|
Basically ming makes 0 sense historically and from a gameplay perspective so I have no idea what it's supposed to be good for
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
I Love You! posted:Basically ming makes 0 sense historically and from a gameplay perspective so I have no idea what it's supposed to be good for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5g_gs6nnyo
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:I don't mind Ming being stable so much as I'm annoyed that super-stable Ming has half of India and most of the Central Asian steppe as tributaries. It makes any expansion into Asia really tedious because you have to deal with big daddy Ming. The easiest solution is of course to become a tributary yourself! I should just drop this every time someone mentions it 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
As someone who sporadically plays this and doesn't understand all the mechanics. When I try to steal a map and it says it will fail because I don't have a unit present does it mean near the nation I'm stealing from (dumb) or near the map region I'm stealing (very dumb) or is it bugged (understandable.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
uPen posted:As someone who sporadically plays this and doesn't understand all the mechanics. When I try to steal a map and it says it will fail because I don't have a unit present does it mean near the nation I'm stealing from (dumb) or near the map region I'm stealing (very dumb) or is it bugged (understandable.) In a region adjacent to the region you're stealing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
uPen posted:As someone who sporadically plays this and doesn't understand all the mechanics. When I try to steal a map and it says it will fail because I don't have a unit present does it mean near the nation I'm stealing from (dumb) or near the map region I'm stealing (very dumb) or is it bugged (understandable.) very dumb is the answer
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Node posted:I should just drop this every time someone mentions it It had a lot of good ideas that just need balancing and fixing to make work. Which should have been the first big patch after it came out but lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:very dumb is the answer Mindless busywork, my favorite. Speaking of which - Paradox I see you fixed it so spies don't drop out of countries when they get caught but they still get ejected from nomadic nations whenever the nomads move provinces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
So I tried something new (which turns out to be something similar to what someone else posted yesterday): Step 1: My capital is the easternmost Brazilian holding (Borborema or something; I renamed it). As alluded to previously, you can daisy chain yourself out like that and connect the dots with Siberian Frontiers. This setup just happens to be For Odin! and FCFS compatible.  I wasnt sure what to do for ideas so I tried to pick things that suit being a Norse Manchu in America. Step 2: I immediately connect the dots so I can spread towards having a huge footprint as well as getting closer to the Andes. It takes between 6 and 8 years, on average/by my estimation, for a Siberian Frontier to turn into a city.  I have planted as few Frontiers as possible, because... Step 3: I seeded Renaissance because it would take forever to spread, and, well, it got me two more Age Objectives (city with 30 dev and got me over 100 total dev). All the natives' souls are mine and I dropped a few more Frontiers to expand my footprint further.  I mistakenly moused over my amount of Splendor I had at the time, but it was mid 300s. I knew I would be earning 7/month, no more. I had hoarded as many Diplo MP as I could. If I was at 350, that means I needed to earn 450 more Splendor to unlock the +3 development Age Bonus. 450/7= 64.2 months till I can acquire the +3 dev bonus, so, time to drop some Siberian Frontiers! Step 4: Drop the  I now realize that this is not a very good screenshot visually, but you can see the list of colonies on the right... Current time: Huyla is my vassal. I am about to declare my first war on England to take those pesky colonies in Columbia and maybe try to grab a foothold in Ireland.  I am chaining colonies and Frontiers to get through Central America. Once I punk England I should be close enough to the Mayans to start picking them apart. The +3 dev Age Bonus will be kicking for another 7 years - I got the whole drat continent with it  Comedy bonus: I did not know that the Falklands Islands were a good and proper place to grow Tobacco.  MikeC posted:The Hundred's Year War was a lot more complicated than just French incompetence. There wasn't really a united France to speak of at all for much of this period. Charles the V of France had deprived the English of almost all their possessions on the continent after the death of Edward III and the Black Prince. What followed was a long peacee until Henry V, one of the great (and ruthless) warrior kings of his time, single handedly won back almost all of France through diplomacy and military strength. If you rewind the clock back to 1420 and had to place bets, England was strong enough that you should be putting money on the Henry ruling a combined Kingdom of France and England for a long time to come. Except he died of disease. Even then his brother who was regent for his child continued to expand English territory up until 1429. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
After England lost its continental possessions it was not nearly so much of a force to be reckoned with for a few centuries to be fair. I think it's just the way it is for balance reasons. I Love You! posted:Basically ming makes 0 sense historically and from a gameplay perspective so I have no idea what it's supposed to be good for it's actually cool & good
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Ming consistently snagging nations as far west as Iraq as tributaries is neither cool nor good
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
I'd say that curtailing the range of tributaries is the way to go. Tributaries in odd places are the one key problem with the MIng as-is, and most of what needs solving. I don't really get the complaints about Ming being stable as if that's a Ming-specific issue. I could say the exact same thing for the Ottomans, Russia, the Timurids and France. Playing a small state close to Ming is much, much more doable than getting a game off the ground as Serbia, Novgorod, Tabarestan, Savoy, or similarly-sized countries. I strongly disagree with the idea that there should be Ming-specific disasters and events cropping up all the time. A one-time or two-time disaster like the civil wars England/Castile have? That could be fine. But Mandate of Heaven just got rid of the terrible, unfun nonsense Ming had been pilloried with since Divine Wind back in EU3. I'd really rather not have that kind of thing introduced. As I see it, the entire point of EU is to be an alternate history simulator. Trying to be (pseudo)-determinstic was dubious when it happened back in EU2, I see no compelling reason Paradox should move back to that kind of game model.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Caustic Soda posted:I'd say that curtailing the range of tributaries is the way to go. Tributaries in odd places are the one key problem with the MIng as-is, and most of what needs solving. I don't really get the complaints about Ming being stable as if that's a Ming-specific issue. I could say the exact same thing for the Ottomans, Russia, the Timurids and France. Playing a small state close to Ming is much, much more doable than getting a game off the ground as Serbia, Novgorod, Tabarestan, Savoy, or similarly-sized countries. IRL the Ottomans, Russia, and France all existed as at least somewhat-stable empires by 1821. The Timurids consistently fall apart in-game, so I'm not sure what complaint you'd raise there. Ming, meanwhile, can never ever transition into Qing; it's simply not possible with the current game mechanics. Mingsplosions were definitely not a reasonable approach to modeling China, but a completely stable Ming with maximum mandate for the entire game is also not reasonable. I don't think anyone is even asking for pseudo-determinism, merely that historical outcomes should be possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
If they want to get serious about modeling China they need to get serious about modeling the internal structures of the nations in the game. A unified well run China was and should be a nearly unstoppable behemoth, but once the kingdom started to become divided among factions, when inflation made currency practically useless, and natural disaster displaced hundreds of thousands it created a situation where external enemies and ambitious generals could kick down the whole rotten system with ease.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
So... when exactly was Trump added as a USA dynasty name?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
I Love You! posted:I would recommend seperate peacing like 90% of the wars you are in and using it to take key provinces halfway across the content + huge stacks of money. Your allies will get over it almost immediately and the benefits are immense. As it turned out, I decided not to peace out because I didn't need all that AE. In the peace deal, France decided to give me a couple Hungarian provinces I'd marked as of interest. How sweet of them!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
give ming a doom counter with no way to lower it
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
also give them the aztec events verbatim for laughs
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
MikeC posted:What followed was a long peacee until Henry V, one of the great (and ruthless) warrior kings of his time, single handedly won back almost all of France through diplomacy and military strength. If you rewind the clock back to 1420 and had to place bets, England was strong enough that you should be putting money on the Henry ruling a combined Kingdom of France and England for a long time to come. Except he died of disease. Even then his brother who was regent for his child continued to expand English territory up until 1429. I've always thought it would be funny if you conquered France as England before 1500 or whatever if an event immediately fired that moves your capital to Paris and tag-switches you to France. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Caustic Soda posted:I strongly disagree with the idea that there should be Ming-specific disasters and events cropping up all the time. A one-time or two-time disaster like the civil wars England/Castile have? That could be fine. But Mandate of Heaven just got rid of the terrible, unfun nonsense Ming had been pilloried with since Divine Wind back in EU3. I'd really rather not have that kind of thing introduced. As I see it, the entire point of EU is to be an alternate history simulator. Trying to be (pseudo)-determinstic was dubious when it happened back in EU2, I see no compelling reason Paradox should move back to that kind of game model.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
oddium posted:apparently they didn't flag the new achievements to require No Custom Nations. so for the greek one you can give yourself all the provinces and form greece, or for the dithmarschen one you can custom nation denmark out of the game and free Holland too People really shouldn't do this, they're both great examples of fun achievements! My Dithmarschen run had several close calls, as I stuck to the mainland through the whole thing. Combined with the inability to ally anyone worth a drat, it was actually enjoyable and in no way a slog.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
yeah i had done the dithmarschen requirements one patch before and dithmarschen is one of my top 3 favorite starts now. good trade income, good ideas, gets plutocratic which rules for the position they're in. cool flag and color too
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
But I need my sweet cheevos, to improve my Steam gamerscore
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Caustic Soda posted:I strongly disagree with the idea that there should be Ming-specific disasters and events cropping up all the time. A one-time or two-time disaster like the civil wars England/Castile have? That could be fine. But Mandate of Heaven just got rid of the terrible, unfun nonsense Ming had been pilloried with since Divine Wind back in EU3. I'd really rather not have that kind of thing introduced. As I see it, the entire point of EU is to be an alternate history simulator. Trying to be (pseudo)-determinstic was dubious when it happened back in EU2, I see no compelling reason Paradox should move back to that kind of game model. I'm not trying to railroad Ming to inevitable destruction here, the hope is to make it so there's more than one possible outcome for that part of the world, because right now in the absence of a concerted effort by the player Ming will always, 100% of the time, pass all the reforms by 1600, keep all its tributaries forever, and remain the strongest nation in the game. France can be killed by England and its continental neighbors, or expand into Iberia, the Low Countries, Italy, Britain and become a true superpower, or anything in between. Ottomans can hugely outdo reality by seizing the Russian steppe and conquering well down to east Africa and Iran, or they can hit the decadence disaster early and get pushed clean out of the Balkans or Persia, or anything in between. Russia likewise can become a behemoth eating all of Lithuania and Sweden and expanding into the Caucasus and even Anatolia, or it can be squashed by Commonwealth, Ottomans, or even both. I don't see why you mention Timurids since they are practically synonymous with collapse and actually are another deeply lame nation, I wish there were half a chance for the AI to use them to form Mughals but that's its own problem. The key point here is variety. It isn't wrong for the Ming to be reasonably stable and strong throughout the game for one playthrough, but when this is the case for every playthrough it is simply boring. Also, some of this stuff would just make great historical flavor. The Tumu Crisis takes place five years into the game and is one of the most memorable events in all of Ming history, but the game doesn't do anything to represent it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
I wish Quality added Naval Tradition in addition to Army Tradition. It is already a pseudo naval group anyway and there are such few ways to get Naval Tradition.
AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
I feel like one of the solutions for Ming (and early game mega blobbing in general) should be adapting Administrative Efficiency(?) so that it give some sort of mass autonomy penalty if your dev is outstripping your tech level. Like, at tech 3 or whatever most countries start with: 100 dev gives you a 5% autonomy floor 200 dev is 10% 300 dev is 20% 400 is 40% 500 is 60% or ~something~ like that, the numbers I picked being totally arbitrary. Admin tech and monarch admin skill being used to bring this down over time, so that late game would be largely penalty free. Your early game feudal country should not be managing half of Asia/America/Europe at the current 100% efficiency. As much as it would piss off some players, there needs to be some sort of diminishing returns for being a GIGANTIC BLOB, and Ming is a poster child of this need. I also think it would help strengthen smaller, richer countries, help 'playing tall', etc etc. EDIT: I also think there should be an autonomy floor based off distance from capital/terrain in some manner, but I'm kinda a jerk, and would rather see the late game about strategically controlling colonial nations, protectorates, and key trade provinces instead of being a world spanning mega state. Fintilgin fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
my man i think you just reinvented states
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
all the provinces far enough away from my capital to be theoretically affected by autonomy are probably territories with 75% autonomy because i hit the state cap
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
A ton of mods do the "dynamic autonomy as a punishment for being bigger" and it is not fun in any of them. AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:But Ming was horribly crippled by disasters and bad leadership historically? "Ming" was a formation, not a naturally occurring nation-state. Ming in the 15th century wasn't anything like as unified as China today, but the days of a unified China being an anomaly had passed by about a thousand years. There was a cultural and philosophical identity that united the region, extended to its neighbors, and made eventual unification the expectation of basically every power that arose there. It wasn't an arbitrary formation made possible only by historical circumstance like the Mughals or Ottomans, "China" was a solidly ingrained concept. I'd like to see some variety there too but the current situation makes a hell of a lot more historical sense than Mingsplosion happening in more than like 5% of games, and also makes playing on their periphery (in East Asia) way more unique. Also the narrative this thread has that the Ming administration was woefully incompetent is a bit odd, they had ups and they had downs just like everyone else, it's just that the downs are more memorable because they generally involved tens of millions of people dying. I totally agree with you about the other stuff you said though, there really should be more drawbacks and problems they have to fight. The autonomy floor was dumb but Ming is a unique enough case that them getting some unique disasters makes sense, and I think it wouldn't even have to feel like so much of a punishment if getting mandate was genuinely difficult- that way you could get a mandate bonus for doing the disaster/ bad event right, which'd feel rewarding. THE BAR posted:People really shouldn't do this, they're both great examples of fun achievements! My Dithmarschen run had several close calls, as I stuck to the mainland through the whole thing. Combined with the inability to ally anyone worth a drat, it was actually enjoyable and in no way a slog. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/hotfix-1-22-1-is-now-live-checksum-3d00-not-for-problem-reports.1031060/ hotfix is out, it was one of the things they fixed Koramei fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Caustic Soda posted:I'd say that curtailing the range of tributaries is the way to go. Tributaries in odd places are the one key problem with the MIng as-is, and most of what needs solving. I don't really get the complaints about Ming being stable as if that's a Ming-specific issue. I could say the exact same thing for the Ottomans, Russia, the Timurids and France. Playing a small state close to Ming is much, much more doable than getting a game off the ground as Serbia, Novgorod, Tabarestan, Savoy, or similarly-sized countries. The tributary range limit seems like it's something that should have been implemented in the first or second patch after Mandate as a band-aid. Its long absence is so damning that we should expect more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Koramei posted:https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/hotfix-1-22-1-is-now-live-checksum-3d00-not-for-problem-reports.1031060/ What's the cost of Siberian Frontiers now? RIP American Frontiers.  EDIT: 200 points, apparently. Fintilgin fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Koramei posted:A ton of mods do the "dynamic autonomy as a punishment for being bigger" and it is not fun in any of them. I don't know about that. I mean what Fintilgin describes is pretty much exactly how Administrative Efficiency (I think it was called that anyway) worked in Magna Mundi for EU3, except that Autonomy didn't exist at the time so I think it was all done by province modifiers or something. It may not have been loads of fun, but it at least worked to stop large countries from being ultrastable behemoths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:39
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Fintilgin posted:What's the cost of Siberian Frontiers now? Killjoys. Just because you made a situationally broken Idea, doesn't mean you have to give it a ridiculous cost. Let people have fun. EDIT: And I can't seem to revert to the fun, broken version. Great. I Am Fowl fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
So the AI still gets a malus to accepting alliances if they're at or over their limit, but at least it's not unreasonable now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Mr. Fowl posted:Killjoys. Just because you made a situationally broken Idea, doesn't mean you have to give it a ridiculous cost. Let people have fun. Idea costs can scale by location, I imagine it's far more expensive to pick it in America than it is anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Koramei posted:
- AI now only gets -20 acceptance per relation over limit for alliance and support independence actions. I guess that's an okay compromise?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
- Fixed Tributary request spam !!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:- AI now only gets -20 acceptance per relation over limit for alliance and support independence actions. It's still not great because it doesn't address the robot-AI taking every diplo slot instantaneously for every nation BUT it at least gets closer to the dev intent without being brazenly unfun all the time. I don't love it but it's probably enough of a compromise to bite the bullet and update.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Let's say I'm an idiot and over the course of several wars my armies have become a lovely array of random compositions. If my forcelimit is 40 and I have 33 infantry and would like to replace some of them with cavalry and artillery, is there a way to do that without disbanding units and eating through my manpower pool?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Having all of China be the same culture group is stupid, increasingly so since they stopped basing culture groups on language groups. Breaking all that up into chunks could help reign in their absurd finances a bit. e: Koramei posted:
Your views on Chinese history are strange in light of your Korean expertise, as the only entity that matches the unified China description besides the Mongols was the Tang, and even then there were smaller but still powerful "chinese" kingdoms that they didn't control. Schizotek fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2017 19:22
|
|
