|
Just to make sure that I'm not missing anything, forming Malaya doesn't give you new ideas right? The decisions doesn't say anything about getting new ideas/traditions. Because the Kutai ideas are quite a lot better than the generic Malaya ones I think. edit: also, there's a bit of a bug with the blockade percentage but it seems to be purely visual. 
MrBling fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Jul 12, 2015 |
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
MrBling posted:Just to make sure that I'm not missing anything, forming Malaya doesn't give you new ideas right? The decisions doesn't say anything about getting new ideas/traditions. You keep your ideas, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:The thing is that there's such a large 'overhead' to wars, in terms of the initial costs of fighting an enemy who has healthy armies, that it simply does not make sense for anyone (AI or human) to end a war for minor gains. Since war in EU generally involves wiping out your opponents armies, the cost of getting the latter 75% warscore is much, much lower than the first 25%. Forts and shattered retreats have both tried to mitigate this, but it might be a fundamental flaw in EU's combat model - the ability for armies to stay in action for year after year, occupying entire countries with only a very tenuous respect for 'logistics' and 'supply lines', allows for this kind of total war in a way that period armies rarely could. Maybe the AI should just be more willing to offer and accept smaller peace deals, so they're more likely to make peace after a couple of battles and small sieges, rather than siege down the entire enemy country and take half their provinces?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Maybe the AI should just be more willing to offer and accept smaller peace deals, so they're more likely to make peace after a couple of battles and small sieges, rather than siege down the entire enemy country and take half their provinces? They used to, the length of war modifiers are what dedicated the AI to total war. Before they existed the AI did score quick victories and peace out sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Dude if you want to play the Safavids so bad why don't you just start in like 1450 instead of 1444? there's starts other than 1444?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Isn't Muscovy weak enough this patch already? They seem to get stomped into the ground by Lithuania + hordes nearly every game, it's embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
MorphineMike posted:Did you make sure to select the League War CB? iirc, any war you declare against the enemy leader calls in their league, but only the League War CB calls in yours. Okay, it was me that was retarded. Even though I really looked carefully so I didn't use the wrong cb, I stupidly enough used the enforce religion cb. But I am beginning to wonder if there is something weird going on anyway, as now when the truce is over I still cannot attack the protestant league leader as I have no league cb available. I am thinking that it might be because my capital isn't in the HRE and thus I am not really a member of it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:They used to, the length of war modifiers are what dedicated the AI to total war. Before they existed the AI did score quick victories and peace out sometimes. Yeah, and those length of war modifiers in my opinion were a change for the worse. I've lost count of the number of times I've been fighting a war just for a province or two, but even after getting a good amount of warscore I'm not able to take those provinces and peace out because the war hasn't been long enough, so I end up having to fight a long total war and take half the enemy country, just because why waste all that warscore. It's totally counterproductive and doesn't make sense for an AI that's losing a war badly not to want to peace out as soon as possible rather than holding on for no reason just because they've been blitzkrieged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
I believe Muscovy's provinces got some pretty significant development buffs in the last beta patch. I'm not really sure how you make them any stronger without just directly nerfing Lithuania (which is really frightening these days) and the hordes. Maybe their missions could give them cores instead of claims? I know devs are philosophically disinclined to do that, however. It remains excruciating to watch Russia snake jump the Urals over Kazan and start bridging east tho.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
The non dominant force (so Protestant) has to delcare war. If theu don't within x years (25?) then the Catholics win by default.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
So my Ternate game ended up with the Aspiration for Liberty and I turned into a republic. A constitutional republic. Which requires 26 seats. That's +52% cost of increasing stability. It took me a while to figure out where the button was to assign seats but in retrospect it's almost obvious it would be up in the corner where you assign a new capital or trade collection center. Cheating with the console has an amazing ability, you can force the Abolish Slavery event on a province to make it produce unknown trade goods and effectively reroll the crappy gold into something more useful, like grain or wool. No more treasure fleet inflation. It even works on provinces not owned by you, such as your colonial nations.  Fuligin posted:I believe Muscovy's provinces got some pretty significant development buffs in the last beta patch. I'm not really sure how you make them any stronger without just directly nerfing Lithuania (which is really frightening these days) and the hordes. Maybe their missions could give them cores instead of claims? I know devs are philosophically disinclined to do that, however. It remains excruciating to watch Russia snake jump the Urals over Kazan and start bridging east tho. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Poil posted:No, no, no, no, NO! It's already painful enough to deal with Muslim provinces as it is without adding more crap. If the Iberians had been able to conquer the North African coast as thoroughly in real life they would probably had managed to converted them. The whole area living under Catholic rule for a few generations with an active inquisition is likely to be successful (and quite inhumane). It should be painful. North Africa was never properly conquered during this period. I think it being super hard to convert would be perfect; Spain can still conquer and core the territories, but it will never be able to have a fully secure hold on them without taking serious interest. quote:The Manchu never gets strong enough to take on Ming. Ming just has way too much armies, manpower, money and military tech for Manchu to even stand a chance. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I'm still not totally sure where I stand, 'cause it's sort of a historical accuracy vs. streamlined (and maybe more fun?) gameplay argument and I can see reasons Paradox would want to support the latter, but: It's not that Ming has way too much military strength, manpower, money and tech (they are still woefully underrepresented in all those)- it's that large states in general in this game are way too stable. Paradox has three major systems they introduced over the past year or so- local autonomy, unrest, and development- all of which could be immensely interesting for internal mechanics in huge states- and they've honestly hardly done poo poo with any of them; the first two are just ways to make your expansion safer and more predictable, and the last is practically just a gimmick to let you play tall. so a few simple ideas to increase instability: 1. Rebels should be more threatening. Aside from a few historical events/ disasters (some of which are genuinely painful), when are rebellions ever a worry? When you're in a world spanning doom-war, I guess. And that's pretty much it. Historically rebellions, especially in large, decentralized, corrupt states (i.e. literally every state that got large enough), were frequently near existential threats- but I can count the number of times I've been broken by rebels without intending it in this game on one hand.
2. There should be more things that increase autonomy. This could go hand-in-hand with the tougher rebels thing- since they'll be winning a lot more, giving up autonomy could be a way to quench them. There are so many ways to reduce autonomy these days that I don't even care about it anymore unless I'm diplo-vassalizing (it's just the "you got new lands" tax basically), but if it were a thing that could recur in my heartlands if I hadn't been ruling properly I'd suddenly start noticing again I think. Some mods have done some interesting things- the Vanilla I.C.E. mod that got linked here yesterday had a sweeping autonomy increase for passing some reforms, the 1356 mod had an insanely painful like +.2 autonomy for the Mamluks at the start to weaken them- maybe those are a bit much, but for the base game the only (I think?) events that add autonomy increase never even go above your base. Increased autonomy over an entire state was a natural thing from time to time. 3. Eh they could do lots of poo poo with development I don't know. Thinking about it more, I think my "lands that swap hands a lot should suffer development loss from devastation" suggestion from a while ago sounds un-fun, but maybe an event for the same reason once in a blue moon would be interesting. Maybe not. It's certainly a system with a lot of potential. 4. The big, China related one: the principle problem people seem to have with buffing China is that it would then expand like crazy- but they need admin points to expand, and we have a great system in the game for draining admin points already- inflation. Why not just add an insane monthly inflation increase to China? It would represent corruption. When you have a good ruler or strong set of advisers they could combat it and have a period of growth (as they did historically), but when you don't, you'd be struggling to stay afloat. I've given this a good 5 minutes thought and it sounds like a flawless plan that would solve literally every China problem so I think they should just implement it immediately. A Buttery Pastry posted:Well, part of the problem is that the Manchu beating the Ming happened in large part through defection. Like, if you were to model it in-game, then the Manchu occupying the Ming provinces north of Beijing would instantly flip them to the Manchu, and spawn full armies the Manchu could then use to go further south. At the same time, the Ming would split apart, reducing their strength and dividing their attentions, allowing the Manchu the chance to roll into Beiijing and become the (Great) Qing and absorbing the neighboring regions. At that point it should basically be a free-for-all, with every Chinese power having the ability to fully annex each other in one go if they control each others capital. The (Great) Qing wouldn't be destined to succeed, but it'd at least have a shot. I don't think there should be Hearts of Iron style province-flipping, but as Ming become increasingly decentralized and corrupt, how about some events that split off chunks of their country as vassals- some of which could flip to the Manchus after they win some victories or something? Then the Manchus can spend a good chunk of time trying to unite these vassals after Ming get wiped out, like they did historically with the Feudatories in the south. PittTheElder posted:Nothing short of a heavy-handed DHE will ever come close to that. As long as there's a Burgundian inheritance that regularly makes one of the strongest countries in the game even stronger, I don't see why they can't add heavy-handed DHEs like that to other parts of the world too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Tried Timurids for the first time...holy crap. The country is a mess of religions and cultures and both the ruler and his heir are crowned pumpkins. Keeping stability in the positives drains your precious Admin points so fast that you can never try for Humanist ideas to make a stable nation out of the mess, and when rebellions happen, it' s usually 5-6 stacks of 10-12 regiments way before the 1500s. No wonder it always seems to break up early in other games. Does anyone have any tips on how to try and ride the chaos? I like the idea of a country poised to both meddle with India and still try and mess with Europe. Also, is it me or are Ottoman national ideas just bizarrely powerful now with the increased coring costs? I was paying 70 of my hard-earned admin Timurid points to core a crappy province (that had my stat religion and culture, too!), while the previous game as Ottomans I paid in the low 60s for -Venice-. A few other issues I need some help with: -When mercenaries take losses, do they use your manpower to replenish their units, or do their reinforcements come from nowhere? -What is the best way to make your country change religion? I'm going for an England game and so far I never let a christian country go protestant. I'd like to try it for once. -Is there some trick to making a Pope? Since the new system came u, I never ever managed to rule the papacy, even during my Poland game in which I sank tons of points into trying to better the odds. Is there nothing more to it than wasting papal influence and crossing your fingers? -Heir generals: I've thought of sending some lackwit heirs to death (0/1/0, dude?) by naming them generals and sending them into battle. Do you get any penalties for letting a heir die (stability hits, etc)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Merc reinforcements do not use manpower. They're magicked into existence. Go to the religion tab after pressing f1 or right clicking on a country or whatever. Then if you can freely change, the button in the top left will be orangey/gold. If not, you have to be converted by rebels. Nothing more to it. I rarely bother, the bonuses aren't earth shatteringly good. Certainly can't justify investing more than once. Iirc no, no stab hits for heirs dying in battle/sieges whatsoever. Could be wrong though. Obviously if they succeed (e: accede? Can't remember, tired, phone posting, whatever) to the throne then they will be at risk for stab hits. Allyn fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
In reference to last page, i feel like the best fix for mughals would just be a dutch revolt style DHE that checks for a declined Timurids and spawns a stack with Babur in Delhi. In reality he was practically a ck2 style adventurer anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Denmark and their pal Muscovy fought off Sweden's independence several times, and kept my Polish expansion into Scandinavia in check for decades. Then Denmark converts to Protestantism, it gets -100 prestige, and Sweden and Norway go free when the king dies. AI probably shouldn't neuter itself like that so willingly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Does anyone know how the Kingdom of God decision works in Common Sense? Is it actually worth now or still as bad as most other country forming decisions?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Does anyone know how the Kingdom of God decision works in Common Sense? Is it actually worth now or still as bad as most other country forming decisions? It gives you yearly devotion, yearly prestige, more manpower, and disables the Papacy. It doesn't change your country tag or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
It's alot more attractive to disable the papacy as the papal states now since papal states can not have papal influence. After 1650 the papacy serves no further purpose for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Star posted:Okay, it was me that was retarded. Even though I really looked carefully so I didn't use the wrong cb, I stupidly enough used the enforce religion cb. But I am beginning to wonder if there is something weird going on anyway, as now when the truce is over I still cannot attack the protestant league leader as I have no league cb available. I am thinking that it might be because my capital isn't in the HRE and thus I am not really a member of it? You're the emperor, you don't get to declare the league war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:I believe Muscovy's provinces got some pretty significant development buffs in the last beta patch. I'm not really sure how you make them any stronger without just directly nerfing Lithuania (which is really frightening these days) and the hordes. Maybe their missions could give them cores instead of claims? I know devs are philosophically disinclined to do that, however. It remains excruciating to watch Russia snake jump the Urals over Kazan and start bridging east tho. Koramei posted:4. The big, China related one: the principle problem people seem to have with buffing China is that it would then expand like crazy- but they need admin points to expand, and we have a great system in the game for draining admin points already- inflation. Why not just add an insane monthly inflation increase to China? It would represent corruption. When you have a good ruler or strong set of advisers they could combat it and have a period of growth (as they did historically), but when you don't, you'd be struggling to stay afloat. I've given this a good 5 minutes thought and it sounds like a flawless plan that would solve literally every China problem so I think they should just implement it immediately. Koramei posted:I don't think there should be Hearts of Iron style province-flipping, but as Ming become increasingly decentralized and corrupt, how about some events that split off chunks of their country as vassals- some of which could flip to the Manchus after they win some victories or something? Then the Manchus can spend a good chunk of time trying to unite these vassals after Ming get wiped out, like they did historically with the Feudatories in the south.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I'm honestly more impressed by AI Italy in 1553. Naples went loving crazy I helped a bit when they had everything but verona, I also taged over and gave them enough adm to reach level 10 and core Genoa. I was really interested in what a ai Italy would do PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:There's already a mission for the latter. (Possibly it's too rare, or the AI doesn't pursue it aggressively enough...?) Yeah, the AI doesn't seem to persue it, quite probably because of the massive AE it accrued, though that may have changed in the newest beta; patch notes said it did, but I haven't checked how much. In my current game Austria attacked Bohemia with the CB, occupied all their forts, then settled for War Reparations.  quote:Isn't Muscovy weak enough this patch already? They seem to get stomped into the ground by Lithuania + hordes nearly every game, it's embarrassing. They got a hefty bonus in development in the beta updates, but they are, which is good, they shouldn't be stronger than POL-LIT. And delaying the Kazan mission is designed to strengthen them; if they don't hop on Novgorod quick, they'll wind up allying Poland eventually, and then they'll never take it. There's a reason all the player guides say basically 'Day 0 Novgorod DoW'. The AI used to be way more aggressive about it too, not sure what changed there. quote:Why, specifically, do you want to remove a colonist from Expansion? I agree with slowing down colonization, but idk what Expansion is if it's not the compromise half-trade half-exploration group. (And I don't see how giving more colonists to the historical colonizers would help anything - they're the ones who are colonizing too fast already!) To bring the total number of colonists down. I'd probably cut 1 each from Exploration and Expansion, while giving 1 back to the colonizers. By removing the colonist from Expansion, I'm mostly targeting Portugal, who otherwise winds up with 3 colonists in 1492, which is ridiculous. Expansion should be the 'carve out an eastern trading empire' group, rather than a way to grab more colonists than can be used anywhere. I'd also fill up Indonesia with minors, so you wouldn't need it there anyway. How exactly to give the colonists to the historical colonizers I'm not sure. I think it should be through decision or policy, which would also allow non-historical colonizers to access them at cost. It would also allow them to be removed as the big regions filled out, which could stop things like the colonization of the Pacific islands in the 1650s. quote:The thing is that there's such a large 'overhead' to wars, in terms of the initial costs of fighting an enemy who has healthy armies, that it simply does not make sense for anyone (AI or human) to end a war for minor gains. Since war in EU generally involves wiping out your opponents armies, the cost of getting the latter 75% warscore is much, much lower than the first 25%. Forts and shattered retreats have both tried to mitigate this, but it might be a fundamental flaw in EU's combat model - the ability for armies to stay in action for year after year, occupying entire countries with only a very tenuous respect for 'logistics' and 'supply lines', allows for this kind of total war in a way that period armies rarely could. Yeah, that's exactly the problem. Fixing it would probably involve a lot of design iteration, but my hunch says to make battles and fort occupations more valuable in terms of war score, and then make conquering large swathes of land exponentially more expensive; not in WS, but by making the Length of War penalty to AI acceptance scale up or down based on what the peace offer is. (Also I can't help but imagine Wiz coming back from vacation, reading all our theorycrafting and laughing a little). Tsyni posted:Denmark and their pal Muscovy fought off Sweden's independence several times, and kept my Polish expansion into Scandinavia in check for decades. Then Denmark converts to Protestantism, it gets -100 prestige, and Sweden and Norway go free when the king dies. AI probably shouldn't neuter itself like that so willingly. Yeah, that's why that rule is ridiculous. It used to be the only way to reliably break PUs, since you couldn't Support Independence or break PUs in a peace deal, but it's really out of place now. The only effect seems to be breaking up POL-LIT or Burgundy after they lose a single war; this is particularly true for Burgundy. The AI's hiring of tons of 1 regiment mercs in an attempt to reform will utterly tank their prestige when they're getting beat by another AI who has the patience to always immediately chase them down. Koramei posted:4. The big, China related one: the principle problem people seem to have with buffing China is that it would then expand like crazy- but they need admin points to expand, and we have a great system in the game for draining admin points already- inflation. Why not just add an insane monthly inflation increase to China? It would represent corruption. When you have a good ruler or strong set of advisers they could combat it and have a period of growth (as they did historically), but when you don't, you'd be struggling to stay afloat. I've given this a good 5 minutes thought and it sounds like a flawless plan that would solve literally every China problem so I think they should just implement it immediately. Well now that's clever. This I like. But again, 5 minute caveat applies. [/quote] As long as there's a Burgundian inheritance that regularly makes one of the strongest countries in the game even stronger, I don't see why they can't add heavy-handed DHEs like that to other parts of the world too. [/quote] Yeah, that's exactly my position. The game needs heavy-handed DHEs if it's ever going to turn out in anything resembling, because some things just won't work in the engine. They're a Good Thing in my opinion, I just know a lot of people get really ruffled over them for some reason. A Buttery Pastry posted:My solution to the Russian snake problem so far is to extent the wasteland down two provinces, and give the Uzbeks another so they block off anyone on the other side of the Urals from colonizing. Either Russia succeeds in beating up its neighbors, in which case it should have I dunno about their weakness against the Hordes, lately the AI seems to be way more aggressive towards them these days. But yes, the gap Muscovy snakes through should definitely be closed. Give the provinces to Sibir or something. I'd have the Conquest of Kazan mission give way to a Conquer Sibiria mission (which exists now, but only if Sibir exists), and the conquest of a Sibir region would grant the colonist then they'd use to push to the sea. Really it should be part of a much bigger fur trade type thing though. I do wonder if, for Sibir in particular, it might not be better to give them a 'Russian Adventurers' disaster that spawns a bunch of rebels, and if they win the whole place gets turned over to Russian control. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:10
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Personally I dislike most of these events/decisions trying to force specific things to happen to conform to history. If game mechanics don't allow what actually happened historically to happen in the game, then perhaps the game mechanics should be adjusted. What's so special about the Dutch that they need to be an exception to the rebel game mechanics for example? The Dutch rebellion happened for specific reasons, which in the alternate history of an EU4 game might not come about or it might be equally valid for some other region. I do agree that the game mechanics don't allow many things that actually happened in history, like the Ottoman conquest of the Mamluks (which I generally have to handle in 2 or 3 separate, long wars when I play the Ottomans), but that's a side-effect of how rigid the game mechanics are. I don't see why there needs to be an exception forced through by event/decision though, was it really such a unique set of circumstances that allowed the Ottomans to grab all that territory in one go? I understand that there are limits to what can feasibly be integrated as a game mechanic, while adding an event is relatively simple, so I see why things like the Burgundian Inheritance happens in the game. I would prefer it if solutions to problems like this came in the form of general game mechanics that applied to everyone rather than shoehorned in by event though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Sometimes this game confounds me. I'm playing an Ethiopia ironman for the achievement, and it's around 1550. I've concentrated mostly on absorbing parts of Africa and the Arabian peninsula, having just eaten the Malmuks to Cairo. Then suddenly I get a message I've been rivaled by the Commonwealth. This slightly sucks because there goes a potential ally against the Ottomans, but it isn't that big of a deal; however, I find it really odd that Poland-Lithuania gives a poo poo about me. The Ottoman Empire is between me and them, and I literally have no provinces closer than Cairo to Europe. I don't even own a single province on the Mediterranean. Also, while I'm at it... Muslim tech group plus African units sucks. I wish you still could at least Westernize your military when you Westernized. Being stuck with tribal spearmen in the late game is really going suck. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Rejig Seperatist rebels. Make them appear less frequently but much stronger, and when they enforce demands have the new nation appear at war with its former overlord, rather than the truce that currently exists. The second half of that sentence is, I think, how EU3 did it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Rejig Seperatist rebels. Make them appear less frequently but much stronger, and when they enforce demands have the new nation appear at war with its former overlord, rather than the truce that currently exists. The second half of that sentence is, I think, how EU3 did it. The problem with this setup was that the overlord would 99% of the time win those wars, because even if it was a strong revolt and the overlord was at war, it was still really hard for the separatists to get enough warscore quick enough before the overlord's armies crushed them. It meant very few separatists ever actually succeeded unless the overlord was already completely shattering, in which case the mechanism you're using doesn't really matter anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Ming has barely expanded at all in my Ternate game, despite having twice as large an army than the next AI, the Ottomans. I'm only in second place. And it's only lately that they have fallen behind the west in military tech. They also have really good generals, somehow.Koramei posted:It should be painful. North Africa was never properly conquered during this period. I think it being super hard to convert would be perfect; Spain can still conquer and core the territories, but it will never be able to have a fully secure hold on them without taking serious interest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:How exactly to give the colonists to the historical colonizers I'm not sure. I think it should be through decision or policy, which would also allow non-historical colonizers to access them at cost. It would also allow them to be removed as the big regions filled out, which could stop things like the colonization of the Pacific islands in the 1650s. You can probably fix that by lowering colonial range for the AI, they currently get a 50% boost so they get range to the Pacific with tech 11 and a colony in South America I'm vehemently opposed to more gigantic country-swallowing DHE's because the Burgundian Inheritance is already a lovely event that represents the history poorly and has really stupid gameplay effects. Having a bunch of those happening across the world solely in the name of railroading history sounds terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The problem with this setup was that the overlord would 99% of the time win those wars, because even if it was a strong revolt and the overlord was at war, it was still really hard for the separatists to get enough warscore quick enough before the overlord's armies crushed them. It meant very few separatists ever actually succeeded unless the overlord was already completely shattering, in which case the mechanism you're using doesn't really matter anyway. Maybe you could also lower the necessary warscore/change the AI modifiers? The thread is already noting how AIs now insist on fighting to the death in all situations, so maybe dealing with that first would be required. Failing this, some kind of forcelimit modifier (.e.g 100%: 'fighting independence war') or something that allows seperatists to punch above their weight so long as it's for their independence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Id like more and different colonizers personally. Also I don't think I've seen UK touch eastern america. They're obsessed with La Plata Also IMO it takes too long for separatists to enforce demands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I had maybe the inkling of an idea along the same lines, so I think this sounds like a great solution. I'm thinking it could be triggered by Ming losing the Mandate of Heaven, which would cause all of its provinces to gain autonomy quite rapidly. This autonomy could then be reduced in big chunks by giving viceroys more authority (releasing them as vassals), ideally allowing the Ming to regain the Mandate of Heaven and eventually reintegrate the viceroys. If they continue falling apart however it would then open up for the Manchu to come in and start taking over. Or one of the vassals could declare itself emperor, and then China would just become a giant version of the HRE thunderdome as everyone scrambles to come out on top. Oh yeah, that sounds perfect actually. Tying it to the Mandate of Heaven is a great idea. Maybe for reintegration there can be something along the lines of Imperial Authority that lets the Ming (or whoever came out on top- a Chinese analogue to the HRE emperor) pass a Renevatio Imperii-like decision to integrate 9000 development of provinces without spending half a game's worth of MP too. e: I think for all these cases- Mughals, Mamluks, Ming, probably Aztecs and Inca too- there just needs to be a way for certain countries to be able to integrate certain vast swathes of territory at very little cost. On the whole I really like the new balance in Common Sense, that makes expansion a lot slower, but I like that balance mostly wrt: Europe; there are a lot of situations where it makes less sense. quote:I hadn't even considered inflation as a balancing tool, but this actually makes sense. I will say however that another way to control AI China is to change its personality. Even the massively more powerful AI China I've created in my mod doesn't go on a massive rampage (anymore) after I decreased the chance of it getting militarist rulers, and increased the chance of it getting administrative rulers. Now I just have to deal with the problem of it always vassalizing one of its Jurchen neighbors, meaning the Manchu have no shot at ever appearing. Haven't managed to find where I can add a negative modifier to hordes getting vassalized though, but it seems like it should be possible, since the Pope has one. Huh, there might still be a way, but I searched for the modifier from the localization files ("DIPLO_POPE") and it's coming up as in the .exe its self, so I think you're out of luck. I'm wondering about whether the AI would just completely disregard the inflation as something to budget for too, since you can't mod the AI. it's a shame this is all coming up during the few weeks that Paradox devs will definitely not be reading this thread  Apoffys posted:Personally I dislike most of these events/decisions trying to force specific things to happen to conform to history. If game mechanics don't allow what actually happened historically to happen in the game, then perhaps the game mechanics should be adjusted. What's so special about the Dutch that they need to be an exception to the rebel game mechanics for example? The Dutch rebellion happened for specific reasons, which in the alternate history of an EU4 game might not come about or it might be equally valid for some other region. It's a difference in taste. Some people want basically just a whacky random Early-Modern geopolitical sandbox, some people want historical flavour that can play out in lots of ways, and some people want things to play out exactly as they did in history, except for specifically what changes due to their own actions. I trend towards the last one (and I think Pitt is firmly in that camp). I can see why not everyone does though. and to answer your question, most likely 'cause lots of Dutch people play the game Koramei fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
I don't mind burgundian inheritance because it fires rarely enough that it's an actual interesting twist when it does. The Dutch revolts, similarly, I havent noticed occurring at all since CS dropped. If all these myriad historical surprises could arise through basic game mechanics that would be beautifully elegant, but I don't think the utility of DHEs as ways of keeping the game interesting during the flow of endless player expansion should be discounted. It's what makes the Reformation mechanics great, and why I think a similar macro-mechanic for national revolutions in the late game would be a great addition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
i think i figured out my ironman problem. It won't let me if I changed some country profiles to add more female ruler options, i think?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Oh yeah, that sounds perfect actually. Tying it to the Mandate of Heaven is a great idea. Maybe for reintegration there can be something along the lines of Imperial Authority that lets the Ming (or whoever came out on top- a Chinese analogue to the HRE emperor) pass a Renevatio Imperii-like decision to integrate 9000 development of provinces without spending half a game's worth of MP too. Koramei posted:Huh, there might still be a way, but I searched for the modifier from the localization files ("DIPLO_POPE") and it's coming up as in the .exe its self, so I think you're out of luck. I'm wondering about whether the AI would just completely disregard the inflation as something to budget for too, since you can't mod the AI. As for the inflation, I've added it to the negative modifiers you get the bigger you are in my mod, so it should be easy enough to figure out if they do. Just let the game run and see if everyone is suffering from debilitating inflation after a century or two.
A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Also I'm loving around with trade goods in colonial regions. The numbers are roughly the odds right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:i think i figured out my ironman problem. It won't let me if I changed some country profiles to add more female ruler options, i think? Yeah if you've done any editing of game files or have any content mods running that will gently caress up Ironman. You can still use UI and visual mods no problem, but if you edited some of the text files that's likely your problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Yeah if you've done any editing of game files or have any content mods running that will gently caress up Ironman. You can still use UI and visual mods no problem, but if you edited some of the text files that's likely your problem. ah well, I'll SAM any achievements I've earned, if i think of it or care enough to rember where i put SAM
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Wait I also found trade good events and they have reigion triggers. I just want to add iron, copper, wine and tea to places. Should I be in colonial_regions or here? While I'm geography nerd changing things, where can I find provinces so I can change some terrain types? PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 12:57 |
|
|
Provinces are in history\provinces but you change terrain in map\terrain.txt The region triggers are probably for trade goods that change based on whether part of the map has been explored/colonized etc (like grand banks fishery, depletion of european beaver etc). I think it should just be the numbers in colonial_regions. Just experiment if something doesn't work though, that's a big park of modding. Incidentally, they really cut down the time it takes to launch the game with CS, kudos to Paradox for that. I used to have to wait like 3-4 minutes sometimes, now it's like 20-30 seconds at most. Makes modding a whole lot easier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:48
|
|