|
clamiam45 posted:Sorry, Beta Israel Central Ethiopia. I think the cultural name for Semien is Beta Israel. Yep, bet basically means "house" or "clan," so Beta Israel is the house of Israel and refers to the Ethiopian Jewish community. Who, incidentally, still face a lot of discrimination in Israel post-emigration. 
Quorum fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Mar 8, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
they did a livestream to show off some mare nostrum stuff: http://www.twitch.tv/paradoxinteractive/v/53143409
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:This is exactly what I was thinking about this morning, heh. Also I could feed this vassal toxic cores so when I annex them I dont pay anything extra for those toxic cores The toxic core modifier carries forward into the annexation cost, unfortunately. Spending extra diplo is more palatable than extra admin in most situations though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Koramei posted:they did a livestream to show off some mare nostrum stuff: http://www.twitch.tv/paradoxinteractive/v/53143409 Can someone give us some highlights please?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:The toxic core modifier carries forward into the annexation cost, unfortunately. Spending extra diplo is more palatable than extra admin in most situations though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Yup. Also, anyone else think it would have been better to go with Estates/Territories based on Areas, rather than the much larger Regions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:14
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Yup.  Aint that some poo poo.
AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Yup. I think so. I think that the size of states is simply very large right now and it will penalize countries that exist in border regions. If areas were used and the number of allowed "states" were doubled then that would substantially increase the number of viable configurations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
It would also allow for a more gradual expansion of central power, which seems sensible. You could even differentiate the government levels that way if you wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:It would also allow for a more gradual expansion of central power, which seems sensible. You could even differentiate the government levels that way if you wanted to. Honestly I think that all territory held by a duchy should be "state" territory and also free of upkeep, but that there's a limit to how much territory a duchy can hold before it has to upgrade to a kingdom or experience escalating corruption (look! we're using corruption!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Dibujante posted:Honestly I think that all territory held by a duchy should be "state" territory and also free of upkeep, but that there's a limit to how much territory a duchy can hold before it has to upgrade to a kingdom or experience escalating corruption (look! we're using corruption!)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
What is wrong with forts blocking the AI movement? It's not that fun when the AI can just straight up ignore forts and just walk all over your territory while I sometimes get stuck and can't move anywhere when entering a fort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Fort ZoCs are still buggy as gently caress, and the AI doesn't get to cheat any more than you do. In fact, you can definitely exploit the gently caress out of forts to trap AI armies so that they can't retreat away by taking a fort in their line of withdrawal. But sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and I can't determine why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:So wait, if Mewar has toxic cores, and I feed those to Kiawathar (who does not have toxic cores), it would be more expensive to annex Kiawathar even though they do not have the toxic core idea and simply own someone else's toxic cores? You can always have Mewar revoke cores on non-primary-culture cores, or wait until they expire (150 years later).
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Fort ZoCs are still buggy as gently caress, and the AI doesn't get to cheat any more than you do. In terms if ZoC, sure, I guess, but I hate seeing the AI not paying upkeep on any forts that border water or wasteland or another country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
sloshmonger posted:You can always have Mewar revoke cores on non-primary-culture cores, or wait until they expire (150 years later). dublish posted:In terms if ZoC, sure, I guess, but I hate seeing the AI not paying upkeep on any forts that border water or wasteland or another country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
The AI gets a discount to maintenance on border forts because otherwise the AI will just destroy the fort if it's running into money issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
There's actually an option to turn this off in defines.lua but the comment next to it says something along the lines "If you turn this off the AI will be really bad at the game."
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
dublish posted:In terms if ZoC, sure, I guess, but I hate seeing the AI not paying upkeep on any forts that border water or wasteland or another country. One of these things is not like the other
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
They mentioned somewhere recently that wastelands giving free forts is unintended so they're gonna fix that next patchShroud posted:Can someone give us some highlights please? I wasn't paying full attention but I don't think there was much new info- east africa is a new tech group (in addition to the central african one we knew about), they showed off the fetishist bonuses, and they changed their minds on the mercantalism adding to corruption thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
TTBF posted:The AI gets a discount to maintenance on border forts because otherwise the AI will just destroy the fort if it's running into money issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Here's arumba explaining it:quote:In a recent patch the AI was given a small change that was supposed to help alleviate the player's ability to do timed attacks against mothballed border forts. Here's the situation:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:05
|
|
How many did they have to pay for? Three.
|
The OE is probably the worst possible example because they have so much coastal border. I actually think that the "delete all your forts except the one on your island capital, be invincible forever" exploit is way worse; it's pretty obvious that for a player forts are something you want as few of as possible, which is bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:The OE is probably the worst possible example because they have so much coastal border. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Imagine the OE with their capital on Cyprus and a billion galleys in the Med The British Empire model?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Yayyyyyyy a 15 year regency as the Ottomans, hooray! 0/0/1 for the stats, too! This is SO AWESOME.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
I never have the manpower to be constantly at war anyway, sometimes a regency is a good breather
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:I never have the manpower to be constantly at war anyway, sometimes a regency is a good breather That's like saying that being homeless is better than paying your mortgage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:I never have the manpower to be constantly at war anyway, sometimes a regency is a good breather
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Maybe just don't play Ironman? I feel like you make a lot of posts in this thread about how you got screwed by some bullshit or at least not-fun mechanic. If that kind of thing bothers you just savescum and don't sweat it, no one is gonna judge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
But....but the cheevos. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:Yayyyyyyy a 15 year regency as the Ottomans, hooray! 0/0/1 for the stats, too! This is SO AWESOME. The worst thing is waiting for a war of opportunity for years and you go to declare war and, whoops you forgot, you're in a regency. Your time has passed, and now Mega Francewill forever go untouched.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:Maybe just don't play Ironman? I feel like you make a lot of posts in this thread about how you got screwed by some bullshit or at least not-fun mechanic. If that kind of thing bothers you just savescum and don't sweat it, no one is gonna judge. Let's reconstruct what's happening. A dude enters the thread going "Here's an actual example of regencies being frustrating, from my Ironman run." The thread has previously discussed that the inability to declare wars during regencies is stupid. At least 4-5 people have weighed in agreeing, nobody has really opposed it, and in general the responses seem to be "Why should Monarchies be the worst government type and have such a weird drawback that is not really historical and seems to affect Monarchies unduly." Keep in mind EU4's succession system is real odd because there were usually more than 2 people involved in succession to the throne! So one could either acknowledge that "Ah yes, this guy is restating what other people have said many times before, that not being able to declare wars during a long regency is dumb and there should be workarounds." Or one could go "Man look at this noob playing Ironman and just bitching about every bad turn, maybe he shouldn't play Ironman if its so hard??" The second seems dumb, to me. I feel the restriction on being able to declare wars during regencies as a Monarchy is pointless, and trying to 0wn Bort Bortles is not worth defending that boring poo poo. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
savescumming is not an appropriate solution for regencies being a terrible mechanic
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Regencies are fine tho.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Regencies are fine tho. What do you like about them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:What do you like about them? I don't like them, I just don't dislike them. They honestly don't come up enough to care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Let's reconstruct what's happening. A dude enters the thread going "Here's an actual example of regencies being frustrating, from my Ironman run." I'm not defending regencies, of course they're awful and everything you say about mechanics here is right. My point was simply that Bortles makes a lot of posts about how frustrated he is when he gets stymied by X lovely mechanic in Ironman. When I get a long regency I immediately savescum because that shot is not fun at all. This is because I am not myself an iron man and I'd rather forgo ~cheebs~ than deal with the handful of features in EU4 that everyone agrees suck (like regencies). I'm suggesting maybe Bortles should do the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
I hope they never "fix" regencies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I don't like them, I just don't dislike them. They honestly don't come up enough to care. I mean, I disagree. Ironman is a good example, a long regency is a huge setback and possibly campaign-ruiner (if going for achievements). The regency mechanic as implemented is not historically accurate and is a large penalty on monarchies. Regencies are in fact so lovely that arguably "doesn't have regencies" is the single most desirable quality in a government type. It's not often a big deal but if you're doing a long Ironman campaign it's pretty serious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 21:14
|
|