|
mainly i fix ugly borders, force the ai to accept a peace treaty if I have 80 war score and am only asking for 29 war score worth, but i don't wanna bother trying to fight on the undiscovered outskirts of mali, or to make other countries stronger for more of a challenge.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
What is the meaning of this SAM acronym?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
The only time I cheat is when I want to fiddle with government forms without changing the world as much as a custom nation might. For example, I have used the console to turn nations into a republic before, so I could become valid for being a free city. I avoid using the custom nation maker because it tends to fiddle with the cores on land, plus I can't be bothered setting up the ideas. And sometimes, you can't even make the ideas a nation might have, for example (although I haven't done this), you can't replicate France's ideas. I usually do the cheats right at the very beginning of the game, so it is not like they are being used as exploits, more just to experiment around. e; SAM stands for Steam Achievement Manager. People use it to either fix broken achievements which they should have gotten, or to just make them look like pro gamers
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
James The 1st posted:What is the meaning of surface to air missile to blow up the cheaters
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Trujillo posted:When I switched to Romania yesterday my ideas switched over. It might just be Timurids/Mughals. Weird. Are you running the beta patch?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
I SAID LISTEN posted:Weird. Are you running the beta patch? Yep. Has anyone else been seeing this happen?  Never seen it before the most recent beta patch but now I've seen a few different colonial navies paddling around the Mediterranean. I wonder if CN's are going to start sending their armies over too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Just remembered why I always thought Ironman was a terrible idea: I get a notification popup that says my truce with Novgorod has ended, after a few days pass I get my druthers and declare war on them and immediately suffer the consequences of declaring war while a truce was in effect--the 'bug' or whatever of that notification happening before the truce actually falls off. It probably would have shown on the declare war screen had I been paying attention but I can't help but feel like that's not my fault--the game told me in no uncertain terms I was able to declare war without consequences so I didn't think to double-check.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I have seen an AI westernized Inca vassal of mine in a really old patch sieging Sjaelland with their whole army in a war that had been taking place for a long time. Their ships later got wiped by Portugal, so their whole army got trapped in Europe for like 40 years. I guess the ruler just wanted to take the troops on holiday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Sharzak posted:Just remembered why I always thought Ironman was a terrible idea: I get a notification popup that says my truce with Novgorod has ended, after a few days pass I get my druthers and declare war on them and immediately suffer the consequences of declaring war while a truce was in effect--the 'bug' or whatever of that notification happening before the truce actually falls off. It probably would have shown on the declare war screen had I been paying attention but I can't help but feel like that's not my fault--the game told me in no uncertain terms I was able to declare war without consequences so I didn't think to double-check. The truce end notification comes on the day the truce "ends" but it doesn't actually end until the next month ticks over. Been that way for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
I keep getting messages that the truce between me and one of my vassals or colonial nations has ended. It's been several decades since I vassalized anyone and any real truce is long gone. Never been to war against my CN. They turn up a while after finishing war, is there something that forces a truce with your allies and such who go to war on your side when the war is over?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:The truce end notification comes on the day the truce "ends" but it doesn't actually end until the next month ticks over. Been that way for a while. It was one of the only serious bad gameplay modifications caused by the engine optimisation. Also what's a good amount of points for small-medium sized custom nations to not be stupidly OP with ideas? This current playthrough will definitely be the only time I go with 200, my initial 6/6/6 20 year old monarch and insane NIs are making things slightly dull.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
My revolutionary war against Russia, Austria and the Teutonic Order was a glorious success! Even without the help of Bohemia who for some reason changed their minds about Russia, the traitors. I occupied all of Austria and annexed some western and southern parts (foolishly I returned provinces to Switzerland hoping that might earn me enough relations to ally them, should have made a client state), and restored one province to my ally the Netherlands, as well as demanding reparations. I annexed a decent portion of Poland from the Teutonic Order and released it as a march, and demanded war reparations. From the Russians I only extracted large sums of money, reparations and humiliation. Austria and the Teutonic Order were two of the most powerful members of the coaltion against me and their armies are all but destroyed and they are now basically funding my armies for the duration of the truce (it will last until 1816, the year is 1803).   After the war, my so-called ally Bohemia (though they did declare their own war against Austria, so there's that) left the alliance and joined the coalition against me, as did Cologne who had joined me in the war. Basically the entire HRE, as well as much of the rest of Europe, is now in the coalition against me. This most importantly includes the Emperor (Bohemia) and all of the Electors.   This should probably remain the case for quite sometime as I have like 150-200+ aggressive expansion malus with the entirety of Western Europe at this point. And as the game is drawing to a close I'm thinking of basically going for one last grab at glory by destroying the HRE and establishing lasting French hegemony in Europe. That will mean taking on the coalition and winning a crushing victory.  Thing is two of the largest and most powerful coalition states, Scandinavia and the Papal State, are actually at war with each other due to the Ottomans taking advantage of me completely breaking Austria (the Papal State is allied to Austria and the Ottomans to Scandinavia). I also have the most powerful fleet in the world and destroyed the British fleet a few years earlier, so I should be able to keep the British army out of the war entirely.    The year is currently 1803 and I'm thinking of starting the war in February 1806, I will then have recovered some of my manpower (which is currently pretty depleted, but it will just have to do), because by then I will have completed the Quanity idea group, giving me +50% land force limit, and I can then also activate the Agricultural Cultivation and the Pen and the Sword Act (I have policies I can disable to allow this) giving me a further +33% and +15% land force limit, for a grand total of +98%. This will allow me to field additional armies and allow me to actually maintain them, a substantial part will have to be mercenaries. I could also wait 'till I have military tech 31, which it says is around 1807, but is likely before (due to currently being at +15% cost due to ahead of time modifiers), but I think overwhelming numbers will serve me better than +1 infantry fire and +1 cavalry shock, even though that is nice and I notice Bohemia has already reached 31, so they might be a tough nut to crack. This will either end in a watershed of glory or I will be crushed and the revolution extinguished, and I will not have it any other way. To Glory! e: Just noticed that Bohemia, Scandinavia and the Papal State all have severly depleted manpower. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
 When the ai accepts to transfer trade power makes no sense. Especially the "economic base compared to" modifier seems bugged. This screenshot was back when I had 4k ( 2.5k overseas) development and france 2k and there was no reason for me to get the full +20 from economics. Right now I've got 5k development and 90 development seems to be when economic acceptance starts to drop like a rock. Explains the weird "please give me trade power" message spam the ai sends you sometimes though. Are there files for AI acceptance or is it hardcoded? I can't find anything. Trujillo posted:Yep. The colonial navies have be adventurous for a while now. At least since 1.12 but I'm pretty sure I first saw that in 1.11. Never seen them sending troops though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:i took humanism now as Spain and now no more North African Revolts! I pump dip or adm if i'm maxed and way over time and have Morrocan and Berber accepted. That Language event when you form spain helps too. A bit back, there's a chance to get Iron in Louisiana 1/30 and copper in La Plata (2/24)
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Apologize for double post. Finished up my Poland > PLC game in 1.12, trying to get the three Poland achievements and whichever ones I could pick up. I found it a ridiculously easy time getting up and running to superpower status. Ditching the Sejm for me was just the initial revolt, then waiting a bit to get to Absolute Monarchy. Hussars was easy. Poland can into Space was a grind. I had a choice - either conquer all of Europe or India or get the achievement. So I sat at speed 5 doing nothing from 1790 on. Some highlights: Habsburgs being Habsburgs  Brazil broke free from Castile by mid 1500s. Castile got exiled from Iberia and spent a long time with their capital on Gold Coast. Aragon formed Spain, then got their poo poo kicked in around 1795 by France. At one time Spain owned all of Iberia and Morocco. Kicked Ottomans out of Anatolia, but they popped back up in Trebizond late game and took most of the Georgia. Muscovy was eaten by Lithuania while they were in the union. Castile being trivialized meant that the colonial game was slow. Siberia remained empty, lots of empty space in the middle of North America and South America... It felt like a very weak game by the AI. It also included the saddest little 30 years war ever. Sweden, The Hansa, and Brunswick joined the Protestant League. Austria, Brandenburg, France, Spain... any one of them could have handled it themselves. Of course, I missed the 30 years war again because of truce timers. Seriously, I think I've been involved in 2 since that was added to the game. As for Poland, enforced a union over Brandenburg hoping to steal Emperor, but it went to Austria. That pretty much ended my ambition to do anything but tech up.. Austria had my dynasty by the mid 1500s, but the only time i could have forced a union on them I had a regency; up until that point we were best buds. Expanded into Venice and Genoa trade nodes to go for the achievement on owning them with trade value over 300, but gave up around 1700 when i figured that income would never get that high. Grabbed some of Australia from Portugal for giggles. Trigger warning: ugly borders End result:   Novgorod, Syria, Afghanistan are marches. Dehli is a protectorate that I released from Juanpur at 5 provinces. I'm really happy with them, as they've gobbled up all my old protectorates that westernized and became useless.  I stayed Catholic until around Adm 12 when I integrated Lithuania, then flipped to Protestant. Ended up converting Jerusalem, Rome & Mecca for giggles.  End result, ideas and stats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Why does the AI accept to ever transfer trade power? Why is this something I can even ask a random country? I've never 100% understood the option. Is there some hidden cost other than the diplomatic relation? What do they get out of it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why does the AI accept to ever transfer trade power? Why is this something I can even ask a random country? I've never 100% understood the option. Is there some hidden cost other than the diplomatic relation? What do they get out of it? Positive relations with you, which if they are threatened might allow them to offer you an alliance so you don't go stand on their necks. But since the player doesn't really think like an AI, I don't think this is too effective for player-AI relations. We tend to be smarter than the AI, and typically do want the land. So, we don't really ask for it. If we wanted that power, we could easily take it forcibly from an AI who was willing to give it. It might have better use in MP, where a transfer of trade power to another human player might be what prevents a war which the transferring side will lose, if the potential conqueror is only interested in trade power in a node and not the actual land. Alternatively, if you are allied to another player and they go to war, transferring some trade power to them in the middle of a war might be useful to help them along. Although, you would probably use subsidies in that case, unless they had godly trade efficiency and income modifiers. Another Person fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Another Person posted:Positive relations with you, which if they are threatened might allow them to offer you an alliance so you don't go stand on their necks. But since the player doesn't really think like an AI, I don't think this is too effective. Yeah for me it's just another little relation bonus to get that coveted 190. Improve relations, marriage, alliance, guarantee, , girft, transfer trade power, and if really desperate give them a subsidy but it's so slow. It's awful when you do all those things and it only gets you up to 187 or something once all bonuses are maxed out. That's when I open the console...
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why does the AI accept to ever transfer trade power? Why is this something I can even ask a random country? I've never 100% understood the option. Is there some hidden cost other than the diplomatic relation? What do they get out of it? If you have more than one possible target for your next war and one of them is giving you trade power and the others are not, which are you more likely to attack?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Goddamnit, two of the electors have left the coalition against me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Goddamnit, two of the electors have left the coalition against me. Fabricate a load of claims you don't intend to use on the off chance you get caught to drive up some AE.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Any tips on fighting coalitions? Generally in a big war the way I win is by taking down the enemy alliance one by one. Focus on one target, siege their capital and force them into some sort of peace so I can focus on the war leader. With a coalition though there's no separate peace, and the 100 warscore isn't enough to make the same demands as if you had peaced out one by one with your enemies. Not only that, maybe i'm just bad at war, but even when I outnumber a coalition I always get my rear end kicked in the long run. My manpower runs out and they just keep coming and coming. I'll hire mercs, do everything, but they keep coming. I'll wipe some little 4 province german state's 40-unit stack out, gone. A year later it's back. I don't know how they do it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Goddamnit, two of the electors have left the coalition against me. Insult them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Any tips on fighting coalitions? Generally in a big war the way I win is by taking down the enemy alliance one by one. Focus on one target, siege their capital and force them into some sort of peace so I can focus on the war leader. With a coalition though there's no separate peace, and the 100 warscore isn't enough to make the same demands as if you had peaced out one by one with your enemies. Not only that, maybe i'm just bad at war, but even when I outnumber a coalition I always get my rear end kicked in the long run. My manpower runs out and they just keep coming and coming. I'll hire mercs, do everything, but they keep coming. I'll wipe some little 4 province german state's 40-unit stack out, gone. A year later it's back. I don't know how they do it! Those smaller states - siege them down whenever possible. Sieged provinces can't raise more men. Even if you just grab provinces not protected by forts it helps, but basically if a nation is occupied 100% (and you can defend that territory from their allies) it doesn't matter whether they're still 'in' the war or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
I think I would play Ironman if: The RNG for Ruler generation for monarchies was not so mean The RNG for General and Admiral generation was not so bad Monthly autosaves Also because I can get careless and I would be really sad if I accidentally gently caress u pa run by mis-clicking a peace deal or delete an army by accident or something. Edit: also I play the game to relax and I feel I would not relax as much if I was playing something more serious like ironman where mistakes are final Baronjutter posted:Any tips on fighting coalitions? Generally in a big war the way I win is by taking down the enemy alliance one by one. Focus on one target, siege their capital and force them into some sort of peace so I can focus on the war leader. With a coalition though there's no separate peace, and the 100 warscore isn't enough to make the same demands as if you had peaced out one by one with your enemies. Not only that, maybe i'm just bad at war, but even when I outnumber a coalition I always get my rear end kicked in the long run. My manpower runs out and they just keep coming and coming. I'll hire mercs, do everything, but they keep coming. I'll wipe some little 4 province german state's 40-unit stack out, gone. A year later it's back. I don't know how they do it! 
AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Another Person posted:Fabricate a load of claims you don't intend to use on the off chance you get caught to drive up some AE. Average Bear posted:Insult them. Nice ideas. 1805 now. Building up a massive army for the war. At the moment it's gonna stand at 480,000 men. And Republican Spain and Italy add another 150,000.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I think I would play Ironman if: The reason I enjoy Ironman is I see it as a challenge to see what you can accomplish despite: Being saddled with garbage rulers for at least 50-80 years, esp in the early game when it seems to matter more Having to fight a lucky nation and not being able to roll a good general, having to fight horrific wars for no real purpose Dealing with mistakes which are inevitable over a 20-50 hr game. I find playing without it boring because it makes everything samey and irrelevant. Each decision, fuckup, and poor turn of events will affect my game. A lot of times it can be frustrating (a 34 year old king dies 2 years after becoming king with no heir, days before I was gonna declare a massive war? 16 years in the penalty box? Fuuuuuuuck.) Without Ironman I wouldn't enjoy the rollercoaster of a run as much, even though getting screwed over by bad events is unpleasant as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Yeah. I pretty much can't play without Ironman anymore. Used to be I was way too save-scummy. And I likely would fall back into the same habits. Not just to correct mistakes but also to tidy up things to make it look nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Maybe I should try out ironman. I play to sort of experience an alt-history story. But I tend to write my country as the mary-sue who is great at everything and wins everything and is the biggest and best. Real countries have ups and down, they actually lose a war or two. I don't think I've ever lost a war, never had demands enforced on me. If it ever gets that bad I re-load.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
The true Ironman is multiplayer. We're on a break right now but in a few weeks we'll probably start planning our next outing into scheming and total disaster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:Insult them. That would only work if the cause of them leaving the coalition is that their relations with you went over around 50, which is unlikely since Randarkman wants to fight them. Insults do not give AE. Instead, what probably happened is that the AE decayed naturally over time. The 7.5AExHRE modifiers should be enough to push it back over if you get caught fabricating or justifying a trade conflict. Baronjutter posted:Any tips on fighting coalitions? Generally in a big war the way I win is by taking down the enemy alliance one by one. Focus on one target, siege their capital and force them into some sort of peace so I can focus on the war leader. With a coalition though there's no separate peace, and the 100 warscore isn't enough to make the same demands as if you had peaced out one by one with your enemies. Not only that, maybe i'm just bad at war, but even when I outnumber a coalition I always get my rear end kicked in the long run. My manpower runs out and they just keep coming and coming. I'll hire mercs, do everything, but they keep coming. I'll wipe some little 4 province german state's 40-unit stack out, gone. A year later it's back. I don't know how they do it! Well, the best tip for coalitions is really, don't get caught in them. Just always make sure not to go over 30 AE, and diversify the directions you expand in to prevent racking up too much of it. If you cannot avoid it, then the next best thing since Common Sense in my opinion has been to plan ahead. When you know you are going to face a coalition, and know which sides from, before you even declare the war which will rack up AE to form one you should fortify the hell out of your borders, one fort every other province, even on borders your vassals share with you (they tend to be dumb with forts). The AI will have a hell of a time getting in that way. Make at least half of your infantry mercs too, and tell your allies to attach to your army. Do that from day 1 of the coalition, to preserve your manpower under preparation for a horrible war. Then, wage war from within your own borders. You will get an improved reinforce rate from there, which the AI should not get since they are going to you, away from their land. If you find yourself needing to go into enemy lands to siege but expect battles, make sure your general has a good manoeuvre score because that will improve your reinforce rate in hostile lands. After a long enough time, you will drain them of their manpower and you should be able to push them around with their weakened stacks. The only real threat would be France, the Ottomans or maybe Austria if coalitioned by them. Also, don't stackwipe an OPM unless you intend to siege them immediately. Hell, don't stackwipe in general is my feeling. When an army is stackwiped they get half of the manpower back of the men lost. They will use that to rebuild an army, and then pad the rest out with loan money mercs. Instead just let them shatter and retreat. The reinforcement costs won't be nice to them, and if you siege their only holding after they shatter they will have a hard time reinforcing quickly enough to be a threat. Once you have them sieged, then you wipe them. Otherwise they will keep coming back. The only time stackwiping benefits you is if you can carpet the enemy lands as soon as you wipe them, to prevent them raising more men. Otherwise they will keep coming back. e; also chalk me up as a non-ironman I don't care about people seeing my achievements (if I wanted to show off my work, I would just post it here), and hate monthly autosaves. Also, I misclick every now and then, and sometimes that doesn't matter, but other times I accidentally declare war on my ally or some dumb poo poo like that. Another Person fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Maybe I should try out ironman. I play to sort of experience an alt-history story. But I tend to write my country as the mary-sue who is great at everything and wins everything and is the biggest and best. Real countries have ups and down, they actually lose a war or two. I don't think I've ever lost a war, never had demands enforced on me. If it ever gets that bad I re-load. Yeah in my current France game I lost a few wars, as I was pretty stupid with aggressive expansion earlier in the game, overreaching in peace deals and not having the military strength post-war to back it up leaving my country broken up and requiring me to spend a few decades patching things up again by diplo-vassalizing and waging small wars and colonizing. Ofcourse now things are going crazy, and everybody hates me, but then ofcourse I have an army of half a million men. Also I've noticed that my client states all use French names, seems they just copy the name set of the country that creates them. That's kind of lame. If possible I hope Paradox can change it so that they instead use the name set of the primary nation of thier primary culture or something. Somewhat jarring to see Frenchmen ruling my Italian and Spanish sister republics, even though they are Catalan and Lombard respectively. Gonna be more jarring when I establish my Rhine Confederation. e: Still gonna have to find some way to be at war with all the electors at the same time. Really want to end the HRE. I notice that both of the electors that left, Mainz (who have -479 AE with me), is in a coalition against Bohemia (the emperor) and Wurzburg (-430 AE) are now in a coalition against Bohemia, guess they just hate them more than me. Will I still be able to use my Revolution CB if I join the coalition? And will the coalition join my war? No loving way am I joining the coalition only to have Lithuania (the coalition leader) gently caress up everything by waging war for the last 15 years just to do whatever it is that the AI considers "punishing Bohemia". Randarkman fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:The reason I enjoy Ironman is I see it as a challenge to see what you can accomplish despite:
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Kersch posted:Cool idea: Max points custom nation with all of the best ideas, but limit yourself to only 1 console command per year This is a really funny joke that made laugh!  Have you considered making a guide to EU4 trade? Your EU3 Let's Play was very helpful!
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
The worst mistake I make all the time which would screw me in ironman is peacedeals. I have a horrible tendency to accidentally peace out the war leader for war reps instead of their ally because I clicked out of a peace window, checked whether I could get more from them, then went back to a peace window, but clicked the main one instead. e; also, general coalition tip I tend to forget. Unless you are running a GB style 2-1 policy on naval dominance, if you expect a coalition just dock your boats. All of them. Put them somewhere you will not be getting sieged. I usually find there are enough boats in a coalition to destroy mine, even if I had more than the next major power. Boats are easy to forget about I find. Not only is it a big loss to warscore from a big battle which will probably happen in the first month of a coalition, but it is also extremely costly to lose your whole fleet without realising. Another Person fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
I had no idea about those stackwipe mechanics! It seems a bit counter-intuitive. In general though that was my strategy. Line of mountain forts and let the enemy dash them selves against it. But they'd keep coming and coming. I'd tag switch to check out their situation soemtimes and they were at like -1000 gold and 0 manpower but they just kept fielding 100 unit stacks and any time I ventured out to siege I'd get worn down by repeated attacks. That of course was all in a game that I had started before the latest patch, so like every province had 50-100 dev. That's how 3-4 province minors were fielding 50+ unit armies. The out of control dev bloated everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I can understand that mentality but it is not one I have. It is why it is a great option, though; I love reading about Ironman stories and I am glad it suits how people like/want to play. I dont hardly ever savescum anymore, it is simply about me loving up horribly like forgetting to fabricate a claim; getting my third 1/2/0 ruler in a row; clicking on the wrong province in a peace screen; disbanding my army of 40k (16k of which is arty) rather than the 8k merc infantry that I just split out of the army; ending a war when my four opponents have 0 men, 0 manpower, are in debt, and their capitals are occupied but will not white peace out; other minor crap. I'm too much of a "casual" player in that I'm not playing for some crazy challenge; just to see what I can do. Yeah I hear you. The way I look at it is that sure none of those things are fun. But to me they make the run more meaningful. How would you deal with a situation where your conquest is being hamstrung by 1/2/0 rulers? If you forgot to fabricate a claim and miss out on a major war, this is now an actual missed opportunity instead of something you save and reload. It's a legit unfortunate event on that run, which wasn't all roses. If you click the wrong province or mess up a peace deal that sucks too. Clicking the wrong stack to disband is a disaster and the computer loves to declare on you right after. It's something I'm real careful about now  I find that those challenges make the run more fun. When you have all that poo poo happen to you (and it will) and you manage to accomplish what you wanted despite the setbacks, I find it to be a  feeling. An Ironman run is like Hard Mode for me - yeah all that bullshit will happen, but that's part of the fun. Otherwise playing a nation and having everything go 'right' can be a somewhat dull experience. At least for me, I find more interesting situations trying to think of ways to prevent / get out of those horrible mistakes, instead of simply being able to reload and make them go away.I guess it's kinda like FTL or Roguelikes in that way. I am ok with a major time investment on a run being put in the dumpster as long as it gives me something interesting to think about or plan around for my next run.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Another Person posted:The worst mistake I make all the time which would screw me in ironman is peacedeals. I have a horrible tendency to accidentally peace out the war leader for war reps instead of their ally because I clicked out of a peace window, checked whether I could get more from them, then went back to a peace window, but clicked the main one instead. That's what you have Alt+F4 for 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
On the New World metals conversation, it would be cool if a Colonial Power or nation could get events to switch their trade goods in a province from those that were highly desirable during the colonization rush to those that are better to sustain their nation. I imagine a system similar to outlawing slavery getting you whole new goods in provinces that traded in slaves previously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:15
|
|
+ 
= 
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:02 |
|
|
Chickpea Roar posted:That's what you have Alt+F4 for not playing on iron man allows me to reload a save I made just seconds before, instead of defeating the entire purpose of the feature by reloading with it anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2015 22:22
|
|