|
Chump Farts posted:Man I'm rusty. Before my hiatus I had a great Brandenburg to Prussia to Germany game. Now I'm struggling as France and Austria. How much AE can I get before getting jumped by the world? I'm having trouble finding a good blob tempo, or I need to learn more about diplo vassaling and feeding them or whatnot.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Maybe you can explain it then because it makes no sense at all to me. May as well lock Diplomats behind dip 4 and generals behind mil 7 I phrased that more ambiguously than I had hoped to. It makes more sense compared to what I had thought before, just seeing that initial post with no context. I understand what they'd be trying to do with it: stop early aggression. Not a good idea, but its an idea. Regardless, I don't think it's going to be locked behind anything in a meaningful way. Johan said that it was locked behind diplotech simply because they're moving all espionage actions behind dip tech. He's been backing down after the negative reaction, it seems his problem is that there's not enough CB variation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/723063179459194881
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
I doubt it's going to happen but it's pretty weird that he even considers doing something like that, makes it seem like there's a pretty big discrepancy between what the developer(s) and the players want from the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
ai byzantium is now a better player than i am a few years later, they split albania with corfu. locking fabricate claims behind an idea is dumb, but i could get behind an idea that led to faster fabrication time, or allowed you to fabricate claims without a spy ring i would also like a casus belli that allowed me to dismantle france's 500 forts, so future wars don't take 20 years to finish
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Its a good point that alternate CBs and wargoals aren't nearly as important as claim fabrication, which is sad. But the solution to that is to make better alternate CBs instead of locking claim fabrication behind a date and just leaving you with trash methods of starting wars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
I mean, yeah, it's a stupid loving idea, but I could see implementing something like it on a curve, like increasing AE penalties earlier in the game and having tech reduce them. That would still have the effect of making GBS threads on ROTW for no good reason, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
If it ain't broke don't fix it. If they don't rebalance other ways to get CBs this is just going to make the game less fun. Kinda feels like EU4 peaked a couple expansions ago and now they're just tinkering with it for the sake of having regular updates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:I doubt it's going to happen but it's pretty weird that he even considers doing something like that, makes it seem like there's a pretty big discrepancy between what the developer(s) and the players want from the game. They got this good core game that alot of people enjoy playing where you can pick any nation in history of this time period and set your own personal goals for it, like you can make England take on the continent or unite central america and invade the continent or unite India and push out the europeans or take a horde and be genghis khan 2.0. But apparently all this Was Not The Way The Developers Intended us to all play so they want to change this and it's all very baffling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Johan seems legitimately confused that players almost never declare no-CB wars and eat the -2 stab hit. Like, I can't even remember the last time I declared a no-CB war, just because eating that much of an Admin penalty is bad when you're going to war presumably to conquer land that will then take Admin to core. The end result of this would be that rather than being able to plan your expansion and actually do what you want, you would sit around waiting for random events to give you CBs and then not even use the CB because it turns out the country the random event picked is allied with France. Especially for non-European nations that take longer to get technology and have less monarch points to spend boosting stability, the end result is that rather than having control over the game you sit around waiting for the game to randomly decide what you have the option of doing, which seems like bad design to me. If the game had been like this from the beginning it would be one thing, but changing it at this point seems really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
I am also baffled by recent changes. Corruption, States, and a bunch of other things had me confused, but the thought of moving the most basic and useful CB behind a techwall is just absurd. Make the CBs more interesting and intuitive, and also make it so wars are less "go big or go home" by being able to set a wargoal like you can in like three other Paradox games. I know programming the AI isnt easy but if we could tone down the 1450 Total Wars that involve hundreds of thousands of soldiers marching across Europe to fight a war for one province, it would be great. If we could declare war for ONE PROVINCE and not be able to take any additional provinces regardless of how much warscore we earn, and the AI could be programmed to understand a lost cause, I think it would do wonders for the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I am also baffled by recent changes. Corruption, States, and a bunch of other things had me confused, but the thought of moving the most basic and useful CB behind a techwall is just absurd. Make the CBs more interesting and intuitive, and also make it so wars are less "go big or go home" by being able to set a wargoal like you can in like three other Paradox games. Something like a continuum between "threaten war" and actually waging a total war to break the enemy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
I'd be so pissed if they didn't release a hotfix to fix the mil4 bug before dropping a patch that did something phenomenally retarded like locking fabricate claim behind anything other than tech level 1. Also the UI/graphics people who okayed the glaring red bits of the corruption icon and didn't notice how much that clashes with the entire rest of the UI are not doing their jobs properly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
I'd honestly like to see the 'fabricate claim' system dropped altogether. Seems fiddly and artifical. Allow claims by occasional random events and make them better (more coring discount etc) Then add a espionage action called 'Justify War'. Once you've started a 'Justify War' action it opens up various events that can trigger while the Justification counter ticks up. For example: 1.) Justifying War against a country with provinces of your culture will be likely to grant claims on some of those provinces 2.) Justifying against a country of a wrong religion holding provinces of your religion is likely to do the same 3.) Justifying against a primitive or low tech group country could be faster It could also result in giving different (unpredictable) CBs. Like, justifying against a country that has many conquered tags could result in handing you a 'Liberation' CB that gives big discounts for freeing countries. You could even pull back on the current CB system and force the player to justify all wars. When you start the action you get a choice of CB (colonial, conquest, liberation) and you could also have various 'tiers' of CB. The tier of CB you get would depend on your monarchs diplo stat, your diplomatic reputation, if you were a longtime rival, etc etc etc. Various national ideas could also boost the chance of getting a higher CB tier So a tier 1 border friction CB would give 100% warscore and AE cost to take any bordering province (basically you're just evading the stab hit) Tier 2 - 90% warscore, 95% AE Tier 3 - 80% warscore, 90% AE Tier 4 - 70% warscore, 85% AE Tier 5 - 60% warscore, 80% AE Tier 6 - 50% warscore, 75% AE Having a monarch with strong diplo skills and good national diplo strength would be as important as a high military skill. It would also make things more dynamic and interesting IMO. Bort Bortles posted:If we could declare war for ONE PROVINCE and not be able to take any additional provinces regardless of how much warscore we earn, and the AI could be programmed to understand a lost cause, I think it would do wonders for the game. I would like this very much. As the game moved on you could graduate from this system and allow bigger demands and more 'total wars' in the later game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
edit: /\/\/\ I like the concept behind these ideasEnjoy posted:Something like a continuum between "threaten war" and actually waging a total war to break the enemy? AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Apr 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:No I dont want it for free but the fact that the AI will grind its manpower to zero and put itself thousands of ducats in debt to help an ally defend a poo poo province on the other side of Europe is insanity. And now they are thinking of taking about fabricate claim? I'm still rolling my eyes at the game I played where I was Muscovy and England allied with Novgorod and then landed like 40,000 men to fight and die in the frozen wastes near Murmansk in like 1470. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Sheep posted:I'd be so pissed if they didn't release a hotfix to fix the mil4 bug before dropping a patch that did something phenomenally retarded like locking fabricate claim behind anything other than tech level 1. On their forum, they said the Mil4 thing isn't getting fixed until 1.17 (which means I'm not playing now until then). I don't know why they have to wait, that seems like a hotfix issue to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:On their forum, they said the Mil4 thing isn't getting fixed until 1.17 (which means I'm not playing now until then). I don't know why they have to wait, that seems like a hotfix issue to me. it's not a crash, it only affects a fairly small & limited section of the game, and it's subtle enough that i haven't actually noticed it in play myself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Another interesting event type you could throw into a Justify War chain would be something like: Justifying against a more powerful enemy or one which the game feels you don't have a 'valid' reason would have a chance of firing a stab hit as your people are reluctant to be dragged into a war. Justifying against a long time enemy, holder of your cores, or religion enemy (if you have the religious idea) or that sort of thing would have a chance to fire a stab BOOST as your people 'rally around the flag'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
This issue has gotten me thinking about all kinds of ways the CB system could be improved, and obviously the devs are trying to work out some kind of overhaul. That would be a good thing, if they implemented a significant, intuitive, balanced, and fun new mechanic. However, the fact that they were so set on bluntly nerfing the cornerstone of the current system that they would advertise it on twitter without even mentioning any compensating mechanic makes me seriously doubt they have any better plans in mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Johan seems legitimately confused that players almost never declare no-CB wars and eat the -2 stab hit. I have never waged a war without a casus belli because after declaring war, coring provinces, and upping my stability, I'll be 10 years behind everyone else in technology. That's pretty rough, especially if I'm playing as a non-Western power. Enjoy posted:Something like a continuum between "threaten war" and actually waging a total war to break the enemy? That would be lovely. I'm not sure how you would do the calculations, but it would be nice if the AI could calculate the difference between, say, Portugal losing Ceuta versus Portugal losing Lisbon. There would probably have to be some change with how fabrications are done now. As it stands, there's nothing stopping a player from fabricating a claim on the former and then annexing the latter. Maybe you could tie war exhaustion into it in some way. If the system detects that you've earned enough war score to fulfill your objectives, but recognizes that you are not stopping the war machine, there should be negative consequences. I shouldn't be able to turn a minor border dispute into the Partition of Poland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Y'all are getting trolled hard on the fabricate claim thing. Did you really think they were serious about 1600?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
The problem isn't with claim fabrication, it's that there aren't any good alternative CBs for expansion unless you take Religious ideas or it's late in the game and you've unlocked Imperialism/Nationalism. Players usually don't have other good CB options so they rely heavily on claims especially early on. So obviously the solution is to lock claims behind technology rather than rebalancing CBs and their availability. Too many half-assed bandaid solutions recently. Address the root issues (tech costs and Westernization, CB balance) instead of slapping on dumb poo poo like Corruption or locking the most basic CB behind tech.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
They should get rid of fabricated claims entirely and just give everyone a generic border friction CB that incurs a high amount of AE. Fabricating claims is a lot of tedious busy clicking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
cool and good posted:Y'all are getting trolled hard on the fabricate claim thing. Did you really think they were serious about 1600? Y'all are getting trolled hard on the corruption thing. Did you really think they were serious about adding a mechanic that just punishes you in addition to overextention and wrong religion AND have it based on 'unbalanced tech'? Also no one was commenting on 1600, if you don't understand they're commenting gating a basic expansion mechanic behind tech, which fucks over you know, the countries who have a slower teching speed Fintilgin posted:Having a monarch with strong diplo skills and good national diplo strength would be as important as a high military skill. It would also make things more dynamic and interesting IMO. You lost me at this part since there is nothing dynamic or interesting relying on rng for your monarch. If anything it would just cause stress since there is no way to influence what stats your monarch gets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Something they definitely need to do is cut down on which CBs are valid in the HRE. Rather than having that place be a race to blob into a middle power, conquest should be disallowed, and there should be a focus on dynastic and interconfessional conflict.QuoProQuid posted:I have never waged a war without a casus belli because after declaring war, coring provinces, and upping my stability, I'll be 10 years behind everyone else in technology. That's pretty rough, especially if I'm playing as a non-Western power. You're overstating this a lot. Coring the provinces is something you were going to do anyway, so that doesn't count. What you're paying is effectively 200ADM for the two levels of stability. 2.4 years of admin power for an average ruler with a 1 star admin advisor. The real killer would be the AE; try that poo poo in the HRE and you'll get your teeth kicked in (which is fine by me). Fister Roboto posted:They should get rid of fabricated claims entirely and just give everyone a generic border friction CB that incurs a high amount of AE. Fabricating claims is a lot of tedious busy clicking. God save the Border Friction CB. I love mucking around in the steppes, and getting that (apparently nonexpiring) CB against people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 18:03
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:You lost me at this part since there is nothing dynamic or interesting relying on rng for your monarch. If anything it would just cause stress since there is no way to influence what stats your monarch gets. Eh, the design of the game is fundamentally based around monarch points and their ebb and flow and how having great monarchs makes you able to do more better things. But you'd also be able to influence it (if I were designing it) by lots of other factors like having diplomatic ideas, policies, advisors, as well as by things like being long time rivals or enemies, them owning your cores/culture/religion, etc. You could still get high tier CBs without those things it would just be unlikely. You'd be trying to put your thumb on the scale in a lot of ways. It's a great idea, trust me. I have fantastic ideas. Developers come up to me all the time and say, "Fintilgin, your ideas are amazing." Paradox will win so much if they implement this. So much winning. Unbelievable. We're going to make war great again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:You lost me at this part since there is nothing dynamic or interesting relying on rng for your monarch. If anything it would just cause stress since there is no way to influence what stats your monarch gets. The fact that you can't change this is fine, the whole game is built around it. And the option to focus your monarch points, or selectively employ higher ranked advisors is there. A way to influence monarch stats sounds OK, but how would you ever do this without turning it into CK2 where you always make the best choice, and every child is a wunderkind?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Rather than this garbage about claims I feel like it would more interesting if they spent time overhaulng the whole monarch system. For starters something like multiple the current monarch scale by ten so for example instead of a monarch being born with 1 to 6 points in each stat, they could have 1 to 50. Expanding the numbers allow much more interesting possibilities in events and decisions. Now you can introduce a general style of improving or deteriorating a stat throughout the ruler's rule, like: being in peace, stable and no unrest can increase your admin, having good relationships with other countries and a good naval tradition can increase your diplo, and having good army tradition and well maintained armies and forts can increase your mil. Having more numbers to use would also mean you can now have events, decision and policies where for example you exchange a monarch stat for a short term benefit, like lower your adm by 1 for a ten year tax boost, or exchange a stat for another. Policies can also not be purely negative in terms of monarch stats but also increase them for a reversal like for a bad example, increasing your mil by lowering your navy morale and ship durability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:Rather than this garbage about claims I feel like it would more interesting if they spent time overhaulng the whole monarch system. For starters something like multiple the current monarch scale by ten so for example instead of a monarch being born with 1 to 6 points in each stat, they could have 1 to 50. Expanding the numbers allow much more interesting possibilities in events and decisions. Now you can introduce a general style of improving or deteriorating a stat throughout the ruler's rule, like: being in peace, stable and no unrest can increase your admin, having good relationships with other countries and a good naval tradition can increase your diplo, and having good army tradition and well maintained armies and forts can increase your mil. Having more numbers to use would also mean you can now have events, decision and policies where for example you exchange a monarch stat for a short term benefit, like lower your adm by 1 for a ten year tax boost, or exchange a stat for another. Policies can also not be purely negative in terms of monarch stats but also increase them for a reversal like for a bad example, increasing your mil by lowering your navy morale and ship durability. You wouldn't even need to alter the scale, just have it be a percentage chance that drops as you approach 6 (like in 20% decrements) Maybe that would be cool as an extra bonus every time you complete a mission, the mission's associated stat has a chance to improve as the sovereign gets seen as more competent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:Rather than this garbage about claims I feel like it would more interesting if they spent time overhaulng the whole monarch system. Thank you for your time. Yes, sure go ahead and take the next caller.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Well I like the points, so there
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, they went through with it: Fabricate Claim Will Be Unlocked By Diplomatic Tech 16 (1609)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
quote:Overwhelming majorty wants it from the start. And so Fabricategate ends
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
I'm playing as Portugal right now, and my buddy Castille seems to be caught in an endless loop of raising an army and completely disbanding it. I know I've seen other posts reporting similar issues, what's the deal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I'm playing as Portugal right now, and my buddy Castille seems to be caught in an endless loop of raising an army and completely disbanding it. I know I've seen other posts reporting similar issues, what's the deal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Holy poo poo, they went through with it: I like how he adds the eclipse as if he's disappointed by the fanbase
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:Y'all are getting trolled hard on the corruption thing. Did you really think they were serious about adding a mechanic that just punishes you in addition to overextention and wrong religion AND have it based on 'unbalanced tech'? Unlocked by tech could be at tech 1 like how support rebels is technically diplo 2 or whatever. That's the trolly part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Vanilla Mint Ice posted:I like how he adds the eclipse as if he's disappointed by the fanbase Ellipsis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:16 |
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Holy poo poo, they went through with it: - Cost to fabricate claim now decreases with dip tech, from 100 to 10 by 1609.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 21:52
|
|