|
Another Person posted:Victory cards do not work right now. They're purely about score, so if you don't care at all about score just ignore them. Also I could be recalling this wrong but I'm pretty sure the victory card being on your ally isn't just chance. They're actually decently likely to be on your allies (or at least neighbouring players, maybe?) to help stir the pot, strain relations, and help prevent unbreakable game-long alliance blocks. So the "Do you want to stab your ally? Y/n?" thing is one of the primary reasons for their existence. edit: Sorry, didn't refresh. Another Person posted:Unless there is a prize on the line, punching an ally in the dick to get very little reward is just not fun or conductive to survival. They based victory cards on their own multiplayer games, where the winner is the one with the most points at the end of the game. They have little trophies too I think. So the point of victory cards is score, and they're designed to help crown a victor. So, again, if you don't care about score then don't worry about victory cards, forget they exist entirely. Your grand ambition suggestion could be interesting, but that's basically just the mission system on a slightly larger scale. Gonbon fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jan 17, 2016 |
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
Gonbon posted:They're purely about score, so if you don't care at all about score just ignore them. This is exactly why they're bad, though. In a game as complex as EU4, why is the only "official" way to win to blob hard and turn on your allies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Another Person posted:It doesn't make score any greater an indicator of winning, instead it is basically the "most untrustworthy" award. It just feels like a very clumsy mechanic in practice because it ignores every other factor at play. You could fix most of this with a greater modicum of choice, allowing the player to actually do something which is in their interests. Victory cards are there to undermine alliances though, I don't get the part where you are implying they are a bad thing for creating arbitrary divisions between players. They are there to break up alliance blocks by giving the players in them a reason to attack each other. As you say Score is a pretty poor way to measure performance. Victory cards are an attempt to improve that, by offering an in-game way to directly affect score, so if you want to have a Score based game you can do so, and the Victory Cards will make diplomacy complicated for that campaign. If you are going to judge the victor on anything other than score, how exactly is a Victory Card any different from a mission that you don't want, ie something to be ignored? So, put it another way, Paradox has a Score Victory 1.0 mode now which features dynamic shifting alliances, you are welcome not to try for it by not caring about score. Victory Cards are a part of that system, but I think saying they are dumb for diplomacy is really missing the point. They are meant to be at odds with diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I can unlock my first idea as Kazan, which I think is going to be Admin, but I dont have the points to get to Adaptability, so how dumb is it to consider using my glut of Diplo points to take Exploration so I could colonize a bit while I build up the admin points? If you're going for a WC you probably want Admin first. Taking a DIP idea line is not a bad idea and Kazan gets their NI coring discount second, so you could pick a DIP line and get your coring discount from NIs. I wouldn't go Exploration, the return on investment is gonna be pretty bad and it's fairly expensive to fund colonies. I'd get Diplomatic, Influence, or maybe Trade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Victory cards are there to undermine alliances though, I don't get the part where you are implying they are a bad thing for creating arbitrary divisions between players. They are there to break up alliance blocks by giving the players in them a reason to attack each other. I am saying by incorporating more ideas of success through more diverse styles of victory card, then you can improve how score measures performance. That was basically my entire second point in the original VC essay. If you incorporated those elements in, then you might have a more coherently working system by which you could have standard victory cards as well, as a means for someone who is trying to get on the board to bolster their other means of climbing (be it trade, colonizing, etc) by doing something opportunistic and turning on an ally. But right now it only really measures conquest, and even then only in simple terms. If expanded upon into a greater scale it could be so much more. It could be a system that all players can interact with just by playing the game normally, rather than to just those who can or should take advantage of conquest. I am not arguing against score and VC, but rather for it, and how to improve on the currently existing template. Because right now the template only works for certain types of nation. Another Person fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
John Wilkes Booth posted:I was playing a very similar Kazan game recently. I would go for Tatarstan as achievement, that provides you with a lot of goals and it's not too hard. It's going to involve killing Uzbek so you will be rivaling them down the line. I would also suggest continue pushing eastward to get the gold province that Yarkand has, it's a great boost to your economy. Thanks for mentioning the Ottomans - I was about to declare war on Georgia to grab some easy land there. I think maybe I'll conquer Shirvan and make them a buffer state so the Ottomans and I never share a border. Pellisworth posted:If you're going for a WC you probably want Admin first. Taking a DIP idea line is not a bad idea and Kazan gets their NI coring discount second, so you could pick a DIP line and get your coring discount from NIs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
kharaa posted:This is exactly why they're bad, though. In a game as complex as EU4, why is the only "official" way to win to blob hard and turn on your allies? Because sitting around at 3x peacetime in multiplayer is incredibly boring, probably.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Because sitting around at 3x peacetime in multiplayer is incredibly boring, probably. I mean if you want to completely ignore the point myself and Another Person are making, sure.  is another valid way to play the Something Awful forums, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Because sitting around at 3x peacetime in multiplayer is incredibly boring, probably. If you are sitting around doing nothing at all in MP then you are doing something severely wrong, no matter what gamespeed you are playing on. Rule 1 of MP: Always be talking. Rule 2 of MP: Always be watching. Rule 3 of MP: Always be working on something. Whatever that is, whether it is a war or figuring out trade or trying to optimise your income. You should always have something you can improve and work towards. Plus, if you go into things assuming to blob out like you are running a round of SP as France then you simply won't succeed unless you are on the fringes of the player map. Only one player in our current game can really blob out like he is in a SP game, and that is because he is a steppe horde in Russia, and even he is doing diplo and running deals and negotiations with other players. Similarly, you cannot simply continue expanding in MP without negotiating strong alliances. Expanding into players is harder than AI, and a good player will take advantage of insane AE levels way harder than any AI ever will. Ever had a swarm of 30 HRE princes march onto you because someone who thinks you are outgrowing him too quickly joined a coalition and fired it? You will want a web of alliances backing you up the entire way and negotiations running deep with everyone who could be a threat or friend. We are playing at speed 2 and I am still having a great deal of fun in this game, far more than I will ever have in SP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
The Golden Rule of MP: Gimmick your heart out for the best possible time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Also do what Lori said. Gimmick nations are far more fun than Prussia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Another Person posted:Ever had a swarm of 30 HRE princes march onto you because someone who thinks you are outgrowing him too quickly joined a coalition and fired it? This happens to me every so often in SP since I sometimes forget to check the AE doomsday tooltip and that HRE princes are super touchy about AE
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Score is generated in really retarded ways for stupid reasons, and unless you want your player enemies always declaring war at the perfect moment when you're low on manpower or whatever, you have to turn the ledger off, so you don't even get to see why you're getting score. Who the hell cares about score when development, number of provinces, force limits, and income tell you so much more?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
But yeah rule 4 of MP is watch netflix while you wait for colonists/manpower/AE/truce timers if you have no player neighbors
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Next time Paradox does an online twitch EUIV game I want to see randomized nations/custom players. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:If you're going for a WC you probably want Admin first. Taking a DIP idea line is not a bad idea and Kazan gets their NI coring discount second, so you could pick a DIP line and get your coring discount from NIs. Gunning for WC on one of his first few Ironman games is a little ambitious I think
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Eej posted:Gunning for WC on one of his first few Ironman games is a little ambitious I think 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Are there any alternate history scenarios that are cool and work with the current version?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Here is a version of Europa Gooniversalis with just the map changes that I threw together. There are probably bugs around because it's not done, and this was a sloppy "just take the history files out to make a new mod with", but it should be functional: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5rnacnxnp1mdivf/UNZIP%20THIS%20-%20EG4%20Map%20Only.zip?dl=0 e2: I am incompetent and the fact that I even made a mod is a miracle. Everything works as of now. Lori fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
I want someone to update Azeri mod and the one where Europe is wiped out by plague, please get on it ty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:I want someone to update Azeri mod and the one where Europe is wiped out by plague, please get on it ty. Looking for anyone to help me update Dark Continent (the latter). Lots of work to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
kharaa posted:This is exactly why they're bad, though. In a game as complex as EU4, why is the only "official" way to win to blob hard and turn on your allies? No MP score system is going to appeal to everyone. That doesn't really make a system bad in itself. If you don't want to use score to decide a victor, you can turn them off. I hope this post is up to your standards and I don't get snarked at, that would be sad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
kharaa posted:This is exactly why they're bad, though. In a game as complex as EU4, why is the only "official" way to win to blob hard and turn on your allies? You don't have to turn on your allies though. You can get score from other stuff, victory cards are there if you are not number one in score and you need a boost. If you are just the best player in a given game, or you don't care about being the best, you can just ignore them. And if people go like "oh you can't trust this guy, last game he turned on his ally just because he was supposed to" then gently caress yeah that is some hardcore hugboxing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Eej posted:Gunning for WC on one of his first few Ironman games is a little ambitious I think I have 1300 hours in this game and I don't even want to attempt a WC. Boni.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
WC isn't too bad if you have a bunch of podcasts to catch up on or something and you break up your sessions a bit. When I got it I played it simultaneously during another achievement campaign and would just switch over to that one every other session or so just to keep things interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
kharaa posted:...Yeah, so you "won" your game by collecting the most score, but nobody you play with in the future is going to want to have you anywhere near them simply because they know you as the dick from the last game that would turn on allies literally because the game told them to... Another Person posted:Unless there is a prize on the line, punching an ally in the dick to get very little reward is just not fun or conductive to survival... Another Person posted:If you are sitting around doing nothing at all in MP then you are doing something severely wrong, no matter what gamespeed you are playing on. Oh hey, an essay on why I don't play goon multiplayer anymore. The real problem here is the attitude that you (the player) are a bad person because you (the country) broke an alliance. Everyone's so adamant about in-game conduct meaning real-life consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:This is probably going to get lost with the megapost about points above mine, but I just started playing Ironman regularly and finally got a Kazan game off the ground! Tatarstan is the obvious choice for achievements, along with Master of India, Silk Road, the one for conquering all of Japan, controlling 7 trade goods, probably more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:31
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Just click on the little trophy icon in the top right and see what you can go for. Like Pitt said you're eligible for a bunch of them, so it'll basically just be up to you and how long you want to keep playing that campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
VDay posted:Just click on the little trophy icon in the top right and see what you can go for. Like Pitt said you're eligible for a bunch of them, so it'll basically just be up to you and how long you want to keep playing that campaign. That achievement interface is one of the best things Paradox has added to the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Oh hey, an essay on why I don't play goon multiplayer anymore. The real problem here is the attitude that you (the player) are a bad person because you (the country) broke an alliance. Everyone's so adamant about in-game conduct meaning real-life consequences. Yeah everyone takes it way too serious, then they do something strategically retarded because they guy they don't like attacked them, and then one guy gets really big and wails on people and everyone is upset
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Backstab the Timurids immediately, head for India; with a blocking vassal you make an admin monarch point profit from razing. Backstab the Uzbeks after the Timurids. Work on allying Persia or the Ottomans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
 I'm doing a Great Khan run (while it is still insanely easy) and totally forgot I'm technically in Europe. That would have saved me so much hassle. Also how are you guys handling the tribal estate? It seems a heck of a lot harder to balance than the other ones since there's the perpetual +40 from number of cities, to the point that when I messed up 10 years in and went over 80 influence I just said "gently caress it" and gave every single province in my country to them, and have been sitting under tribal dominance ever since. The tech cost increase is only marginal, -2 unrest in every province is great, and I have manpower out of the loving wazoo, but the idea cost increase has been a bit painful, especially since I haven't been managing my admin well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Anyone know if the Ottomans get a mission to take the province "Shirvan", also known as Baku. It is an estuary on the Caspian Sea and I would like to turn Shirvan the country into a southern bufferstate, but I dont want to do that if the Ottomans get a mission for it later in the game. I know they get one to take over the Armenia area but I dont think it goes that far east...
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Pretty sure they don't get a mission that puts claims on default Shirvan. They're still going to kill you anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
You know what I loving love? Separatists from another nation, who are of a nation I peacefully vassalized and annexed, crossing into my borders and creating separatism. Look if my country's unrest is 0, stop at the loving border. Especially because you get no warning (you get a cross border message, but no ticking faction so you can prepare).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Koramei posted:
By always giving them 33% of territory, and then only ever using the Contribute Warriors estate interaction, together with Support Tribes if you need it to be loyalty neutral. The events are timed, so you never get more than one +10 influence event effect. If you get the +20 Influence event, you just ride it out, and end their dominance 10 years later. The cost to ending it is really not a big deal. Conversely, if you're doing fine on manpower, and more importantly income, then yeah just give them everything. Only troublesome thing that happens is that some times newly conquered places with Separatism will sometimes join the Tribal Rebels group somehow, which gives you a ticking rebellion. If it fires the stacks are manageable, but you can't predict where they'll rise (since all Tribal provinces are possibilities), which is annoying. Bort Bortles posted:Anyone know if the Ottomans get a mission to take the province "Shirvan", also known as Baku. It is an estuary on the Caspian Sea and I would like to turn Shirvan the country into a southern bufferstate, but I dont want to do that if the Ottomans get a mission for it later in the game. I know they get one to take over the Armenia area but I dont think it goes that far east... No specific ones, just the generics for rivals and such. Ottos are manageable, and beatable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:Yeah everyone takes it way too serious, then they do something strategically retarded because they guy they don't like attacked them, and then one guy gets really big and wails on people and everyone is upset Some people treat it like a game of Diplomacy, other people treat it like DnD
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:By always giving them 33% of territory, and then only ever using the Contribute Warriors estate interaction, together with Support Tribes if you need it to be loyalty neutral. The events are timed, so you never get more than one +10 influence event effect. If you get the +20 Influence event, you just ride it out, and end their dominance 10 years later. The cost to ending it is really not a big deal. The AI can't seem to handle the tribes estate at all. I am constantly seeing the Tribes estate revolt, making the AI pushovers because their manpower is severely drained from fighting them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
No, they cannot. I suspect it's because they're not good enough to constantly fight large scale wars without exhausting themselves, which leads to Horde Unity issues. But I have no evidence to back this up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
Elendil004 posted:You know what I loving love? Separatists from another nation, who are of a nation I peacefully vassalized and annexed, crossing into my borders and creating separatism. Look if my country's unrest is 0, stop at the loving border. Especially because you get no warning (you get a cross border message, but no ticking faction so you can prepare). I liked the one where I went to war with some piddly nothing Yucatan peninsula tribe which somehow caused a bunch of rebels to rise up in the bordering Aztec lands. The rebels were neutral towards my guys so hey whatever, they'll keep the Aztecs off my back. And they did, driving off two stacks and just generally making a nuisance of themselves. All well and good until I took some more land and my holdings transformed into a colony, at which point* the rebels crossed the border and began to siege New Spanish territory. *Like, as soon as the colony formed, my troops were still there. BUT, the rebels were still neutral to me and I was powerless to kill them as this stack ran rampant around poor New Spain, who had a single regiment to their banners. lovely deal for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 05:09
|
|
