|
Larry Parrish posted:I wish we could get ideas for North African countires. Berber ideas are really weak and bad.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
Wiz, now that Luxembourg has good NIs please add an achievement for them when having France, Brandenburg, Burgundy, the Papal State and the Netherlands as vassals and make it a cool pun about the EU, and then add a second one to have the same vassals, but between you and them cover all of the modern day EU borders and call that "Ever Closer Union" (reference to Desmond Dinan, noted academic on the EU). We need more very hard achievements. e; for berber, lower the core creation because that poo poo just isn't fun, change the ship costs to something more useful like land forcelimits to stop them being rolled over by Portugal (plus who cares about ship costs), give them some missionary strength to incentivise going into Iberia, and replace cavalry combat ability with reduced land maintenance (men who are looting will be happily paid less for a cut of the loot) makes them less rubbish, but nothing too OP Another Person fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
If we're in "making random suggestions" mode, I'd love to see the ability to "mothball" (could call it "demobilise" or "stand down") armies. Pretty much every argument for being able to mothball fleets works for mothballing armies, and it would be good in situations like:
I'm at peace but want one army ready to fight in case I'm attacked - the others can hide in the rear until their morale recovers in the event of war I'm a giant country like Russia and only need to fight on one front, not all of them
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Sure, but mothballing would be so much worse, as you'd need to pay the manpower and reinforce cost of, uh, reinforcing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Has the ability to change a country's map color when you start a new game ever been discussed? It's a totally minor thing obviously but I feel like it'd be nice to pick whatever color you want rather than having to stick with the game defaults. And yes I am only asking because I don't like Muscovy/Russia's colors. Speaking of which, I don't know what it is about their situation but AI Muscovy continues to completely fall apart in every game I play. In my current Kongo game it's ~1570 and Muscovy's had to release (or hasn't vassalized I guess) Perm and Pskov, have lost all their northern provinces to Scandinavia, are being bullied down South by a fairly large Astrakhan, and just lost like 6 provinces to Ryazan. It's not like Muscovy needs a buff or anything because they're a pretty easy to country to play as, but man something about their location/ideas/situation just leads the AI down a self-destructive path almost every game it seems like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
I'm totally having schadenfreude at Muscovy for failing though. gently caress those attrition assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Continuing ideaschat from last page: I imagine Lorraine will get the French ducal ideas which are getting added, but I wish they'd get their own set given their history as the last remnants of Lotharingia and their real-life result of merging with the Habsburgs. (Plus Kersch's LP of them which got me into EU3 for my first Paradox game.  )
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Moroccan Ideas: Traditions: +25% Core Cost for enemies +1 Attrition for Enemies Ideas: +10% Fort Defense, -10% Fort Upkeep ~ Atlas Mountain Citadels -10% Stability Cost ~ Moroccan Suzerainty -10% Cavalry cost, +10% Cavalry Combat Ability ~ Berber Cavalry -0.5% prestige decay, +0.5 Yearly Prestige ~ Legacy of the (Almoravids/Almohads/Marinids) +10% Trade Steering ~ Pillars of Hercules +10% Production efficiency ~ Salt Trade +1 Yearly Legitimacy ~ Alaouite Stability Ambition: ppphhhhttt???? AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Gort posted:If we're in "making random suggestions" mode, I'd love to see the ability to "mothball" (could call it "demobilise" or "stand down") armies. Pretty much every argument for being able to mothball fleets works for mothballing armies, and it would be good in situations like: Basically been wishing this since forever. CONGRATS YOU HAVE REBELS, NOW YOU HAVE TO SPEND 3 MONTHS PAYING FULL ARMY MAINTENANCE TO KILL ONE STACK. I shouldn't have to mobilize and pay for my entire army just to kill one stack of pissed off religious zealots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Wiz in the Paradox forums posted:King rank gives +1 diplomat in 1.13. sick some random dude further along said Empires get +1 leader too, I dunno if that's true though but they said it authoritatively so I'm gonna believe them the more I think about it the happier I am that unique buildings are gone. that change alone managed to balance most of the idea groups into actually being worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
It would also be nice if colonial nation's armies responded to native uprisings in land you are colonizing for them. They'll attack natives in their own colonies, and obviously their own rebels, but just sit there and let their overlord's colonies get killed by natives, even though that colony will become theirs the moment it reaches city status. CN's should basically treat any adjacent overlord colony as if it was their own territory when it comes to rebel/native suppression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Another Person posted:e; for berber, lower the core creation because that poo poo just isn't fun, change the ship costs to something more useful like land forcelimits to stop them being rolled over by Portugal (plus who cares about ship costs), give them some missionary strength to incentivise going into Iberia, and replace cavalry combat ability with reduced land maintenance (men who are looting will be happily paid less for a cut of the loot)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Koramei posted:sick ..Aaand there goes the okay idea group balancing out the window again. E: Well, it's not THAT dire, but they were still boons to the less used ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Beamed posted:Sure, but mothballing would be so much worse, as you'd need to pay the manpower and reinforce cost of, uh, reinforcing. You could have it not drain manpower since the whole army would still be stationed somewhere. They just wouldn't be combat ready and would need to replenish their morale. Maybe make it so they can't move for like a month or two after activating or something to make it more of an off/on button and less of a quick toggle to save some quick money. Like Gort said having to keep your entire forced maintained just for stuff like an overseas colony army having enough power to defeat the natives is pretty annoying. I'm playing an African Power Kongo game right now and my armies are spread out as hell just due to being all over both Africa and South America, but I'm only ever using like ~40% of the forces I'm paying for. Being able to tell armies to stand down but remained stationed in whatever province they're in seems like a perfectly plausible, "realistic", and reasonable mechanic to have, and like I said you can balance it by tinkering with the re-arm time so that units can't just be turned on the day before you declare war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
THE BAR posted:..Aaand there goes the okay idea group balancing out the window again. by the time you have 1000 development, you've won. who cares what happens at emperor rank, from a 'balance' perspective?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Poil posted:I'm totally having schadenfreude at Muscovy for failing though. gently caress those attrition assholes. That's not what that word means.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
It's true that the diplomat and AT changes make idea groups more balanced, though. If we're reverting changes I'd rather tweak coring/annexation costs, since Influence and Administrative seem mandatory now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Armies march on their stomachs, but if they are not marching it is WAY easier to supply them, so you should be able to tell an army to 'stand down' or something. If an army is stood down it has 10% of its morale and cannot move, and you only pay 25% (or hell, even 50% would be nice) of its upkeep just like mothballed fleets. A ship is not taken apart when it is mothballed, and I dont think an army that is stood down would drain of soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Wiz has stated before that he is listening to suggestions. A lot of time they add an set of Ideas to a country when people give them suggestions. I cant think of any good suggestions that wont make the berber countries OP in a player's hands because I am being OCD about them being Barbary Pirates AND resilient in the face of European conquerors. Give them something like the Ghazi idea the Ottomans had. Triple manpower while fighting defensive wars against other religion groups as a first idea, plus a hefty dose of Defensibility to really wrack up the attrition damage. VDay posted:Has the ability to change a country's map color when you start a new game ever been discussed? It's a totally minor thing obviously but I feel like it'd be nice to pick whatever color you want rather than having to stick with the game defaults. And yes I am only asking because I don't like Muscovy/Russia's colors. Not really. I feel like map color should probably be moved to country_colors.txt, and then they could let us mod that at will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:25
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
VDay posted:Has the ability to change a country's map color when you start a new game ever been discussed? It's a totally minor thing obviously but I feel like it'd be nice to pick whatever color you want rather than having to stick with the game defaults. And yes I am only asking because I don't like Muscovy/Russia's colors. This will never happen because Johan hates Prussia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:That's not what that word means. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
I find the army stuff and suggestions here interesting. As you may remember I dislike taking Quantity as my first military idea and one of the reasons I listed was that it was more troops to hire, maintain, and that bigger armies are more likely to run into attrition issues. So here's yet another reason that Quantity is a mixed blessing: all those regiments sit around and burn your money while doing nothing useful. Then when you get rebels you have to pay a whole bunch for troops you aren't using. I find that when I play Muscovy I often try to run with about 1/3 to 1/2 of my max forcelimits. This makes a huge difference in terms of being able to mobilize my armies to deal with rebels and not overpay, and to reduce the overall costs when I'm not at war. So for the folks arguing that you should be able to mothball armies, what's the tradeoff for having a bigger army then? Or is it that bigger army = better than? Right now a bigger army helps you fight wars more effectively, but you either need to burn manpower re-recruiting if you disband your regiments after a war, or you need to pay upkeep during peacetime. Similarly dealing with rebels is much more expensive with a bigger army since you need to mobilize the whole thing to deal with even one stack of rebels. What exactly is the choice you'd have to balance if you could mothball your big rear end army as desired with no downside? I'm curious if people feel there should be a downside mostly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:I find the army stuff and suggestions here interesting. As you may remember I dislike taking Quantity as my first military idea and one of the reasons I listed was that it was more troops to hire, maintain, and that bigger armies are more likely to run into attrition issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:As you may remember, Quantity makes your soldiers 20% less expensive to maintain. I'm not sure how that's relevant. Maybe you can finish the thought and make a point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
drat, trying a game as Benin and I got the Into the Unknown event, which seems like it would bankrupt any African country in the early game. Colony costs are huge when most of your provinces are low value, and without an actual colonist it would take something like 70 years for the colony to finish without events, at something like -4 gold per month. Any tips for starting in Africa?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 23:44
|
|
+ 
= 
|
Rakthar posted:I'm not sure how that's relevant. Maybe you can finish the thought and make a point? Regarding attrition: Quantity gives a -10% attrition bonus; Quantity is not necesarily about having bigger stacks, it is about having more stacks. Quantity also makes your armies 20% cheaper to maintain, it means you can have 20% more soldiers for the same upkeep cost. Not everyone plays big countries like Muscovy (who already has a massive manpower boost); smaller countries are less likely to be attacked and more easily form alliances if they have bigger armies and a huge pool of manpower. Sometimes people have the money for soldiers, and want them, but do not have the manpower and forcelimits to feasibly field those soldiers (quantity helps with this) I do not really understand your argument about having a trade-off for taking Quantity and having more troops? Playing with fewer troops than your forcelimits as a massive blobby country like Muscovy is not rocket science. People are not arguing about paying upkeep in peacetime in an absolute sense. Whether you have two stacks of 40,000 or five stacks of 40,000....if you only need one of those to crush a rebellion it sucks that you have to pay all 200,000 to do it just like it would suck to pay 80,000 to do it, because the extra cost is relative. Quantity makes those 200,000 cost as if they were 160,000, though, which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Well, wanting to mothball massive armies in Europe because you have 3k dudes protecting a colony in South America has nothing to do with Quantity. Forcelimits are not a thing that comes out of nowhere. They have a relationship to the size of your country. If you increase the maximum number of regiments you can field by 50%, you are going to have some tradeoffs that you would not otherwise have had. Think about it this way: Let's say that without Quantity, if you go to your forcelimit and not above, your army will not cost more than 25% of your income. And with Quantity, you can raise that to 37% because the formula is the same, you are just adding way more regiments that you can support. So let's take your example with a country that can field 80 regiments, which is already a lot. 80 regiments are going to cost X amount to recruit, X amount to maintain, and will represent X amount of the economy of that country. Taking quantity means you increase all those costs by 50% if you are going to maximize the value from Quantity. You are taking an opportunity cost by not picking Offensive or Defensive, so you should use the Manpower bonuses (which is automatic) and you should use the Regiments bonuses to the fullest. Since that's why you took Quantity in the first place, right? So what I can tell you is going from 80 regiments to 120 regiments is going to cost way way more than the 20% discount. And that means that you're going to have a big cumbersome army that you need to mobilize to deal with rebels. If you stayed with 80 and went with better quality troops or generals, you would have a much easier time dealing with the troops. Also you are using endgame numbers. Think about the early game where resources are tight - having to mobilize a 30 regiment army instead of a 20 regiment army is a big deal. Having to mobilize 60 regiments instead of 40 regiments is a big deal. Moving 60 regiments instead of 40 regiments is way harder at any given military supply level. And when you are done, 60 regiments costs more to maintain even with the discount during peacetime. Then you have to either burn extra money for the 20 regiments you recruited, or get rid of them to save money which undercuts the manpower bonus. Having a bigger army right now means have you more troops you can pour into a battle, but it has a bunch of tradeoffs. Each battle has a 'soft cap' of effective troops, and a big army drains manpower faster in all situations. It also costs more money and your slightly shittier but more numerous troops are a pain in the rear end to mobilize. Being able to decommission parts of your army would move the slider towards "bigger army = better" and to me it seems like the tradeoffs right now make more sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
The numbers I used scale to any point in the game. Early on it is even more useful to have a manpower advantage so you can avoid using mercs when manpower pools are really small. Quantity is good if you have the money to field the extra troops. In a vacuum Quantity is less good, but most every country has some sort of NIs that give their soldiers a combat bonus. If you have the money and your troops fight better because of NIs, your religion, or whatever, and you need more troops to fight a larger enemy, yes, paying for, organizing, and moving those troops will be harder, but Quality found its niche, then, hasnt it? I dont even like the idea that much I just dont understand the constant flow of hate it gets. edit: and I dont think it really has any bearing on the Mothballing Armies idea. If as Portugal I have a 20k garrison in India because it is rebellious and I have 20k soldiers in Portugal as a home guard, but Spain is my ally and I do not want to pay as much for the homeguard army, I should be able to mothball it without disbanding it. If in this exact same situation I have Quantity and those are 30k stacks that, as a wealthy Portugal I want/need, it does not change the fact that I would like to reduce the upkeep I pay on my army at home. edit2: I guess what I am saying is that it seems really subjective and up to personal preference; sometimes I would rather have more troops than have troops that fight like 3% better on the whole. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:The numbers I used scale to any point in the game. Early on it is even more useful to have a manpower advantage so you can avoid using mercs when manpower pools are really small. I don't hate Quantity at all, I just think it's worth acknowledging the ways that it both helps and hurts. I agree with you that Quantity is good if you have a good economy and your issue is lack of troops or lack of manpower. I feel it gets oversold as a default first pick in many situations. In this case I just wanted to make the case that "increasing your army size" and "having multiple stacks in places" is very much cumbersome and seems like it's intended. The more stacks you have the more difficult it is to use parts of your army to do things, and the more situations arise where you need to deal with issues. I figured army maintenance was an abstraction of overall army prominence in the country, and that it's more to do with general neglect and apathy towards the military in that country rather than singling out individual units for economic reasons. So what I'm trying to say is I try to keep my army as small as possible because of these issues, and I got the sense that was intended. Otherwise it seems that just having more troops and stacks to deal with the endless rebels, natives, and regional conflicts would be better, and that there wouldn't be as much pressure on the player to stay lean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Welp, I completely misunderstood the point you were trying to make, sorry!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Just run below your forcelimits and spend the money you save on mercs when you need them. This also saves you time regenerating manpower between wars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Just run below your forcelimits and spend the money you save on mercs when you need them. This also saves you time regenerating manpower between wars. Or just run all infantry mercs and stay at force limit because money is ridiculously easy to come by even with full quantity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
They need to just replace all hostile core creation cost ideas with greater province warscore cost+aggressive expansion impact. Or give the provinces high minimum autonomy when conquered or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
I like how they call it the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth when the only way to keep it stable is to
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Another suggestion. There feels like there should be like one more trade good for temperate areas besides grain wool and fish. Also a liquor manufactory PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Away due to faulty video card, got a new one, now we are back into this thang Please explain me how to make the best out of development, because I could use some ideas in how to make some sick rear end provinces and tractor the poo poo out of Scandinavia tia (Also, the Pope got some superpowers or something? Papal States seem a ~really~ good start now.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Finally got a knights run off the ground. Only took about 30 restarts. If anyone tries it, don't bother trying to fight the Ottomans for the first 50 years. Takes some patience even when they look down and easily kicked. They have better units than western until mil tech 15 (although you don't have to wait that long), and their starting ruler/heir/generals are all killers. That and your main ally Poland-Lithuania starts with a 1 mil ruler so they'll be so far behind that you'll be losing battles even when you outnumber the Ottomans 3-1 in favorable ground. Just try to scare them off by allying with as many big countries as you can after you take Byzantium till you're ready to take them on and build trust with countries like Austria and Poland in the meantime. Lost one war to the Ottomans early on but luckily I was able to just give them Bessarabia before they got too much war score. The next one could've gone either way. It was just me and Austria against the Ottomans at the start. They were at war with half the middle east and central Asia but as usual as soon as you try to take advantage of that they end the war and come home. Poland didn't want to join because they were too much in debt and even though I gave them my life savings of 400 ducats the number they were in debt didn't change according to the call to war screen but eventually they got out of it and joined just in time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Nice Knights. Wish there was an easier way for lazy people to deal with rebels on islands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Another suggestion. There feels like there should be like one more trade good for temperate areas besides grain wool and fish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 05:11
|
|