|
Tahirovic posted:I am in the camp that would prefer those two unfun sounding feature to be DLC only content so I can disable them. I agree as well. If the changes are not part of the DLC I might just have to revert and call this latest patch/revision good. It might be fun to have the naval stuff and more provinces from Africa, but doesn't seem worth it if I have to bring in these really unfun sounding features. I think that at this point the game is actually done. I think EU IV is complete. It is a great game, and it works wonderfully well. If they wanted to do a balance/AI Improvement patch that would be fine, but as a whole I think the game is done and any further feature addition would be better suited for EU V.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Dibujante posted:Tenderloin and Flank. Filet and Chuck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Sperglord Firecock posted:Filet and Chuck. 中国 and 外国.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
IncredibleIgloo posted:I agree as well. If the changes are not part of the DLC I might just have to revert and call this latest patch/revision good. It might be fun to have the naval stuff and more provinces from Africa, but doesn't seem worth it if I have to bring in these really unfun sounding features. I think that at this point the game is actually done. I think EU IV is complete. It is a great game, and it works wonderfully well. If they wanted to do a balance/AI Improvement patch that would be fine, but as a whole I think the game is done and any further feature addition would be better suited for EU V.
The thing that gets me about Corruption is the fact the in this very thread Wiz said that having internal factors limiting a player is unfun and not rewarding, which is bad gameplay design. Now we are getting Corruption which adds to tedium, is built to slow down expansion, and is not rewarding in any way (except that there may be good events when you have zero/low corruption, which, eh, lame).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:I thought something similar but have no good ideas. Call one of them crown land and the other nothing? Core and non-core territory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I think once the naval stuff is added and Africa has more added to it it will be good, but there are a few issues that could still use some improvement, though preferably not features, just improvements. Things such as: I would really like to see fire/shock replaced for military leaders with something more generic, like offense/defense, so that any conceivable leader is just as valuable in the beginning of the game as in the end of the game. That leader could be a 6off/0def leader, meaning he adds 6 pips to all of his units' offensive fire/shock/morale and 0 pips to their defensive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:I would really like to see fire/shock replaced for military leaders with something more generic, like offense/defense, so that any conceivable leader is just as valuable in the beginning of the game as in the end of the game. That leader could be a 6off/0def leader, meaning he adds 6 pips to all of his units' offensive fire/shock/morale and 0 pips to their defensive. Also missions. Missions still need some fine-tuning. I should not get a mission to incorporate a vassal to my country a month after I create/release the vassal. Wtf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Military Leaders / Military Leader cap/upkeep: Just seems like an outdated model. I as a player am forced to pay 50 MPs to recruit a General or Admiral who can be completely worthless What's the actual issue with this? You can invest all your points into military ideas and then roll 1s in combat and get whooped by a country that went into full espionage instead. Randomness is part of the game. quote:The thing that gets me about Corruption is the fact the in this very thread Wiz said that having internal factors limiting a player is unfun and not rewarding, which is bad gameplay design. Now we are getting Corruption which adds to tedium, is built to slow down expansion, and is not rewarding in any way (except that there may be good events when you have zero/low corruption, which, eh, lame). He said stability, not just any internal factors. It was also in response to me suggesting literally splitting countries in half, which is a bit different than a slowly trickling corruption measure. I'm not sold on the way they're balancing corruption- it seems like it's gonna screw over small non-western teams the most, which is the opposite of what I'd think an anti-blobbing game mechanic should be designed for. But how is this tedious exactly? People are bemoaning these two features like they're gonna be micromanagement hell, but there's nothing about them I can see that's particularly complicated or is gonna take that much attention. And it's gonna be rewarding since it'll present a nice late-game challenge you have to work to overcome when you get too big. People have been complaining about how tedious this game gets once you're past a certain size, but now we have two simple and unobtrusive measures to curb your strength (that you can still get past, unlike the solutions in plenty of mods), and everyone is decrying them like the game is ruined now.* The balance they have in place right now (a month+ before release) for the system seems wonky but that's also by far the easiest thing to change after the fact. * maybe they're not the same people, but I think there's an element of not actually knowing what they want in a game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Please change vassal income to something useful, like reduced liberty desire or # of vassals to not count against diplo relations maximum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I think once the naval stuff is added and Africa has more added to it it will be good, but there are a few issues that could still use some improvement, though preferably not features, just improvements. Things such as: As for Monarchies there are a few simple fixes that would make them a lot less awful. Regencies are the single biggest drawback to monarchies and a huge impediment to enjoying the game. Some solutions to that would be to: - Replace the crappy increase core cost idea in Aristocratic with an idea that lets you declare war in a regency. Now Aristocratic is a more useful idea group. - OR allow war declaration in regency for stability cost. - OR combine these two ideas,. You can declare war in a regency for stability hit, but if you have the aristocratic idea there is no stability hit. Unique diplomatic actions might be interesting as well; perhaps allow monarchies to "Hold Court" and use diplomacy points to pay down aggressive expansion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
I can't find any decent info about this online. If I let my vassal succumb to noble rebels, can that break their vassalage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:中国 and 外国. wait, what's that second one? something guo clearly but idk what?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
judging by context, insignificant fuckland filled with worthless barbarians
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I can't find any decent info about this online. If I let my vassal succumb to noble rebels, can that break their vassalage? The answer appears to be no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Koramei posted:judging by context, insignificant fuckland filled with worthless barbarians yeah but I was just wondering what
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Koramei posted:What's the actual issue with this? You can invest all your points into military ideas and then roll 1s in combat and get whooped by a country that went into full espionage instead. Randomness is part of the game.  That general is a waste of 50MP. 50MP that could take you 10 or more months to earn. Meanwhile someone else could get the opposite and be pretty much invincible in combat for the life of the general. It is obtuse and unfun that I have to spend my valuable Monarch Points on something that makes such a big difference and I have zero control on the outcome of recruiting a General. I know combat is random but I should get some sort of choice or input on what kind of general I have. I'm not saying "let me pick my generals pips" I just dont want it to be roulette every time I recruit a general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
You get control, you can invest in ideas or get more army tradition. Or spend another 50 mil points, it's not that big a deal. I agree with Dibujante that fire/shock should be combined into a unified stat, it's needlessly confusing for not much benefit anyway. But if you get a leader pool then everyone's just gonna pick the best one every time anyway, what's the point of that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:yeah but I was just wondering what It means foreign country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:wait, what's that second one? something guo clearly but idk what? Waìguó. Koramei posted:You get control, you can invest in ideas or get more army tradition. Or spend another 50 mil points, it's not that big a deal. Well, "picking the best" will absolutely happen in the current system. Is it 1444? Yeah, you're not picking the 6/0/0/0 guy. If Paradox made all attributes equally valuable then that issue would be gone. Right now, there's no way you're picking even a point of maneuver if you can put that into offense/defense/siege. Maneuver has a benefit but it's much smaller. Maybe decrease general spread at higher traditions and allow players to choose a focus for their rolled general? Offense, defense, siege, or balanced, where balanced generals get more pips. Or specialized generals get fewer pips. I dunno. But I agree with the spirit that random general rolling is not a great mechanic. You burn a lot of military power, yes. But you also burn a lot of time. You sit there on the general screen rolling generals until you get one that isn't poo poo or you've burned through all of your points, when you should be fighting a war. e: right now you're basically doing a general pool anyways: you burn all your points. Then you pick the best general. e2: maybe you should be able to set a military policy the way you set a native policy, and can change it once every x years with some penalty, I dunno. Your chosen policy automatically influences your general rolls.
e3: and espionage could uncover what policies other countries have so you know how to pick generals to counter? Dibujante fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Koramei posted:You get control, you can invest in ideas or get more army tradition. Or spend another 50 mil points, it's not that big a deal. rolling more generals would be ok if I could fire the generals I don't need
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
skipThings posted:rolling more generals would be ok if I could fire the generals I don't need Having a bunch of lovely generals floating around isn't exactly ahistorical...
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
skipThings posted:rolling more generals would be ok if I could fire the generals I don't need
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Poil posted:You can get rid of them in the military tab. It should have a list of all idle generals (they can't be assigned to an army when you dismiss them). Unless it was changed in the last patch. No, you're still able to fire spare generals, just as always.  the little boot button to the right of each general. (not my screenshot.) if everyone complaining about lack of choice in generals was under the misapprehension that you were stuck with generals until they died... that would explain a lot
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:if everyone complaining about lack of choice in generals was under the misapprehension that you were stuck with generals until they died... that would explain a lot Two guys that are pretty new to the thread got confused, it doesn't seem reasonable to extrapolate this. The general system is the wrong level of complexity. It's fiddly and stupid and pointless. I have to pay 50 points to get generals that I can barely control, die all the time, and either play a major role in a war or none at all. Good stuff. Either: -make it simpler and easy to use where I'm not clicking dumb poo poo and hoping for something that doesn't suck (and then it does) but also wastes my time and is unpredictable. As a design, this does not get a passing grade from me. -Make combat deep enough that things like generals could actually matter, in which case give me some decisions to make on them, instead of this fiddly 50 point roulette. Either way the Generals system is absolutely the wrong kind of complexity. Pointless, fiddly, annoying, unreliable, hard to predict how much it will impact things. Blehhh. And then you have guys going "But maybe people don't like it because they dont know you can kick generals."
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Koramei posted:judging by context, insignificant fuckland filled with worthless barbarians that's the first
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Two guys that are pretty new to the thread got confused, it doesn't seem reasonable to extrapolate this. imo the general system is pretty straightforward and not super fiddly. switching from fire/shock to offense/defense would be an improvement, probably, but I don't think there's any urgent need for a change. the system helps add texture and character to wars and periods of your nation's history (sometimes you have good generals, sometimes you don't, sometimes the enemy has a three star fucker and it's time to get creative). it's also a military point sink. works for me e: also lol @ the claim that generals do not matter in combat as it stands
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Honestly I wonder if it might just be better to nerf Generals by taking away pips/directly adding to combat rolls and go with a more trait based system like every other Paradox game has at this point. Even just something generic like Victoria 2's generals would be nice, as it is generals have no flavor and are basically RNG fluff. Maybe have multiple levels of traits, with low army tradition tending to give a bigger variety of traits but also lower levels of them but higher army tradition giving you higher level traits but a more limited variety of them. Really anything to give them some flavor and purpose would be nice, as of right now you are adding a number and attaching it to whatever army you want to win more..there's no attachment to them or anything to differentiate them except "Is good = Yes or No" at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:imo the general system is pretty straightforward and not super fiddly. switching from fire/shock to offense/defense would be an improvement, probably, but I don't think there's any urgent need for a change. agree w/this I usually start out making my king and/or heir a general(s), not because they're necessarily going to be better than a general I will roll, but because I know that any general I roll before gaining significant tradition probably won't be worth the MP. I'd much rather get to military techs 4-9 a few months earlier. if you really want a good one then there's always the option of getting a guaranteed 40 tradition general from the noble estate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Zeron posted:Honestly I wonder if it might just be better to nerf Generals by taking away pips/directly adding to combat rolls and go with a more trait based system like every other Paradox game has at this point. Even just something generic like Victoria 2's generals would be nice, as it is generals have no flavor and are basically RNG fluff. Maybe have multiple levels of traits, with low army tradition tending to give a bigger variety of traits but also lower levels of them but higher army tradition giving you higher level traits but a more limited variety of them. Really anything to give them some flavor and purpose would be nice, as of right now you are adding a number and attaching it to whatever army you want to win more..there's no attachment to them or anything to differentiate them except "Is good = Yes or No" at all. see, if you want to talk about 'fiddly and hard to tell how/if it actually affects combat', here's where you go: ck2-style military leaders, "traits", and so on whatever its faults, leaders -> pips -> bonus to combat rolls is very straightforward, and it's very easy to see when you're getting massacred by some fucker with five shock pips or w/e. i never felt like I had any idea what was really going on with my leaders' traits in vicky 2; it was all just a blur of -17.4% speed, +20.9% organization, -5.2% morale. admittedly it didn't help that vicky 2 had literally dozens of generals at a time, all automatically generated & assigned (unless you were insane enough to take manual control); possibly in a format where you usually have 1-2, ~6 tops, it could be more reasonable
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Koramei posted:You get control, you can invest in ideas or get more army tradition. Or spend another 50 mil points, it's not that big a deal. I'm not asking for a win button, I am asking for my forced choices (because you NEED to have a general) to suck less. Just like I have been advocating for Monarchies to be improved because Monarch roulette sucks, too. Nobody likes the a-historical 15 year regencies or getting an heir that is older than your current monarch that you cannot kick to curb or avoid in ANY way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Nobody likes the a-historical 15 year regencies or getting an heir that is older than your current monarch that you cannot kick to curb or avoid in ANY way. there's always at least one way to lose an heir 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Giving players any control over generals is a terrible, terrible idea. The system works fine as is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Why cant the game generate three when I pay 50 MP and I have to pick one? It lets me pick "the best one" (just like everyone wants to do) but it also gives me choice. "Ooh there is a two siege general but he only has one shock, so maybe I should pick the two fire three shock guy? lol@ at the 1/0/2/0 guy, definitely not hiring him". All that would happen with this system is everyone would pick the guy with the most shock pips every single time, and then when they get a second general slot they'd pick the guy with the most siege pips to back him up. There's no actual choice in that system. And Pleasingfungus is right, there's a real benefit in random systems occasionally loving you over like this in that it makes you work around something. Sometimes you get that super general and can punch above your weight for a bit, sometimes you get the poo poo guy instead and have to compensate. Occasionally you get the poo poo guy at a time you really need a good one, in which case, horror of horrors, you can spend another 50 or whatever mil points rerolling him- getting more choice of generals is a good short term boon, but at long term cost of moderately loving over your military tech for a bit. I don't think the current general system is perfect (personally I thought traits sounded cool, if they do them in a more intuitive way than CK2 anyway) but it's a hell of a lot better than any alternative I've seen suggested and there are definitely more important things to gripe about in EU4 than 50 mil points here and there. Like monarchies. I agree with you that those genuinely need work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Poil posted:You can get rid of them in the military tab. It should have a list of all idle generals (they can't be assigned to an army when you dismiss them). Unless it was changed in the last patch. drat, didn't even know that, I never noticed , aaaahhhh
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
If you want to choose between three generals, hit the button three times. It's that simple. If this doesn't work for you, then what you actually seem to want is lower mil costs to get generals. Obviously if 50 MP is what the devs think a "take it or leave it" general should cost now, a "generate 3, pick 1" system would cost a lot closer to 150 than 50.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
I wish idea group unlocks were based on total number of technologies, rather than a particular admin tech level. It makes more sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Decided to give Albania or Iberia a shot. Austria got the burgundian inheritance, a PU with Hungary and another PU with Castille. This might be hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:I wish idea group unlocks were based on total number of technologies, rather than a particular admin tech level. It makes more sense to me. But then why would you ever bother with admin tech?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:there's always at least one way to lose an heir  Koramei posted:All that would happen with this system is everyone would pick the guy with the most shock pips every single time, and then when they get a second general slot they'd pick the guy with the most siege pips to back him up. There's no actual choice in that system. thatdarnedbob posted:If you want to choose between three generals, hit the button three times. It's that simple. If this doesn't work for you, then what you actually seem to want is lower mil costs to get generals. Obviously if 50 MP is what the devs think a "take it or leave it" general should cost now, a "generate 3, pick 1" system would cost a lot closer to 150 than 50.  Thanks for the valuable input on the cordial discussion we were having. Its funny when it is obvious that you have not even ready my posts.  Tsyni posted:I wish idea group unlocks were based on total number of technologies, rather than a particular admin tech level. It makes more sense to me. Too Poetic posted:Decided to give Albania or Iberia a shot. Austria got the burgundian inheritance, a PU with Hungary and another PU with Castille. This might be hard. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:But then why would you ever bother with admin tech? Admin efficiency and development efficiency, though you do have a reasonable point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 08:30
|
|