|
IncredibleIgloo posted: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: This sounds like such a simple and elegant solution, which would solve several problems -and- foster more player choice.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
Would the focus system be too broken for generals? +1pip in one, -1 in the rest?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
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. That might be an interesting idea to throw into one of the military groups (quality?) somewhere - %50 general mp cost.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Quick, someone tell Pitt that it IS possible! Oh I am already flabbergasted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 14:19
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Fintilgin posted:That might be an interesting idea to throw into one of the military groups (quality?) somewhere - %50 general mp cost. and/or halving the mp penalty for going over the limit - though I don't know if monarch points can be half-values.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
these new mechanics sound like toilet sounds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Generals have always been one of the bald faced asymmetrical levers used to turn Lucky Nations up to 11. They feel like a crusty old leftover from the past games and the gameplay loop isn't the most exciting for the player: you need a couple generals, and you generally have certain expectations for a general based on your tradition, and once you aren't trying to eke out mil techs 5-9 earlier than a neighbor, you're going to pay the mil point tax to reroll until you hit that expectation. I don't know how you'd fix it, I'm just adding to the echo chamber against them that's existed for most of the life of the franchise because generals have always presented an illusion of choice in random dice based combat, but no they are actually just a resource tax on the player and a difficulty equalizer for the AI.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
upgrade the cost to 75 MP and let you choose between three generals and lock the fire pips until you actually unlock units with fire pips.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
You can "fix" generals without completely altering the way they work. Just tie to mil tech a chance for fire pips to turn into shock pips and vice versa. Something like, early game each fire pip has a 33% chance of becoming a shock pip, mid game there is parity, and late game there's a 33% chance for a shock pip to turn into a fire pip. That way you can still get bad rolls (which you absolutely should), but there is a slight bias against nonsense rolls and the mechanics would be more "fair" by not treating fire and shock as equal throughout the game. You know what, you could even go wild and make a more complicated formula that takes into account a) your units' fire/shock multipliers and b) your army composition. So early game when you have barely any fire modifiers the game is biased towards shock-heavy generals, mid game it starts to even out unless you are doing something like running a cav-heavy army in which case shock will still be favoured, and late game when you're running with tons of artillery and infantry with more fire than shock fire pips are favoured.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Where did these generals get their fire pips in the first place? How should it even be possible to have multiple fire pips in the mid 1400s? Hey Paradox, can we get an event chain that lets us find the place where these people are getting their ridiculously advanced knowledge from?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Shroud posted:Where did these generals get their fire pips in the first place? How should it even be possible to have multiple fire pips in the mid 1400s? Doesn't have to mean literal gunpowder tactics, could just be a general that favors shooting dudes instead of stabbing them. Men before their time, sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Doesn't have to mean literal gunpowder tactics, could just be a general that favors shooting dudes instead of stabbing them. Men before their time, sort of thing. Well, that would be neat, except that in the early game the fire phase does basically no damage. There are no units that fire anything until around 1550 in the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
I want to see a system where each estate is ruled by a character, and each region/area(?) you own has a 'Duke' or burgher or governor ruling it, and you have to appoint generals from the powerful characters in your realm instead of spawning them with military points, and take into account their political strength and traits and stuff. (No families for them, like CKII, just a basic character system) Never going to happen, but it's what I want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Well, that would be neat, except that in the early game the fire phase does basically no damage. There are no units that fire anything until around 1550 in the game. I didn't say they'd be effective shooters  But yeah, getting a high-Fire general at game start is always such a bummer because it's an advantage you can't use during a time where you need as many as you can. That'll sink anyone's spirits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Well, that would be neat, except that in the early game the fire phase does basically no damage. There are no units that fire anything until around 1550 in the game.  I find it bizarre that nothing shoots in combat until 1550 and seems to be an over simplification.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I dont understand why Archery and Crowssbows dont grant a pittance of fire pips for units, and when gunpowder units roll around you get even more fire pips on your units to account for how much more effective gunpowder weapons were Well infantry does have a fire modifier in 1444, so they do SOME Fire damage. Shock is absolutely dominant until the mid-late 1500s when you start getting decent artillery and cavalary get a fire modifier too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:
No one's going to say please, thank you, and excuse me in a forum discussion on game mechanics. You might get a sorry if you're owed one. Anyway, I obviously read your posts. If you have an actual reason why my voluntary "Roll three, fire two" can't replicate "Hit button, choose one" other than the cost, explain it. Because you really, actually, can generate three generals right now and choose the one that most fits your needs. You just also have the benefit of being able to stop at the first one if he's good, or keep more than one if you need them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:38
|
|
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. 
|
Really all the system you wanted does is make the game easier. Which the game doesn't really need that. It's already not a difficult game. Increasing the cost just isn't enough of a counterbalance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
gently caress, finally done.  What an annoying achievement. Loads of waiting and then France picked up a PU with England so their colonial nations were on the same truce timer. Had to truce break three times in 5 years to make it before I ran out of time. They also had an alliance with a huuuuge Netherlands (like half of central Europe) and Portugal so every time we fought I had to fend off landings along the entire eastern coast. But after I made a navy with 80 large ships and 120 trade ones they didn't have a chance in hell. Glad to have done it; would never do it again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
thatdarnedbob posted:No one's going to say please, thank you, and excuse me in a forum discussion on game mechanics. You might get a sorry if you're owed one. Anyway, I obviously read your posts. If you have an actual reason why my voluntary "Roll three, fire two" can't replicate "Hit button, choose one" other than the cost, explain it. Because you really, actually, can generate three generals right now and choose the one that most fits your needs. You just also have the benefit of being able to stop at the first one if he's good, or keep more than one if you need them. CharlestheHammer posted:Really all the system you wanted does is make the game easier. Which the game doesn't really need that. It's already not a difficult game. Increasing the cost just isn't enough of a counterbalance. I'm dropping the discussion though because, as I have stated previously, I am not a game developer and it isnt my job to fix it. I've said my piece about how I think the system could be improved one way or another because, to me, it sucks more often than not. Some people agree with me -some more than others- and others disagree; thats fine, this is a comedy forum on the internet about videogames.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Except I was not advocating for that mechanic? I dont think it would be the best thing or what they should do, it was simply an example of what could be done differently as a way to make it suck less. Because thats all I want, is it to suck less. Bort Bortles posted:And yes, the point of my suggestion is so that I get to pick the best one. I'm not saying the game should generate three three star generals for me to pick from every time, I am just saying that I should be able to affect in some way what I get (I should get a choice between a 2 fire or 1 shock guy, instead of just being stuck with one or the other). 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". I am completely willing to discuss concrete ideas for game mechanics like the "generate three, pick one" idea that you brought up. I don't want to get into a drat semantic discussion about whether bringing up the idea and questioning its possibility counts as "advocating for" it or not. That's silly. I only want to talk about the ideas, not your relationship to them or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I dont understand why Archery and Crowssbows dont grant a pittance of fire pips for units, and when gunpowder units roll around you get even more fire pips on your units to account for how much more effective gunpowder weapons were Because due to the way combat works, the number of pips don't really matter, since they cancel each other out. If you pit a unit with 20 offensive fire against a unit with 20 defensive fire, the outcome is exactly the same as if they both had 0. The difference in pips is just a modifier to the die roll to indicate an advantage or disadvantage. Early units are still shooting at each other during the fire phase, but the lack of pips means that nobody has a significant advantage over each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Because due to the way combat works, the number of pips don't really matter, since they cancel each other out. If you pit a unit with 20 offensive fire against a unit with 20 defensive fire, the outcome is exactly the same as if they both had 0. The difference in pips is just a modifier to the die roll to indicate an advantage or disadvantage. Early units are still shooting at each other during the fire phase, but the lack of pips means that nobody has a significant advantage over each other. Exactly; the real reason not much gets done in 15th century fire phases isn't the lack of pips (which add just as much to a unit's killing capacity as each general pip) but the meager +0.35 infantry fire modifier that you have until Mil Tech 6. Cavalry shock predominates, and infantry shock is right behind. Recommended that everyone with an interest in the gritty details of how combat works look it up here; you may have to some napkin estimates on how influential a fire pip is to a certain amount of fire modifier, but it's enlightening.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
thatdarnedbob posted:Exactly; the real reason not much gets done in 15th century fire phases isn't the lack of pips (which add just as much to a unit's killing capacity as each general pip) but the meager +0.35 infantry fire modifier that you have until Mil Tech 6. Cavalry shock predominates, and infantry shock is right behind. Recommended that everyone with an interest in the gritty details of how combat works look it up here; you may have to some napkin estimates on how influential a fire pip is to a certain amount of fire modifier, but it's enlightening. Yes, that's how it works. It's really awful though. The differentiation between Fire and Shock is not enough to give the combat system depth. What that means is that there are one of two attributes that my troops have, and depending on the general I roll, I may be either sad, roll a new one, or customize my army setup. So how much does the combat system let me customize my army setup? Well I can't really modify the troop types I use, although as the game goes on I may have some minor choices to make. And I probably don't have the cash to change my inf:cav ratio to anything other than what I can afford in the early game. I can't choose the pips my general has. I can just hope that I roll a useful one that I can somehow leverage with the terrain and battle options I have available to me. If I'm in the early game, I probably haven't made a lot of tech choices. I will probably have mil tech parity with any opponent before I start a war, so let's assume the troops are a wash. No NIs unlocked, no idea groups selected, so the troops are the same. I could say there are large differences between tech groups but nope, even that was done away with. Now I have some choices: -Fight the war without a general. If it's a rebel stomp with overwhelming force, an opponent who is behind on tech, or someone that has a way smaller army, you are better off not rolling a general. -I can just have my king or heir run things for a bit depending on their ages / stats -If the war is important / the enemy has a high pip general and is strong, I probably need a general. So why roll last minute before a war? -Generals cost points -Generals seem to die in about 10 years or so for me, often lasting 1-2 campaigns max -Given their aging you can't really rely on a general making it through the campaign -If you started a war that you need a general to win, and still haven't fought the decisive battle, you will need to come up with the answer of "what now" when that general dies. So the gamble here is "Should I roll a general or not." Now, what happens when the general is garbage? Well, it would have been better not to roll him and just do the war without keeping the mil points, or make do with the king / heir most likely. So you are stuck with a useless general that will of course live 30 years and command all your armies gloriously. If the war is important you need to keep 'rolling' generals until you get something equivalent to whatever it is you need to deal with. When you start with a murder general like say Muscovy does, you can see what a difference it makes. That can be real problematic if your neighbor gets one of those. What do you do - roll a bunch and crash your miltech progress, potentially getting nothing? So there's this angle that people take which is "Yeah it's hard but it's the right level of complexity and it's meant to be difficult or put you in difficult situations." I'm here to tell you that angle is one I disagree with. The way to describe this system is "You have to guess whether you need a general or not before you fight a war, if you find that you need one there is nothing you can do to influence the type, quality, age, or chance of the general you want. You can't be sure the general will last through the war and if an important general dies you either have to burn 200-300 mil points and hope, after which you could easily get nothing, or be unable to potentially win the war. Hope you have fun." The way I'd describe the systems impact on the player is very restrictive early game, restrictive early / mid game, ignorable from midgame onward. None of those strike me as the right progression for the general system and the game timeframe, you are welcome to disagree. An example of solutions is the Nobility button that lets you generate a general with 40 AT. Hey, I've got an important war coming up and I'll push the declare generalship button, now I have a nonzero chance of a guy that isn't an inbred moron. Hopefully he will live through the whole war. As far as I know that's the only way outside of hiring a general / ruler / heir to get a general, I'd like to see more if they're going to keep the current system. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Really all the system you wanted does is make the game easier. Which the game doesn't really need that. It's already not a difficult game. Increasing the cost just isn't enough of a counterbalance. the objective of game mechanics are to introduce logical and meaningful decisions to gameplay to make it a better game to play. Paradox isn't a company that cathers to hardcore grognards who aren't satisifed until you need to dig your own potatoes one by one to supply your army during a campaign. EU4 is really fuckin' inacessible at the moment for someone with no previous EU experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
The really annoying thing about the General stats RNG is that you can't leverage their rolled stats in any particularly meaningful way. If you got a 5 Fire/2 Shock general versus a 2 Fire/5 Shock general your ideal unit composition is going to be the same anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Goons posted:Fire combat early game talk All units use both fire and shock in all combats. But until land tech 14, infantry have their fire multiplied by some value < 1 (until land tech six this is as low as 0.35), making fire really not good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Mans posted:the objective of game mechanics are to introduce logical and meaningful decisions to gameplay to make it a better game to play. Paradox isn't a company that cathers to hardcore grognards who aren't satisifed until you need to dig your own potatoes one by one to supply your army during a campaign. Also EU4 is no more inexcessible than three was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
It's obvious that the only real option is to merge the EU and CK codebases entirely, thereby making EU5 use fully-developed characters for each military leader, ruler, advisor, and local governor. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:It's obvious that the only real option is to merge the EU and CK codebases entirely, thereby making EU5 use fully-developed characters for each military leader, ruler, advisor, and local governor. Nah, remove the characters from CK2. They just clog up the game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
I'm thinking of starting an ironman game as Haida (Natives waaaay off in the Pacific Northwest), any suggestions? Also I remember the Haida being a massive merchant republic in an LP, maybe a decision should be able to be made in Europa Gooniversalis?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
I'm sorry I even brought it up at this point.Vivian Darkbloom posted:It's obvious that the only real option is to merge the EU and CK codebases entirely, thereby making EU5 use fully-developed characters for each military leader, ruler, advisor, and local governor. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
What's the deal with starting in South America and the types of rebels they spawn? I can't seem to beat them even with 2x their number of troops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Freakus posted:What's the deal with starting in South America and the types of rebels they spawn? I can't seem to beat them even with 2x their number of troops. I don't think there's anything special about them, but most nations there are in a very mountainous region and going on the offensive in the mountains puts you at a noticeable disadvantage. If that's the problem, try dividing your units to lure them into attacking you instead and then join the fight with the rest of your troops afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
And rebels will try to take forts, so if they rise on any non-fort province, park your army on the fort exerting ZoC over that province. In a month or two those rebels will walk into you, and then they'll take the terrain penalties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Mans posted:the objective of game mechanics are to introduce logical and meaningful decisions to gameplay to make it a better game to play. Paradox isn't a company that cathers to hardcore grognards who aren't satisifed until you need to dig your own potatoes one by one to supply your army during a campaign. EU4 is really inaccessible for veteran EU players at the moment. Well, me, anyway. I don't want more challenge mechanics, frankly; I am rather sick of getting crushed by the AI in the post-Common Sense world. I used to be pretty decent at this game! Now it seems like every war I declare that is even a bit risky turns sour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:EU4 is really inaccessible for veteran EU players at the moment. Well, me, anyway. I don't want more challenge mechanics, frankly; I am rather sick of getting crushed by the AI in the post-Common Sense world. I used to be pretty decent at this game! Now it seems like every war I declare that is even a bit risky turns sour. Yeah I keep failing to do some of the easy-medium achievements like baltic crusader and prestor john I don't really need it harder, but I've never been very efficient
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Prester John isn't medium easy. Also to this point no mechanics have been added that make the game harder that I know of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
No mechanics I can think of either, but the AI has been improved a crazy amount. Loads of little things like taking uncorable land, colonial range through basing rights, free CBs for abusing loans etc have been taken out too. I think it's fair to say the game is harder than it used to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
Koramei posted:No mechanics I can think of either, but the AI has been improved a crazy amount. Locked movement clowns the AI much harder than it does any human player that's not a complete idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 07:44
|
|