is missing the entire loving point of Johan's argument, that EU4 fundamentally is a multiplayer game, even if you're playing it alone. What exactly would "balancing it for single player" mean here? That the human player is playing by different rules than the AI? Because that's not how the game is supposed to work, or any strategy game, ideally.

So it doesn't matter if only 15% of the people are playing EU4 with another human, because everybody is playing it multiplayer.

TheMcD posted:

Which of Johan's arguments are we talking about here? Because there's a few going around, and it can be confusing when one of them is literally saying "I don't give a poo poo about the AI, I made this change because of human vs. human matchups", which is where you can easily make a difference between "balancing for multiplayer" and "balancing for singleplayer".

Megadyptes posted:

grancheater posted:

Ditch AI and announce HoI IV will be multiplayer only.

axeil posted:

The issue I have with the truce timer now being 15 instead of 5 is that everyone is going to be incentivized towards massive wars that take a ton of territory or radically alter the map in singleplayer and multiplayer. Why would I declare a war against a human or AI for a province when I'll have to wait 15 years for the next war without taking a -5 stability hit? Might as well grab everything I physically can rather than wage limited wars regardless of the cost since they can't hit back at me for another 15 years. If AIs broke truces this could be interesting, but I've never seen it actually done. Presumably humans will break truces if the upside is big enough, which at least gives some risk.

It also really screws over nations that only have one or two neighbors since there just isn't that much that's interesting to do in peacetime unless you're colonizing.

Disco Infiva posted:

Truce time is fluid. Low warscore peace deals net lower truce time than higher warscore peace deals. Truces go from 5 to 15 years.

nutranurse posted:

Well I had honestly not considered that line of logic.

SeaTard posted:

The amount of poo poo developers put up with is insane

GrossMurpel posted:

Inheriting a kingdom is bloody hard as a Republic. And you can't usurp anything higher than a duchy.
I removed the cap as well.

grancheater posted:

Ditch AI and announce HoI IV will be multiplayer only.

sauer kraut posted:

Alright go ham on decisions.txt and ideas.txt like with EU4, got it thanks guys.

CK2 Republics seem really fun with the trade port minigame but it's not worth playing legit when they're so hamstrung.

sauer kraut posted:

Alright go ham on decisions.txt and ideas.txt like with EU4, got it thanks guys.

CK2 Republics seem really fun with the trade port minigame but it's not worth playing legit when they're so hamstrung.

DStecks posted:

I wasn't saying that at all, but you knew that.

gradenko_2000 posted:

This is more of a general/philosophical point I'm going to make, so forgive if this isn't directly applicable to EU4, but "make the AI cheat, and don't get caught cheating" really depends on the game at hand. Take for example the aliens in XCOM - you're outnumbered all the time and the aliens have a bunch of abilities that the player doesn't really ever get to match, but the player just takes it in stride. Or if the player is running an RTS skirmish and it's kind of a given that the computer workers gather 20 gold per harvest to the player's 10.

Perhaps this is tied to the "theme" of the game, because people keep wanting a non-cheating AI in Civilization but don't really mind it in Space Hulk, but in any case I think simply convincing people that the AI shouldn't play on even terms in the first place is just as important as trying to hide it (because if they find out, oh boy ...)

podcat posted:

I think we sometimes forget that people who play our games aren't necessarily on the same wave length. We have designed games this way for ages now. CK2 is basically an MMO, its just that most of the players are played by AI.

Also we should probably ignore knee-jerk rage threads from people who haven't actually had time to try the changes yet and put our energy into the gamers who do try and articulate stuff and back it up with reports.


Yeah very few jobs are like that. Imagine you made a car and some guy buys it and keeps driving by your house every day throwing poo poo at the wall and screaming that the car is terrible and that you should be fired, but still, he drives that car by every day rather than getting another one.

Dibujante posted:

But there's an issue here. The complaint that people have is that a system that is designed to keep players from beating down players every 5 years like clockwork also keeps players from beating down AIs every five years like clockwork. That's just a difficulty complaint. Johan said "We're making the game more difficult for conquerors; this also has good multiplayer effects." and the fanbase is latching onto the latter part of that sentence to make what's ultimately just a difficulty complaint.

CharlestheHammer posted:

I actually have no idea what you are saying, hence the makes no loving sense part. like who said the ai had to be different for humans?

Megadyptes posted:

even if half the fanbase is full of retards, they're paying retards.

Megadyptes posted:

you guys should probably tell johan to not act like a kid on the forums, swearing at the people who buy your games and calling them idiots on the official forum is amateur as gently caress especially now you're a lot bigger company than you were in the early 00's. even if half the fanbase is full of retards, they're paying retards.

podcat posted:

I think this is one of those culture clashes. I'v never understood the american "the customer is always right" mentality. If someone is abusive I think you have every right to be abusive back. As long as you listen and communicate people should man the gently caress up and not act like the world is coming to an end just because someone used the word "gently caress" to emphasise the emotional impact of the statement. Of course its better to just ignore it, but sometimes it feels good to let off some steam. The forum is a place of discussion, it isnt an official press release.

Game development is a passionate job. This isnt someone smacktalking your office excel sheet, this is someone coming over to your house for dinner and smack talking your interior decoration and the weight of your wife.

Megadyptes posted:

I'm not american, I'm pretty sure it's considered rude as poo poo to swear and insult your customers in most places in europe outside of the UK as well.

DStecks posted:

The point of my statement was that "EU4 should be balanced for SP, not MP!" is a nonsense statement in the vast majority of cases; that people were having a kneejerk reaction to Johan using multiplayer as the justification for a change, without having a concrete idea of why it's bad beyond "I don't play multiplayer, why are you changing the game based on it?" when in fact, as Johan pointed out, EU4 is still effectively a multiplayer game even if you're playing it alone.


The loudest complainers are the ones absolutely guaranteed to buy everything Paradox puts out.