|
i kind of wish they'd bring back the assassinate ruler/heir option you could do in EU3 for espionage
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
MuffinsAndPie posted:It looks like there's a chance that Paradox is going to change up espionage ideas again, looking at all of these nice looking added options. There was a dev diary on espionage in Mare Nostrum, so we knew about those (though Corrupt Officials and Steal Maps were not named in it).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
That's what the diplo screen needs, a shitload of new options to scroll through
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Should I bother with Exploration in a Bengal Tiger run? Putting some colonies up in Indonesia could help make me more rich by allowing me to get some casus belli's down there, letting me conquer more land and send more trade to Bengal, thus making me more rich and able to conquer my way over the Samarkand. However, it is completely the wrong direction and I am really inclined to take Admin ideas to make conquering other things (and anything) more viable. I could also do Humanist to double down on my national ideas but I have not had any problems at all with revolts so that would seem....inefficient. Otherwise, is there a historical basis behind the Bengal Tiger achievement or is there something I am missing with a reference? AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
kojei posted:That's what the diplo screen needs, a shitload of new options to scroll through I will not rest until there is miraculous categorization of every different subtype of insult I can send to a country, each with unique modifiers and fully implemented AI interaction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
VerdantSquire posted:I will not rest until there is miraculous categorization of every different subtype of insult I can send to a country, each with unique modifiers and fully implemented AI interaction. I would like to engage in a rap battle with foreign monarchs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Insults v
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:I would like to engage in a rap battle with foreign monarchs. I think you'll find that under "commission embarrassing play".
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
You've been discovered fabricating jokes in the thread and have suffered a decrease in opinion of you
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
kojei posted:That's what the diplo screen needs, a shitload of new options to scroll through Click on a section header to collapse it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Should I bother with Exploration in a Bengal Tiger run? Putting some colonies up in Indonesia could help make me more rich by allowing me to get some casus belli's down there, letting me conquer more land and send more trade to Bengal, thus making me more rich and able to conquer my way over the Samarkand. However, it is completely the wrong direction and I am really inclined to take Admin ideas to make conquering other things (and anything) more viable. I could also do Humanist to double down on my national ideas but I have not had any problems at all with revolts so that would seem....inefficient. I colonized in my run for the extra money. Yeah its the wrong direction but it's not like you need to go all that far west to hit Samarkand. You'll have plenty of time for both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:Click on a section header to collapse it. That's even more obnoxious than scrolling
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Kersch posted:You've been discovered fabricating jokes in the thread and have suffered a decrease in opinion of you Does that mean FYAD is the HRE?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Should I bother with Exploration in a Bengal Tiger run? Putting some colonies up in Indonesia could help make me more rich by allowing me to get some casus belli's down there, letting me conquer more land and send more trade to Bengal, thus making me more rich and able to conquer my way over the Samarkand. However, it is completely the wrong direction and I am really inclined to take Admin ideas to make conquering other things (and anything) more viable. I could also do Humanist to double down on my national ideas but I have not had any problems at all with revolts so that would seem....inefficient. No historical basis for it, other than than that Timurid successors did eventually conquer Bengal (along with the rest of India), I think it's just a fun easy-ish achievement. Take Admin first, the admin points are more important and there's plenty of riches to be had in India - stack Goods Produced for comical income levels - but Explo is solid for a second choice. Humanist is good because you will eventually start hitting Religious Unity issues, but you could go Religious too for the CB and just convert stuff. Consider doing Silk Road at the same time if you haven't, Bengal is ideally situated for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:16
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Something about the new diplomacy system has made it really easy for great powers to forge long-lasting alliances with each other, and it's making it really difficult to play a small to moderate sized nation. I just had Austria, France, and Poland all decide to gang up on me as Brandenburg, with barely 100 total development to my name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
My guess is it's the AI being less likely to break alliances while having high trust, and the way they assign provinces of strategic interest. AI's are really likely to honour defensive calls even at their extreme detriment, which builds trust, and that trust means they won't rival each other. Then the choice of strategic interest provinces seems to be mostly "all of my rivals provinces, excepting those already claimed by allies", so the alliances don't break that way either. Even missions don't seem to do it; with AI Russia I quite often see they have the 'Conquer Ryazan/Tver' mission, and the target will be an enclave of Russia, but they're allied, and Russia just won't break that alliance. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Players complain about the AI breaking alliances with them too easily. Paradox revamps diplomacy to make alliances more stable and long-lasting. Players complain powerful AI alliances are now more stable and long-lasting. I don't pretend to know what solution would actually make the greatest number of people happy here but it's still pretty funny. Maybe they should bring back the steep modifier against allying with other major powers but people complained about that too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Players complain about the AI breaking alliances with them too easily. The AI still breaks alliances as much as before with the player, from my experience so far. I had 90 trust with the Ottomans and they took the mission for Levant and broke our alliance, even though our relations were above 100.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Players complain about the AI breaking alliances with them too easily. What I find pretty funny is that with a thread with maybe 20-30 active posters in it, some readers still can't distinguish individual perspectives and feel the need to lump those 20-30 individuals into an aggregate. Yeah dude, the thread is like a council that meets every week and makes declarations, like "make alliances more stable." When Paradox does what we want, we often find ourselves surprised by the results! It's a lot like a Genie and wishes, you see...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:I would like to engage in a rap battle with foreign monarchs. I kill my own people, I'm that crazy. I go berserk and my eyes go glazy. I get so mad I could stab a daisy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:The AI still breaks alliances as much as before with the player, from my experience so far. I had 90 trust with the Ottomans and they took the mission for Levant and broke our alliance, even though our relations were above 100. There's also the fact that your allies will almost always answer a defensive call to arms from your enemies if they're allied, no matter how high your trust is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Players complain about the AI breaking alliances with them too easily. I have brought it up in this thread because generally in history large powers were out for themselves and trying to stop other countries from becoming large powers like themselves. In EU4 right now, large powers are programmed to ally mostly with powers their size, and because of the new mechanics that Pitt points out, they stay allied and help each other get bigger. Rakthar posted:What I find pretty funny is that with a thread with maybe 20-30 active posters in it, some readers still can't distinguish individual perspectives and feel the need to lump those 20-30 individuals into an aggregate. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:There's also the fact that your allies will almost always answer a defensive call to arms from your enemies if they're allied, no matter how high your trust is. This has caused me lots of grief, but I think it's probably better if the aggressor doesn't get more of an advantage. Without this I think game-play would change a lot and possibly be even blobbier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Players complain about the AI breaking alliances with them too easily.  I don't know that the Paradox devs really take our griping that seriously. Personally I think the big problem is that alliances are with people you like, rather than targeted against people you hate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Personally I think the big problem is that alliances are with people you like, rather than targeted against people you hate. edit: Its funny because that would be the perfect way to help reign growing players (and AI) in - have external threats band together in defensive alliances that are less game breaking than coalitions. As Austria I should not need a ton of AE from the Ottomans to want to join a group of like-minded states that want to keep them hemmed in. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Of course then you also have to come up with a way to negotiate the spoils. Let's say I as England and AI Burgundy team up to wreck France; I declare war and just let Burgundy do most of the work, I'd be free to award myself stuff, and just give Burgundy nothing, because gently caress those guys, they won't ally with me against anyone else anyway. I don't know whether you have to go as far as requiring the accession of all your allies (who have >5% war contribution maybe?) but you sure need something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:This would be a nice change. Players will either complain because it's not effective and makes the game tedious, or complain it's to effective and gets in the way of their map painting simulator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Of course then you also have to come up with a way to negotiate the spoils. Let's say I as England and AI Burgundy team up to wreck France; I declare war and just let Burgundy do most of the work, I'd be free to award myself stuff, and just give Burgundy nothing, because gently caress those guys, they won't ally with me against anyone else anyway. CharlestheHammer posted:Players will either complain because it's not effective and makes the game tedious, or complain it's to effective and gets in the way of their map painting simulator. If I would have ways to keep myself alive and work to keep larger powers in check without needing to blob uncontrollably I would be excited. I hate managing huge countries in EU games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:
Taking our griping seriously is the most surefire route to a Bad Game. I gripe, but I trust Johan and then Wiz and now Johan to just follow their visions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:This has caused me lots of grief, but I think it's probably better if the aggressor doesn't get more of an advantage. Without this I think game-play would change a lot and possibly be even blobbier. I just want to be able to spend favors to get my allies to break their alliances with my enemies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Of course then you also have to come up with a way to negotiate the spoils. Let's say I as England and AI Burgundy team up to wreck France; I declare war and just let Burgundy do most of the work, I'd be free to award myself stuff, and just give Burgundy nothing, because gently caress those guys, they won't ally with me against anyone else anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Woah, so apparently in addition to the Calais-Dover strait crossing, the Gibralter-Tangier strait crossing is coming back as well. Curious as to why, given what a disaster those always were in EU3. The AI can't manage them at all.
PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
 Wiz?!? PittTheElder posted:Woah, so apparently in addition to the Calais-Dover strait crossing, the Gibralter-Tangier strait crossing is coming back as well. Curious as to why, given what a disaster those always were in EU3. The AI can't manage them at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
What are crossable straits supposed to represent now anyway? It's not like soldiers are swimming across the 9-mile Straits of Gibraltar. I mean the distance means the crossing wouldn't take very long by boat, so maybe the idea is the army requisitions local boats, I guess? I know it's all supposed to be an abstraction, but what's being abstracted?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:
Which came first, though? That illustration or that twitter picture? e: although I'm pretty sure that illustration is based off of meat Wiz.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Woah, so apparently in addition to the Calais-Dover strait crossing, the Gibralter-Tangier strait crossing is coming back as well. Curious as to why, given what a disaster those always were in EU3. The AI can't manage them at all. The reason for taking it out was that it allowed the Iberians to own those provinces without Distant Overseas penalties. Since Distant Overseas has been changed, that's not really an issue for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I just want to be able to spend favors to get my allies to break their alliances with my enemies. This. Super Ottomans is allied to me and the breakaway Netherlands in my Gelre game. They hold the one province I need to form Netherlands, that my ally Austria had forever before they rebelled. I just want to kill Netherlands, so I can be Netherlands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Vivian Darkbloom posted:What are crossable straits supposed to represent now anyway? It's not like soldiers are swimming across the 9-mile Straits of Gibraltar. I mean the distance means the crossing wouldn't take very long by boat, so maybe the idea is the army requisitions local boats, I guess? I know it's all supposed to be an abstraction, but what's being abstracted? Well you wouldn't need to really be a naval power to transport soldiers over such a small distance. Having a fleet of ships dedicated to transporting an army represents a much larger logistical support base.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Woah, so apparently in addition to the Calais-Dover strait crossing, the Gibralter-Tangier strait crossing is coming back as well. Curious as to why, given what a disaster those always were in EU3. The AI can't manage them at all. Welp playing as Morocco suddenly gets a lot harder
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
Fauxbot posted:Welp playing as Morocco suddenly gets a lot harder Don't worry Castile and Portugal will just have so much corruption that you can easily beat them, since their blobs, having more than 10 provinces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 14:03
|
|