|
AnoHito posted:Pretty sure you can declare on/take land from a CK2 revolt. A peace treaty has to happen. So if a revolt occurs in CK2 and you attack it, the second the revolt ends the war does too unless you make a separate peace before the end of their war.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 11:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:Still in disbelief they shipped without the option to switch your capital city, I sometimes still look for a button even though they said it's to-be-added Did capital cities move much in this time period?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 12:24
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Did capital cities move much in this time period? For most polities a capital wasn't really a thing, so yea they did! With my civil war territory loss I went to war with the place who took it and that somehow began the civil war again - the enemy troops didn't stand down. And I got the "end of the war" event again. Very strange.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 12:26
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:In that video I see him having thousands of points stockpiled and that makes me think that this guy doesn't understand strategy at all. The number of times in EU4 it's even remotely close to optimal to stockpile that amount of points all involve some sort of long term plan to take advantage of game mechanics to get a better return on them than spending them snowballing via expansion or development. You might even call it a deliberate strategy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 12:43
|
|
|
They forgot to put in the best/most fun feature from EU:Rome which was that when a civil war happened, loyal "rich" characters would raise troops with their own gold to support the state. So, you'll get least have 1/3 the size of rebellion in fresh troops fighting for the state. In long civil wars, you could even end up with more troops then what you started the civil war with =) But with the downside that the new troops were loyal to whom raised them. which might end in another civil war :p Other then making Civil war a hassle now, Manpower is a real hard to refresh. Only besieging Forts should cause attrition, or difficult terrain. The manpower loss of just besieging down a country is sky-high.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Did capital cities move much in this time period? It was much more a concept of court is where the king is rather than just being in any static place. This becomes very evident during the Roman Empire period when a bunch only visited Rome once or twice or not at all. In other times the de facto capital was in Trier or Milan in the western empire. Rome was really just the cultural capital until the decline period and, especially once the senate was pushed aside, not really very important. Didn't the last "emperor" in the West die in Ravenna or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 13:09
|
|
|
Am I wrong in thinking that 90% of the time there is absolutely no point in sieging every last city, except those in the wargoal province to get the warscore? For the rest get the forts, get the capital and you can ask for the whole province. This usually amount to 2-3 sieges per province (AI tends to build 1-2 forts per province maximum, sometimes even none) which isn't that bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
fuf posted:Did anyone post this yet The hilarious part about this video is that PDS already said they were changing it to take time rather than instant results before this video was even posted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 13:25
|
|
|
fuf posted:uhhh did you miss the part where he quoted sun tzu I've actually was full of hope when he acknowledged it's a bullshit quote. Fellblade posted:The hilarious part about this video is that PDS already said they were changing it to take time rather than instant results before this video was even posted. Only some of mechanics like stability and it still doesn't change the perceived problem that you can solve any problem with throwing a lot of MP at it. People seem to be angriest about instant conversion and claims.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
Sheep posted:It was much more a concept of court is where the king is rather than just being in any static place. This becomes very evident during the Roman Empire period when a bunch only visited Rome once or twice or not at all. In other times the de facto capital was in Trier or Milan in the western empire. Okay so, this is all true, bit it's all true of the Roman Empire. And the Dominate more than the Principate, I think. This is all centuries after the end of the game. This game is about the Republic, and in the republican period, even the late republic, Rome was a city state with an empire attached more than it was the capital of an empire. Hell, other cities in Italy weren't considered fully Roman until the Social War. Obviously things are going to be more fluid for the other major powers, and completely so for the tribal societies, but capital shifting makes a lot less sense for some states than others. TorakFade posted:Am I wrong in thinking that 90% of the time there is absolutely no point in sieging every last city, except those in the wargoal province to get the warscore? For the rest get the forts, get the capital and you can ask for the whole province. This usually amount to 2-3 sieges per province (AI tends to build 1-2 forts per province maximum, sometimes even none) which isn't that bad Slaves. Hundreds and hundreds of slaves. Carpet sieging is the root of all wealth. (Though the way this works you get disproportionately more from high pop cities than low pop cities. Still, if you want to you can automate the carpet sieging.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 13:33
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:
Why
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
Jackie D posted:Why They seem to be conflating being unable to long-term plan with not having to long-term plan for every aspect of the game. If all you're doing is reacting, you'll get crunched by anyone operating proactively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 13:42
|
|
|
Sheep posted:It was much more a concept of court is where the king is rather than just being in any static place. This becomes very evident during the Roman Empire period when a bunch only visited Rome once or twice or not at all. In other times the de facto capital was in Trier or Milan in the western empire. It depends on which culture we're talking about and what time period. For the time period this game is set in, the Romans were organized more like a Greek city-state. The city of Rome wasn't just the capital, it was the very definition of the state. Rome wasn't the capital of the republic, it *was* the republic and everywher else in Italy were just other places under Rome's control. The struggle with how to deal with all of those conqured people and the evolution of a broader sense of beign "roman" is a huge part of the political development during the Republic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Only some of mechanics like stability and it still doesn't change the perceived problem that you can solve any problem with throwing a lot of MP at it. People seem to be angriest about instant conversion and claims. I know it's actively been confirmed for Stability, War Exhaustion and Legitimacy and nothing else yet, but the quotes I was thinking of were: Johan posted:Redesigning of functionality where instead of spending power for an instant result, you now spend power to nudge it towards that result over time. and Johan posted:I personally prefer instant feedback of actions, but there is a fair chunk of the community that prefer gradual nudging, and that is what we will work towards. Which is a bit more open ended. I am sure I have seen it mentioned they were looking at instant claims in some way, can't find where though. Also to be extra clear I couldn't stand more than like 2 minutes of that video because he is boring as heck and takes forever to make a point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Only some of mechanics like stability and it still doesn't change the perceived problem that you can solve any problem with throwing a lot of MP at it. People seem to be angriest about instant conversion and claims. That the community latched on to the term "mana" to denote these more abstract currencies is telling, I think. It suggests that in the players' minds these things are magical or unreal, and the actions they enable are not attatched to any sort of identifiable real-world process. Not that you can't (usually) synthesise a narrative to ground these things, but it seems these mechanics are not naturally creating those narratives in the minds of players. They are narratively null, and thus unsatisfying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 13:47
|
|
|
To me the use of "mana" is a crutch that's relied on far too heavily - and I don't think the problem is that it's instant, either. In CK2 when you fabricate a claim you have to worry about having a skilled character who likes you in the right role and you have to worry about them getting bribed or assassinated etc. In Imperator you want a claim *click* you got a claim. The fact that it's instant might underline the fact that it's a shallow mechanic but making it slower doesn't add depth. And this problem is everywhere. Want to colonise? Spend some mana, get a fully grown colony. Convert a province? Spend some mana. Wrong culture? Spend mana. Bribe a character? Spend mana. Want to make friends with someone? Spend mana, get a few events to spend more mana. Every one of these mechanics is way deeper in other titles and it's one of the reasons the game feels rather hollow to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:That the community latched on to the term "mana" to denote these more abstract currencies is telling, I think. It suggests that in the players' minds these things are magical or unreal, and the actions they enable are not attatched to any sort of identifiable real-world process. Not that you can't (usually) synthesise a narrative to ground these things, but it seems these mechanics are not naturally creating those narratives in the minds of players. They are narratively null, and thus unsatisfying. I had this conversation several times already and it seems that people don't like the term itself. Monarch *points* sounds gamey. I myself think that "numerical representation of state's ability to project power in specific ways" is much more historical than some things that people are used to and consider to be historical, like gold. Especially when in EU4 it's called Ducats and you know it's historical. Even though it's an abstract concept that makes even less sense: it can be transferred instantly to any country or culture; when you invest it in buildings or recruitment you can pull it off instantly; it has no real inflation (1000 ducats can by you same stuff in 1500 and 1800) but somehow you need a different amount for scaled events; it's the only representation of country's economy as there's nothing else except of state property and so on and so on. But we're used to having gold in our games that magically produces stuff. For some reason it's more historical than political capital allowing to move or convert people. Previous EU games used agents instead of MP which did basically the same things. Victoria 2 had focuses. But those things are too hard to quantify. You can't have many agents cause it's chore to manage, you can't have few cause then getting even a single additional agent is a lot. Still this system is easier to "get", maybe they should have done something with it. EU4 already has agents with some personality (they have names as if they're immortal servants of the state) but they are auxiliary to point spending. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Apr 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I had this conversation several times already and it seems that people don't like the term itself. Monarch *points* sounds gamey. I myself think that "numerical representation of state's ability to project power in specific ways" is much more historical than some things that people are used to and consider to be historical, like gold. Especially when in EU4 it's called Ducats and you know it's historical. Even though it's an abstract concept that makes even less sense: it can be transferred instantly to any country or culture; when you invest it in buildings or recruitment you can pull it off instantly; it has no real inflation (1000 ducats can by you same stuff in 1500 and 1800) but somehow you need a different amount for scaled events; it's the only representation of country's economy as there's nothing else except of state property and so on and so on. But we're used to having gold in our games that magically produces stuff. For some reason it's more historical than political capital allowing to move or convert people. I dont know, I love EU4 but it was always weird to me that mostly everything that you can do in your nation, from advancing technology to developing provinces, is powered by an energy which the main source is your ruler rear end, like nothing else mattered Maybe gold is even more unrealistic, as you said, but at least it accounts for the nation economy. In EU4 often feels like the ruler is a literal wizard, as everything depends on his power Elias_Maluco fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Apr 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 14:33
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:That the community latched on to the term "mana" to denote these more abstract currencies is telling, I think. It suggests that in the players' minds these things are magical or unreal, and the actions they enable are not attatched to any sort of identifiable real-world process. Not that you can't (usually) synthesise a narrative to ground these things, but it seems these mechanics are not naturally creating those narratives in the minds of players. They are narratively null, and thus unsatisfying. I mean 'mana' in Te Reo Māori denotes someone's spiritual presence or charismatic authority. Seems like a pretty grounded term for what it's meant to represent? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
You also get basic MP and your advisors which, together, will affect your MP production more than the ruler. You can also apply the National Focus to get a different kind of points. Yes, your ruler heavily affects what you can and can not do. That's the idea and that's part of the appeal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 14:39
|
|
|
Weembles posted:It depends on which culture we're talking about and what time period. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that certain states had several capitals depending on function. For example, I’m pretty sure that though Alexandria was the capital of Ptolemaic Egypt, Memphis could be considered the religious center of the kingdom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
 Not only did Etruria survive and almost entirely defeat the Romans, it has now budded a second Etruria. I haven't really interfered with anything above the heel either (as syrakusai), this is all just the AI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:I mean 'mana' in Te Reo Māori denotes someone's spiritual presence or charismatic authority. Seems like a pretty grounded term for what it's meant to represent? Uh. Huuuuh? Okay, so, maybe you're being disingenuous or whatever but I'm going to assume I'm just communicating poorly. To clarify: in my mind, when Johnny Gameliker uses the word "mana", what he is probably imagining is the something along the lines of MP in a Final Fantasy game; an abstract videogame currency representing a mystical energy spent to invoke magic spells. There's an outside possibility that the first guy to use the word had the original Polynesian definition in mind when he used it, and I'm sure others have been tickled by its ironic appropriateness before, but I am absolutely certain that that is not what 99% of people mean when they use it to refer to monarch points in Paradox games. Elias_Maluco posted:I dont know, I love EU4 but it was always weird to me that mostly everything that you can do in your nation, from advancing technology to developing provinces, is powered by an energy which the main source is your ruler rear end, like nothing else mattered This is a perfect example of the mindset I'm talking about e: creamcorn posted:
Happened in my game too- and I love it. By the last century Rome was down to 13 pops. Eat poo poo, Romans 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
guns for tits posted:Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that certain states had several capitals depending on function. For example, I’m pretty sure that though Alexandria was the capital of Ptolemaic Egypt, Memphis could be considered the religious center of the kingdom. That's why I wrote that it depends on which culture. Rome was centered on their city, the Germanic tribes considered their nation to be a portable thing that existed wherever they migrated, other empires were quasi-feudal conglomerations of smaller nations... That's the best thing about a game like this set in this time period - there are so many different types of governments and so many wildly different cultures butting against each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
On one hand, the mp system in imperator is already much better than in EU IV. Considering the changes they've proposed I think it's a pretty good system. On the other hand, having to use characters to create claims or assimilate provinces sounds really cool if executed well. Perhaps these would be optional government roles, so you can only have 1 spymaster, preacher, etc at a time, to keep it balanced and manageable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Did capital cities move much in this time period? Alexander moved his capital to Babylon. The Achaemenids had several capitals (Susa, Persepolis, Ecbatana, etc.) Assyria had Assur and Nineveh. Egypt moved its capital a bunch of times. It was definitely a thing for large empires in the ancient world. Not so much for city states, for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
fuf posted:Did anyone post this yet I watch his videos occasionally so I'd seen it, but it pissed me off. First he associated strategy with a real time element early on, which is insane. Aside from a great many good turn based strategy games where actions happen "instantly" in the context he used, it also dismisses the entire boardgame market. Which then apparently tries to walk back later in the video to say it's okay in that environment, as if someone looking for a boardgame like experience in a videogame is doing it wrong. The second issue is a huge chunk of his argument is that a player/nation should "focus" on something and invest time into it, and it makes no sense for a nation to be able to instantly spend points to accomplish a goal. Which is fine if you want to make a game mechanic criticism, but he ties it to common sense and history. He uses fabricating a claim as an example and historically fabricating a reason for war was pretty drat quick and easy in most cases, and how does it make sense that a nation has to spend so much time and resources justifying a war that they can't then exploit an opportunity elsewhere without a similar investment? Spending a fuzzy resource instantly could just as easily be an abstract for a nation playing up a minor raid as a huge deal with the populace and riding that fervor over the course of days or weeks instead of spending a year convincing a local authority that they've got a real grievance and we've got an army to back them up. If he doesn't like it as a game mechanic then that is a reasonable stance to have, but he attacks it as much more than that and it comes off as shallow complaints.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
fuf posted:Did anyone post this yet This guys right about everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
Spending 150-200 points of whatever isn't instant if you have to wait 2+ years for those points to accumulate in the first place
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
All the mana regens too slow / cost too much in this game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
I'm gonna summon the court wizard and demand an explanation for why this mana is just so gosh dang slow!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
I guess the people complaining about the instant results of spending mana can easily be corrected... Instead of: build mana pool ---> spend mana for instant result It could be: Freeze next 100 generated mana for a chosen result ----> spend mana + result applied Anyway, I see the mana conceptually: your pool is the "research" done or the "convincing ppl to convert" and then, spending it is the conclusion of it... the Eureka moment (for research) or the moment the guy has illumination and goes to X temple instead of Y. Sorry for my god drat barbarian English.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Jackie D posted:Spending 150-200 points of whatever isn't instant if you have to wait 2+ years for those points to accumulate in the first place But you see, if you have infinite points, nothing matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
cheesetriangles posted:All the mana regens too slow / cost too much in this game. I dunno, once I had played for a bit and expanded to a major power, I was typically swimming in everything except civic mana for inventions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
KOGAHAZAN!! posted:This is a perfect example of the mindset I'm talking about Maybe Im dumb to see things like that, but I do find hard to create a narrative, like you said, where MP correlate to anything real
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
My only problem with the mana is how unbalanced its uses are. Religious power is worthless outside of omens which means you never don't have enough for the next omen. Civic at least has two uses in both moving pops and getting inventions, but if you're not in a situation where you need to micromanage pops then it's just a "wait for it to tick up to 100, pick invention, wait for it to tick back up to 100..." cycle forever with no player interaction needed. Same with military except even less engaging because of how much you need to unlock military advances. Meanwhile oratory is used for loving EVERYTHING.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
I've got a ton of issues with how mana works in this game, but some powers being expensive ways to do things instantly ain't among them. My biggest gripe is how poorly the small costs scale. I do a few expansion wars and Rome is starving? Why? Because all of the pops I captured as slaves go only to my capital. Nothing I can do about that. Can't even stop taking slaves. So I built granaries to boost the population that could be supported. Still not enough. So what can I do about the 110 slaves causing my 44 citizens to starve? The cost to move a slave was 4 civic, which on its own seems a small fee. But when looking at moving a whole bunch of people out of necessity it really sucks. Worst part is I was getting 4 civic a month, so I could do the math real easy on how much doing anything would delay my next invention. I ended up ignoring it, which somehow didn't cause any issues. You'd think your capital city starving to death while slaves grossly outnumber citizens inside would cause some issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Meanwhile oratory is used for loving EVERYTHING. Orator: Rome
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Relevant to the time period the Parthians changed capital like a dozen times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
ShiroTheSniper posted:Instead of: build mana pool ---> spend mana for instant result This would probably give you a little more inertia to your decisions... But it will add a lot of hassle and need for micromanagement. I.e. if you click button "redirect that mana to whatever cause I want" then not directing mana is bad choice and so you need skills to click button that redirects your mana in a new direction ASAP. The difference is like between turn-based and real-time tactics. In a sense EU4/I:R allow you to play RTS as if it's a TBS and your units all have their action points stockpiled, and then when you need them to instantly move somewhere far away spending a lot of action points. It makes little sense in tactics because you can't plan if enemy units may actually instantly teleport. But when we're talking about what MP affects in Paradox games it doesn't really affect your strategic consideration. In something like Civilization you can assume that someone is 1 turn from researching nuclear weapons because you see they have prerequisite tech. In EU4 you have to assume that this guy with 15 military tech is one day from buying 16th tech just to be safe. If someone conquers a land in I:R you can assume that they can spend some of their MP on converting pops but it's a still unstable land. If the game doesn't have some sort of espionage system where you know that enemy is in a middle of something so its better to attack now (and it would probably only make sense in post-Napoleonic game) there's little difference for you whether everyone clicks things to instabuy or launches a long process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2019 21:08
|
|