|
Hilariously enough republics are a lot more stable than monarchies in my experience of playing. Republics are great for turning a disposable ruler into a general if you're waiting for the tradition to tick back up anyway. After being repressed into a boring office job for all of his life the douge now decides to throw all the papers to the side and grabs a sword. Everything is wonderfully simple, you hold one end and stick the other into enemies. Speaking of republics, I'd love if custom nations could be set to get women as rulers for republics, theocracies, etc. You can start with a high priestess or similar, but every successor will just be men. Poil fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Jan 5, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
The only thing I miss while playing republics is the diplo rep you get from having high legitimacy, which in extreme cases can be fixed by picking the diplo dude next election. I think one thing that is missing from monarchies is the whole heir shuffle that some of the large dynasties did. I feel like there should be some sort of choice for this, maybe I can have a low legitimacy heir who's really good, while the guy with high legitimacy is Carlos II. Making regencies not suck/be boring would greatly improve them too. The more I think about government types being tied to your idea groups the more I like this idea. It might make idea choices more fun as well, and maybe buff some of the weaker idea sets because they unlock more powerful government forms. If not that then maybe add a bonus that activates if you have X government and Y idea group (Monarchy + Aristocracy = -x% cavalry cost etc).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Republics in the EU time period were no less stable overall than the monarchies of the time. The big question about them was whether a Republic could run a large country. That's one of the big question that hovered above the USA at the time of its founding. The Republics that did exist were either pretty loose confederations or much more local affairs. Venice and Genoa were the ones with the most possessions at various times but they were scattered holdings each with a specific purpose withing their trading and power projection network rather than large territories held for farms, manpower and taxes. Switzerland was a hugely decentralised network of tiny and hugely varied political entities which simply couldn't function as a monarchy with it's implied centralised power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
IMO, it would be a good nerf to Republics being objectively stronger than Monarchies for non-vassal swarm games/HRE poo poo if the early government forms were seriously bad and had pretender revolts and poo poo. But then American/French style federations that are all about balance of power open up and suddenly democracy is this nice mix of centralization and decentralization. But of course this would then leave the problem that the new Theocracies (besides the Pope) are insanely strong compared to early Republics and Monarchies anyway Also I really wish they gave Tibet a unique theocracy form when they changed the others. It would be cool if they were a theocracy with monarchy mechanics for heirs, AKA you have heirs that start very young but can potentially rule for 40 years or so. Larry Parrish fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
e:^ hopefully that'll get included in the east asia expansion they do sometime. I dunno about constant rebellions, but giving republics a monarchist estate that's hard to deal with would maybe work? Because yeah I literally always pick republics if I have the option; even with the penalties for royal marriages I usually think it's worth it. Paradox is back from vacation: quote:In 1.15 newly conquered provinces will always lose their Estates. Estates staying makes sense historically but it's too detrimental gameplay wise (it'll remain an option for modding though). also they're talking about a development cap for the AI, so you don't get ridiculously huge OPMS (30-something development Tver was the example). It's not that big a deal for me but I kinda hope they let non-OPMS get their capital past the limit at least. I liked having more 30+ development cities as the game progresses. Koramei fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Non-sapient posted:I didn't have time to colonize all open provinces because colonist travel time bugged out to 1000+ days everywhere, but oh well. When this happens to me, saving and loading generally fixes it. It's a bug that's been around for a while now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I wish they'd fix that when you alt+tab out of the game the music pauses (good) but the ambiance such as wind, gulls and other animals keeps on going in the speakers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Poil posted:Hilariously enough republics are a lot more stable than monarchies in my experience of playing. Your leader dying in battle would be a disaster for a republic. There would not be an orderly emergency election. I think that every time a republican leader dies in office, there should be a -RT penalty during the emergency election. Emergency elections should be a threat. And I agree, right now, republics are objectively the best government. You get more monarch points, more reliable, predictable rulers, and a bunch of side benefits, like getting to cycle your free general every 4 years if you don't like him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
I've cored 50 development Prague too many times, the development cap can't come soon enough
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Yeah, being able to pick from a pool of potential heirs would make monarchies a lot better. The current system seems like a holdover of the limitations of EU3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
The thing about monarchies is that there should almost never be a regency. These people had tons of kids and relatives and it wasn't uncommon for different branches of the family tree to take over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
MrBling posted:The thing about monarchies is that there should almost never be a regency. Yeah, this would make a lot of sense. Even at the cost of some stability or uprisings or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Yeah, this would make a lot of sense. Even at the cost of some stability or uprisings or something. Claim Strength would be the most logical cost. You've got three potential randomized heirs with different levels of Claim. But I could see other costs put in place for if you don't want to suffer a regency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
I don't feel like republics need a nerf, it's monarchies that are just too bad compared to other options. The 1 in 100 chance for a PU, that might not even be stable, just doesn't make up for all the drawbacks. Also some republics in this time period were actually very stable, Switzerlands only internal wars were the two during the Reformation (led by Huldrych Zwingli/Zürich) and then way later the two "Sonderbundkriege" which were way after Napoleon. The other wars were a united Switzerland vs HRE/Northern Italy coalitions. The internal politics during that time were rather stable. From what I remember this wasn't much different for Venice/Florence/North German republics. If you check history it frequently happened that a prince was considered too young and some uncle/relative came to power. I guess the Hungary/Bohemia events kinda simulate things like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
MrBling posted:The thing about monarchies is that there should almost never be a regency. Or at the very least, getting a regency shouldn't prevent you from going to war for up to 15 years. That's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:I don't feel like republics need a nerf, it's monarchies that are just too bad compared to other options. The 1 in 100 chance for a PU, that might not even be stable, just doesn't make up for all the drawbacks. The highly decentralized nature of the Swiss Confederation gave it a lot of stability (and was also something of an exception), and was very different from Italian republican models, where executive positions were essentially elective autocracy. The Swiss model is probably the closest model from this time period to the American model, which succeeded at creating a very large republic, mostly through decentralization (but with a substantially more autocratic executive). e: I'm not 100% sure that Switzerland should be a country. Realistically, it should be a special combined polity, like the shogunate, or the HRE, where each one province canton is a member and they are all dragged into wars, etc. Each canton casts a vote each term to pick which canton determines foreign policy (e.g. is the "emperor", for simplification purposes), I guess. Never going to happen for an area as generally not important as Switzerland during this time period, though. Dibujante fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Or at the very least, getting a regency shouldn't prevent you from going to war for up to 15 years. That's bullshit. Something like a stab hit and maybe some war exhaustion would be far more palatable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Or at the very least, getting a regency shouldn't prevent you from going to war for up to 15 years. That's bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Has that ever been confirmed? It doesn't sound right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Has that ever been confirmed? It doesn't sound right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Wiz has denied this repeatedly, so it is definitely true. There are also certain carve-outs to make heir death chance even worse for particular players.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Wiz has denied this repeatedly, so it is definitely true. There are also certain carve-outs to make heir death chance even worse for particular players. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Hi, as I've said before, I feel it's lovely to mislead players about a game as complex as EU4. Yes it's funny to watch people believe things that aren't true, haw haw. And the fact that some dude is getting riled up over the bullshit of something that isn't true? That's what he gets for being dumb! New players: Your heirs with good stats are not coded to die earlier, but it often seems that way, which is why folks are screwing with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Has that ever been confirmed? It doesn't sound right. It's literally nothing but confirmation bias. Bad heirs are just as likely to die as good heirs; it's just that you notice it more when it's a good heir (or you just have very, very lovely luck).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Poil posted:He denied it? I thought he confirmed it? Or maybe I'm remembering completely wrong. I can pretty much promise you if he "confirmed" it he was joking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
He posted a snippet of code here like a year ago that indicated that, and then made sure everyone knew it was a joke like 3 posts later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Yes it's funny to watch people believe things that aren't true, haw haw. And the fact that some dude is getting riled up over the bullshit of something that isn't true? That's what he gets for being dumb! Agreed
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
It's kinda amusing to watch the AI pile in on the same country and suddenly really small and pathetically weak ones do it too but there aren't enough provinces for them to get any warscore and then the piled upon gets out of the other wars, raises a few mercs (about twice or thrice the size army) and just stomps all over them.Fintilgin posted:I can pretty much promise you if he "confirmed" it he was joking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
What, really? I'm an idiot too then apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
For what it's worth, Oirat is a pretty fun Horde start. Not quite as good NIs as Kazan (they have the generic set) but they're Tengri, so you can enact a decision for -1 RR and +2 Heathen Tolerance, plus go syncretic Hindu for another +2 Heathen Tolerance. You start with a god-king general (2/5/5/0) and a pretty good position as long as Ming doesn't step on you. Edit: the heathen tolerance is really good because most/all of the land you conquer won't be Tengri, obviously. Revolts suck as a horde because you have huge amounts of land with few forts, plus quelling revolts costs manpower and returns no cash/MPs like fighting real wars. relative to Kazan, Oirat can enact decisions for a net gain of -1 national RR +2 Heathen Tolerance or +2% Missionary Strength +1.5 yearly prestige -10% stab cost if/when you get Humanism you can go syncretic Shinto or something 
Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jan 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Wiz must be tempted to make so many horrifying jokes about how EU "secretly" works right now, just to see which ones stick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
I have the design documents
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
VerdantSquire posted:It's literally nothing but confirmation bias. Bad heirs are just as likely to die as good heirs; it's just that you notice it more when it's a good heir (or you just have very, very lovely luck). This is exactly it. It just feels like the game is cheating because you actually notice and give way more of a gently caress when your 5/5/5 heir dies a year away from becoming ruler and ending a regency than when your 2/0/1 idiot son dies and is immediately replaced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
According to the wiki, focusing on Odin as your deity when Norse gives you +0.1 horde unity. That's... interesting. Vikings on the steppes is kinda ridiculous though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
My 5th try as Manchu ended up in ruins because Ming got the unite China mission. Aaaaagh. Ming didn't implode once in every one of these tries. I never manage to stackwipe them, even going with all my forcelimit full cav and tech advantage, which is probably more due to my permanent newbie status with this game than anything else. Gonna smuggle some crap in Elite while I figure how to beat the yellow giant 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
I only play ironman but I will end task the game if I get a regency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Transmetropolitan posted:My 5th try as Manchu ended up in ruins because Ming got the unite China mission. It might be better to have a row of mercs instead of cav when fighting a unified Ming. Bait them into your land and run them out of manpower while you pay 0 for reinforcements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Yeah, how many actual loans do I need to Major gently caress Things Up for them (Ming), though? My main reservation on that front is that hordes are so drat poor that I am not so sure that going with an all in against them wouldn't bankrupt me even with a major victory
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Just drive them to a white peace. Revolts will do the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 17:11 |
|
|
Koramei posted:He posted a snippet of code here like a year ago that indicated that, and then made sure everyone knew it was a joke like 3 posts later. Said snippet also specified that if the username was "Beamed" it was even more likely. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:04
|
|
