|
Those Lithuanian borders 
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:CK2 and EU4 have exactly the same problems with their war and peace systems. The difference is that in EU4 you can end up taking more poo poo than you wanted initially because the retarded AI decided to fight to the death over a single worthless province or whatever. In CK2 you expend the same vast expense and effort for your lovely war goal and thats it. The AI really ought to have something that determines how fiercely they're willing to fight for something, because yeah it's really weird to see them go into total war mode over some lovely off-culture heathen grain-producing boondock province. For that matter it would be cool if you could negotiate with the AI and make demands for provinces before going to war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Honestly wars should be won or lost more decisively based on large battles. It's pretty  fighting a war that consists of dozens of massive battles and widespread sieges and occupations. Most of the Napoleonic coalition wars were decided with one or two battles (Austerlitz, Eylau, etc.). Not to mention that armies of this time were not logistically capable of the sorts of occupations you need to win a war in this game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Deutsch Nozzle posted:Honestly wars should be won or lost more decisively based on large battles. It's pretty I would be interested in seeing the changes in the game if battles were given double or more of their current warscore value. As it is the most I usually see from a single battle is 5-15%, anything higher than that is usually only when you stack wipe a tiny nation's entire army when really that should just give you near 100% right there. Then the actual occupation of provinces would only be where you actually want to take land to lower the dip point cost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
MrBling posted:
Drive the Turk out of Europe. Conquer the balkans. Conquer scandinavia. Conquer Europe. By the way, this may be of interest to you: quote:After 50 years the overlord nation can inherit or integrate their personal union subjects IF the overlord has more provinces then the PU subject nation. Inheriting the PU subject can occur each time the ruler dies. This chance may be 0%; to see the probability, hover over the king in the diplomacy screen. The main factors for inheritance chance are Diplomatic Reputation of the senior partner and the province count of the junior partner. The full probability can be calculated as 5 x Diplomatic Reputation (Senior) + Stability (Senior) + 5 if both partners share a culture group - 1 per province in the junior partner. So you can still inherit Russia through random chance whenever your ruler dies. Just get a BUNCH more territory to be sure, though. double nine fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Sep 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
I'll see your and raise you a  This is the game where I was cranky about not being able to take Defender of the Faith and being stuck with one missionary conquering the steppe. Wasn't really planning on getting A Decent Reserve with this game but that quickly became a goal. Need to finish up Germany too. edit: I am a little sad Germany no longer has blurry poo poo eagle for their tag.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
MrBling posted:They're at maybe 5% in liberty desire. My game in general has gone a bit weird, Poland never got their PU over Lithuania (probably because of me) If you're playing as Brandenburg, it's trivially easy to stop them from getting the union if you're so inclined. Because Poland can't take the decision to invite Kazimierz onto the throne if they're at war, you can just drag them into a Day 0 war against the TO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 20:35
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:If you're playing as Brandenburg, it's trivially easy to stop them from getting the union if you're so inclined. Because Poland can't take the decision to invite Kazimierz onto the throne if they're at war, you can just drag them into a Day 0 war against the TO. Or you can restart until Lithuania and Denmark rival one another at the outset, meaning Lithuania is very likely to support Sweden's independence and be drawn into their war against Denmark for the first few years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Is there a point to growing a cn? They arent grateful for it.
Baron Porkface fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Pretty borders.Pellisworth posted:Or you can restart until Lithuania and Denmark rival one another at the outset, meaning Lithuania is very likely to support Sweden's independence and be drawn into their war against Denmark for the first few years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
I've had a few attempts so far at BBB and they are average, I usually end at 70 provinces at 1500. My ally Poland is consistently losing to the Teutonic Order because of their allies, so they're little help, and Muscovy allies with Sweden which makes conquering that region a pain in the rear end. Then Austria usually doesn't want to join in on Muscovy. It definitely seems doable, you just have to hope you get lucky and not have Poland be stupid, or declare war on Hungary so you have to choose between allying them or Austria.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Deutsch Nozzle posted:Honestly wars should be won or lost more decisively based on large battles. It's pretty We'd had 'one battle decides the war' at one point in EU4 in large wars. It was absolutely terrible. Gameplay goes before historical accuracy. I also think you guys are underestimating the problems related with making the AI be 'reasonable'. If the AI was 'reasonable' and gave up a province or two as soon as you win a siege or a battle, it basically means you can take territory from them at will with essentially no risk or manpower burn. There's also the problem of the player then being unreasonable and refusing to ever surrender or accept an AI's surrender so they can burn that AI's country to the ground. The peace mechanics in EU4 is what turns every war into total war, having the AI pretend to play otherwise will do it more harm than good. Wiz fucked around with this message at 11:49 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
Wiz posted:We'd had 'one battle decides the war' at one point in EU4 in large wars. It was absolutely terrible. Gameplay goes before historical accuracy. Would it be worth experimenting with raising the cap of battle effect on warscore, from 40 to something like 60, perhaps? Also, somewhat unrelated, if you tinker battle warscore, you should look into something like newer battles or time causing a decay of battle warscore from earlier battles. Because as it is one side that pulls a couple of strong wins early in a war could end up facing (for whatever reason) a complete military collapse and still have positive battle warscore that bears no relevance to the prosecution of the war anymore. Basically if Prussia is fighting Russia and kicks Russia's teeth in, but ends up attritioning to hell and back and Russia swings back and destroys the Prussian armies, the initial victories shouldn't have as much importance as they did when they happened. You could even add a modifier for that like "enemy warscore from battles"; I feel that there's themes to which that would fit well, such as for Quantity ideas where the idea is that you can make up for defeats by bouncing back with superior numbers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
The system for determining war score isn't really something that needs a lot of work. Ever since a ticking war score has been added you can pretty much just focus on the war goal and once achieved it just takes two or so years to get enough war score to take the target of the war and then some. It's a system that works pretty well and tinkering with it would just add more problems. Deutsch Nozzle posted:Honestly wars should be won or lost more decisively based on large battles. It's pretty You don't even need to occupy the country just occupy the forts. Occupying provinces without fortresses is basically worthless. You're not so much occupying a country as much as you are occupying a half dozen key fortresses, which isn't really an amazing logistical feat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
I think one thing that is really annoying with wars is the alliance system. If an ally doesn't have military access to participate in a war, they shouldn't count for warscore or make it so that the game automatically gives the required access. Having to wait 5 years just because some lovely 3 province minor is involved in my war but is behind my rival is annoying. I mostly fully siege and punish allies because they annoy me, they turn a 1 year war into a 5 year war and make me burn extra manpower, so they need to suffer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Would it be worth experimenting with raising the cap of battle effect on warscore, from 40 to something like 60, perhaps? Also, somewhat unrelated, if you tinker battle warscore, you should look into something like newer battles or time causing a decay of battle warscore from earlier battles. Because as it is one side that pulls a couple of strong wins early in a war could end up facing (for whatever reason) a complete military collapse and still have positive battle warscore that bears no relevance to the prosecution of the war anymore. Basically if Prussia is fighting Russia and kicks Russia's teeth in, but ends up attritioning to hell and back and Russia swings back and destroys the Prussian armies, the initial victories shouldn't have as much importance as they did when they happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Maybe just have the warscore from battles be modified by the size of your armies relative to your force limit? Perhaps with a higher cap to make up for it. That might be good, but time still is really important. A big battle in a war should not have an equal influence right after it happens and five years down the road when its effect is no longer as relevant. I would say something like, a battle's warscore contribution should start decaying after a year for four years, resting at half of its initial warscore. If a battle is so big that it cripples the opponent's camp for the rest of the war then it does have a lasting influence on the war's prosecution thereafter, but then warscore would be reflected from that as the winner's side starts taking over fortifications and so on. If the winner of such a battle on the contrary fails to actually follow up with the prosecution of the war after that then the battle should stop being as important as it was immediately after it happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Wiz posted:We'd had 'one battle decides the war' at one point in EU4 in large wars. It was absolutely terrible. Gameplay goes before historical accuracy. The new fort system helps with this a fair amount. Capturing forts in a country's homeland seems to be a good proxy for "you've beaten them enough to claim victory".
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Wiz posted:I also think you guys are underestimating the problems related with making the AI be 'reasonable'. If the AI was 'reasonable' and gave up a province or two as soon as you win a siege or a battle, it basically means you can take territory from them at will with essentially no risk or manpower burn. There's also the problem of the player then being unreasonable and refusing to ever surrender or accept an AI's surrender so they can burn that AI's country to the ground. In CK2 the AI can force a peace with enough (100%?) warscore, which is much easier to get than in EU4, since holding the war goal will tick up forever unless things have changes since Old Gods. You of all people should know this. Acute Grill fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Sep 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
They can essentially force it with stability hits in EU4 too. I think his point was that players don't act rationally enough to base a more reasonable peace system off of. In Europe at least I do agree that the peace system is pretty much the game's biggest issue right now though. I have no idea how Paradox can get out of the existential wars thing but I hope they think of something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Wiz posted:We'd had 'one battle decides the war' at one point in EU4 in large wars. It was absolutely terrible. Gameplay goes before historical accuracy. I don't think I ever experienced that. What was it like?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Deutsch Nozzle posted:I don't think I ever experienced that. What was it like? It has kind of swung in the other direction, unfortunately  Really, really large countries will be lucky to get 2-3 warscore out of enormous battles. Probably this is because those battles don't make up the full forces available to either of those countries but at that scale it's impossible to get all of your men in. You need garrisons in your colonies, rebel stomping stacks, reserve forces, etc. that get in the way of really throwing your all at your enemy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Deutsch Nozzle posted:I don't think I ever experienced that. What was it like? Wars with 500,000 people on each side where one battle gave 40 warscore, ie "whoever attacks in bad terrain first loses".
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
I had a battle earlier today where I had my entire forcelimit defending in mountains against like 3x the numbers, the battle had every man involved in the entire war in it, and I actually got a good chunk of warscore (like 20%+). I can't remember the last time that happened but it was a nice surprise and let me take some extra concessions. Usually it feels like you have to occupy every fort between you and the enemy capital and trash their manpower pool a bit and then they'll give a warscore + 20% peace, otherwise you're lucky to get a white peace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Wiz posted:We'd had 'one battle decides the war' at one point in EU4 in large wars. It was absolutely terrible. Gameplay goes before historical accuracy. tl;dr can something be done about the 5 year minimum time before 100% of the wartarget means something when deadbeat allies are involved?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
In a sort of related vein, can the AI throwing everything they have into every war be addressed? I think that's by far the biggest 'flaw' in the game right now, if you can even call it that. It's in place for offensive wars, where your allies are generally less likely to help you unless you're fighting their rivals, but it could stand to be done for defensive wars too I think. For example, lets say France is allied to Poland, who are both rivalled to Austria. If I, as someone distant in North America or Southeast Asia or something, attack France over a colony of theirs, Poland would typically use whatever fleet they have to ship a potentially large fraction of their army overseas, or get a bunch of military accesses and walk their army across Asia or whatever, to fight in a conflict they have no real interest in. It's a tricky problem of course, because there's probably a million grey areas in between that and a big European war, but it's really dumb to see happening all the time. It'd be nice to know whether you've looked at that sort of thing at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
How broken would the game get if defensive calls to war also had a distance modifier, perhaps just modified a bit to be more lenient, like offensive wars do? I think it would make sense as well in terms of ~immersion~ since your neighbor and ally would care a whole lot more about some threat to you from nearby then they would about you fighting some colonial war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
VDay posted:How broken would the game get if defensive calls to war also had a distance modifier, perhaps just modified a bit to be more lenient, like offensive wars do? I think it would make sense as well in terms of ~immersion~ since your neighbor and ally would care a whole lot more about some threat to you from nearby then they would about you fighting some colonial war. You'd have to rework the call to arms mechanic. As it stands, there's always a call, so you'd end up with all the colonial powers constantly having their alliances broken because they get some distant war declared on them and their allies look at it, think "that's a distant war" and decline.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
I would be totally ok with defensive allies being much more willing to peace out if they're losing and aren't invested in the war. This would cut both ways, as it would make a player less able to outsource their defense to a bulldog ally. Edit: just spitballing but something as simple as increasing willingness for a White Peace unless they want something out of the war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Yeah, you'd have to break it down so that there were no auto-calls, and then give you the popup about allies willing to be called in. As long as you make sure polities allied to both parties are unwilling to join the offensive side, that part should be easy enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Node posted:gently caress Ahahaha, you're totally hosed. Have fun fighting literally every rebel type there is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Node posted:gently caress A White Guy posted:Ahahaha, you're totally hosed. Have fun fighting literally every rebel type there is. Nah looks like he just missed BBB achievement. Sorry brah  Better luck next time! I think if you just tweaked non-co-belligerent allies to more readily accept a white peace if the alliance overall is losing that would do it. Right now defensive allies are too willing to fight to the point of military and financial ruin for wars they have no stake in, and seem to put too much weight on their personal warscore even as a non belligerent. It just needs tweaked so non-co-belligerents care more about the alliance warscore and are more willing to White Peace if the alliance is beaten rather than fight to the death unless they're personally demolished.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I would be totally ok with defensive allies being much more willing to peace out if they're losing and aren't invested in the war. This would cut both ways, as it would make a player less able to outsource their defense to a bulldog ally. This would probably be hard to convey in a clear way, but maybe you should only get a CTA if both allies are in the same general region? It would have to be some kind of super-region, maybe continent-size? This breaks for Asia, of course. But you could set up some rules for CTAs, like:
Ideally this should only apply to pretty large empires or pretty distant wars. England and Portugal should answer each others' calls in Europe but not Brazil, for example. Maybe #3 is bad, too. Maybe England and Portugal shouldn't answer each others' calls against someone with a capital in West Africa ever. This means that if you declare war on a colonizer as a local power you don't end up at war with all of Europe. The "same region capital" exception handles European colonial wars - e.g. if Aztec declares war on Spanish holdings in Mexico then Spain doesn't call their ally Austria. If France declares war on Spanish holdings in Mexico then Spain does call their ally Austria. Maybe break it down by colonial region / trade company region to solve most of the Asia problem? This still doesn't solve some of the more long-distance European alliances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
I love all these complaints about the AI throwing in their all to help out their AI allies juxtaposed with earlier talk about the uselessness of people's own allies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Munin posted:I love all these complaints about the AI throwing in their all to help out their AI allies juxtaposed with earlier talk about the uselessness of people's own allies. Poland is getting absolutely wrecked by Teutonic Order's alliance, and they are in their normal PU with Lithuania, who is just keeping their army at the capital. They are loyal to Poland and I have no idea why they are just sitting there not helping. It's sad to watch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
It might be because the concentration of enemy armies in the area around Poland is too large. So the Lithuanian AI calculates that if he goes closer he will get killed. Same thing has happened to me in a few wars where I have a mega alliance attack Ottomans f.ex.. If I have been herding my alliance well and they are all concentrated in the Balkans the Ottomans sometimes keep their armies away. I am quite sure that if a small stack would wander off alone and siege a distant province the Lithuanian army will walk over and try to kill it.
Hryme fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Sep 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Munin posted:I love all these complaints about the AI throwing in their all to help out their AI allies juxtaposed with earlier talk about the uselessness of people's own allies.  Personally I find AI allies are generally way too helpful. Maybe that's just the 1000 hours of watching how they behave talking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:55 |
|
|
Maybe Humiliation should have more effect, like giving unrest in the enemy, granting the victor stability, and maybe some other thing. That way the player wouldn't always be inclined to fight wars of national annihilation, at least not non-powergamers. Or maybe replace the victory card system with a Rivals Humiliated Score.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2015 03:28
|
|