Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

«‹›9 »

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

A Violence Gang posted:

I wouldn't mind if the second-level allies could be called but only fight in defense of their actual allies' territory so they can't get improbably roped into the initial aggression. But that raises some questions about how strictly you define that (must the fighting take place within the ally's borders?) and might be too nuanced for the AI to handle.

Define an alliance pool the moment hostilities break out as being all those nations allied to the primary belligerents. If one of those allies assumes control of the war, they can only call in allies that are in the original alliance pool?

Example: Salzburg is allied to Baden, and to Bavaria, which is allied to Austria. Palatinate goes to war with Salzburg, which calls in Bavaria. Bavaria cannot call Austria, since they are not allied to Salzburg. Bavaria can call Baden, even though Bavaria isn't allied to Baden, because Baden is allied to Salzburg.

Either that or just scrap the war leader thing entirely.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2013 17:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 01:31

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Wiz posted:

That's called 'Friday afternoon' around the office.

Pics or it didn't happen.

# ¿ Jan 27, 2013 16:19

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Fintilgin posted:

Maybe instead of having a mechanism where you 'sphere' a country and get all the resources, there could be a system where you 'invest' cash/diplomacy in a foreign STATE and get the resources of that state only. So France might have invested and gotten a monopoly in Guangdong and Britain has Jangsu and Anhui. You could use this everywhere, so instead of one Great Power saying "YOINK! I'll take Brazil" you'd be investing in particular Brazilian provinces that had the resources you wanted, and countries could be divided by different powers. A little more granular and less winner takes all.

You should play Imperialism II. It still has a special place in my heart for really effectively gameplay-ifying imperialism. Translating Imperialism II's notions to V2 would be a major change, but it would allow for some pretty neat things, like:
* Building railroads / building factories / expanding RGOs in individual provinces.
* Getting a share of the sale price of any resources produced by anything owned by an "investor" power.
* Using built-up influence with the target country to lock competitors out of invidual provinces / states.
* Eventually building up to a full lock-out of others (full sphering) as a kind of "win" condition.

This should include some related abilities, like the ability to force other powers to give up some of their lock-ins (or transfer them to you) as peace terms. Imperialism should be profitable enough to make powers want to do this.

edit: I want this to be the imperialism system for the entire world, not just China, honestly. Of course, you can always conquer, but then you have to front way more upfront costs and may not get as much out of it, depending on local situations.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2013 17:59

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Fintilgin posted:

I used to play the first Imperialism, back in the day. If I remember it correctly, seems like Victoria borrowed a lot of ideas from it. I could never seem to get very far though, the Congress of Nations would always show up after a decade or so and end the game prematurely. I seem to remember never being able to play more than a couple decades. Was there a way to turn that 'feature' off?

Imperialism is very different from Imperialism II - I never really got into Imperialism, so I don't know, sorry

# ¿ Jan 31, 2013 20:27

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Cowcatcher posted:

There was no option, I remember I was pretty annoyed with that either. I don't know if the GOG version is any different, or maybe there's a mod out there. Would love to play it again, the sequel didn't really have the same feel to it.

I liked the sequel a lot more, honestly. The thing that really turned me on to the sequel was that, at first, the game seemed like a straight-forward "save money and build things with it" game. You have a bunch of raw resources in Europe, and you spend those to make depots and roads to connect more resources to your network, which you then spend to make more and better roads and depots (and more soldiers), etc. However, once you discover the new world, you realize that you can conquer or colonize it to leapfrog your economic grind to the top and outpace your neighbours. Suddenly, everyone in Europe is fighting over the new world because of its implications for the old world. It just made a ton of sense.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2013 20:52

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Wiz posted:

It is a funny wallpaper, the whole room is kind of cute, but saying that a silly wallpaper somehow implies something about the quality of Paradox games is... something else.

Goons can accomplish anything, as long as that thing is something that should not be accomplished.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2013 16:28

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

DrPop posted:

How will Christianity be handled in The Old Gods/867 start date for CK2--will it already be informally split, as it pretty much was by then, or will something special occur in the 1050s to formally handle it?

What I want is a schism DLC where bishop-type characters that you have that amass enough prestige/piety can try to split off their own church instead of trying to become Pope.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2013 16:45

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Darkrenown posted:

It sounded more like he was restating what I had just said after completely misunderstanding me, but if that is what he meant it's not something I can do. I work on these games, I don't run the company, I'm not involved in the marketing department, I agree and I have said the name was a poor choice.

Also, no offence, but this wasn't a trap you "fell for", you just didn't check what you were buying. EUIII complete was complete when it was published, so the name was perfectly accurate at the time. It's unfortunate that caused confusion when a later expansion was made, but it's apparently not possible to solve, so we need to be careful what we call bundles. I didn't think "Collection" implied everything, ever, which was why I asked when Alchenar brought it up.

Basically, calling them something other than "Complete" is probably fine. The main problem is that once they become invalidated, people who don't religiously follow the release schedule get confused.

# ¿ Feb 24, 2013 19:04

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:

Well, assuming it's like EU3, they only live for five to ten years anyways.

That's no reason for them not to gain xp. It means that you won't keep a stable of generals around so much as commission generals once conflicts break out, but then they basically gain momentum over the course of that conflict until they are really good at it. Then the conflict ends and they die. Most historical generals only have one or two wars in them anyways.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2013 21:31

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Freelancepolice posted:

Ok so I'm just starting V2. I understand the majority of the principles and terms in the game. However, for my first crack at it, I've chosen Honduras (mainly because they're small, civilized and under developed). Now I'm just basically balancing my daily income then hitting the fast forward until I can make a factory. Is that the right way to go about it? I can't change much elsewhere and all they seem to make is fruit, fruit and more fruit (and a tiny bit of lumber).

You need a lot of capital to start a factory, which means that poor nations tend to stay poor and wealthy nations tend to get wealthier. You can influence this through taxes, technology, and politics, but if you're starting out poor you'll spend a lot of time ramping up.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2013 16:45

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

I hope they ditch tech groups. Sandbagging non-Europeans just produces a world that isn't very believable in general. Having better reasons for technological stagnation (or, on the flip side, rapid technological growth) would make for a more enjoyable game.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2013 20:43

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Wolfgang Pauli posted:

That's why tech is so stupidly hard to implement in strategy games. There are so many vectors to account for that even *trying* for an accurate model ends up in a horrible design with a huge micro burden on the player. The only strategy game tech screen I've ever thought really captured what it's about was HoI2. You fund a specific team to a general project and they have to discover the various bits and bobs that need to be discovered on the way to the goal. Nevermind society's technology, you're just a government giving out contracts and grants to science and industry.

EUIV's tech groups should all progress at the same rate - tech group should just decide who you get neighbour bonuses from. Europe should still manage to dominate due to a) not being conquered by the Mongols, b) not being conquered by the Manchurians, and c) finding and proceeding to exploit the New World. They don't need the playing field tipped more than that.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2013 21:40

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

WhitemageofDOOM posted:

Have you looked at the new tech system?

I have, and I liked that players had substantially more direction in where technology went, but Paradox still have tech groups whose sole purpose is to apply a penalty to tech speed based on which group a state is in.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2013 23:06

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Darkrenown posted:

Sure, but it was Europe that really drove the development of handheld firearms beyond the earliest parts of the EU period. The tech groups are just abstractions of the the general results of technological advancement because we can't accurately simulate everything that happened in history that resulted in European domination and colonisation.

Wolfgang Pauli posted:

Plus it was the Renaissance/Neo-Classical interest in the Romans that lead to massed formations of musketeers.

Not entirely. Europeans pulled somewhat ahead in firearms technology by the 1500s, but once they marketed those firearms around in east asia, they were a big hit and east asia reached parity again. East asians also adopted massed formations and volley fire - those are inevitable inventions once you have reliable firearms. Firearms became so important during Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea that generals wrote back to the mainland to request that only firearm-bearing soldiers be sent over.

In terms of most developmental metrics, the Chinese civilizational group was about on par with the European one in terms of population, economy, literacy, and military power into the 1700s, and then experienced a fairly abrupt stagnation. Europeans didn't push China around in the 1600s primarily because it would have been impossible, not because they hadn't gotten around to it.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2013 04:53

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Darkrenown posted:

I wasn't really talking about the game(s) there, we had a little history aside about guns.

Well again, my reply to an aside about how gunpowder was invented in China rather than the game's tech system.

But to answer you: No, not really. But it does matter that you have access to generally the same level of know-how, have access to similar resources, and are close enough to where <thing> was invented to see it in action (because people and even more so rulers and organisations like armies tend to be conservative and won't adopt a new idea just because someone tells them it's awesome, you need the "HOLY poo poo! France has something called a Flintlock and they're winning battles left and right, we need this before they invade us!" effect). Perhaps Denmark doesn't invent any new guns, but they can see how it affects the armies of their neighbours and pay some gunsmiths a bunch of money to come out and start an armoury. That's a huge simplification, of course, but that's kind of what the tech groups represent, even if you're not inventing new things yourself it's easy enough to adopt them from your neighbours.

EU doesn't model any of the things that make adopting new inventions difficult, if you have the tech you can build as many units wielding them as you can afford, so instead we make it harder for some areas to get the techs. It's certainly not the only possible way to do it, but if we used a different system it would still need to be be balanced so that Europe tended to come out ahead, because we want EU to follow the broad historical pattern of emerging European dominance, rather than, say, the Aztecs invading Spain (At least until we do Sunset Invasion II: Quetzalcoatl's revenge).

Yeah, which is why I am somewhat bummed that neighbour bonuses are no longer a technological factor, and economy has been decoupled from technology. I feel that both of those mechanisms allow for situations, like, say:
1. Spain and Portugal sail west and encounter the Americas.
2. Spain gets filthy rich off of American gold.
3. Spanish wealth allows them to develop a whole new military paradigm, the tercio.
4. The tercio kicks but left and right until everyone who is fighting against it figures out how to adopt it.

The way it currently stands, it seems like Spain's discovery wouldn't actually influence the technology, diplomacy, or military of Spain's cultural community at all until they began colonizing themselves.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2013 19:16

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Fister Roboto posted:

The westernization game in AHD is ridiculously unfun, it's basically all the flaws of V2 cranked up to 11. It's slow, it's boring, there's no good reliable way to speed it up (it could take decades to get the western influences event or get sphered), and you can't really do anything until you finish.

It would be better if you were less crippled by not being modernized

Historically, China successfully played Europeans off against each other and made concessions that kept them from being colonized in the ways that DrSunshine mentions, but in V2 China is just a large, weak country with no agency.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 16:02

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

DrSunshine posted:

Aaahhh. I see. So there's the disadvantage with having an army of 4 million men.

That bothers me a fair amount, mostly because if an AI declares war on you but has no hope of success, even if you swat all their armies you don't have enough warscore to really force a peace, so they can just sit in perpetual war with you because they're a lot weaker than you.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2013 16:59

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

A game that would actually benefit from modeling the downsides to colonialism would actually be east v. west, because the de-colonization struggle sets the stage for the US and the SU competing over the formerly colonized world.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2013 16:10

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

DrProsek posted:

Yeah the same ISP basically means as much as saying "Both Ubik and that poster have a T-Mobile phone" or "Both drive Mazdas". Sure it kinda narrows it down but even if it's an ISP that only serves clients in Lisbon, that still doesn't really mean it has to be Ubik, and if it's not unique to Lisbon, then it basically means nothing.

Same IP address, not ISP.

IP addresses aren't a guaranteed match, but since they tend to release/renew fairly infrequently, it's pretty suspicious.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2013 22:31

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Fintilgin posted:

The quote from Castelleon specifically says 'use the same ISP'.

Oh, I thought James The 1st said IP.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2013 00:19

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Tulip posted:

EU's biggest ahistoricity is that it makes Europe way, way stronger than it was historically. Note that Native Americans barely register as speedbumps in EU's colonization game, compared to their historical often rather successful resistance into the 19th Century, including the Arauco War which lasted, mind-bendingly, over 300 years and included the natives being on the winning side of the Chilean War of Independence (and then finally getting murdered to hell by the Chileans).

EU's confusion is that it backports the Europe of Victoria to EU. EU is actually a time period when Asia is dominant; Victoria is one when Euroamerica is dominant.

# ¿ May 31, 2013 18:57

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Tulip posted:

EU basically timewarps Europe about 200 years into the future in a lot of ways - like holy hell manufactories are basically just industrial factories, and free trade doctrines are way more effective in the game than they were historically.

Pretty much. EU firmly misplaces the time period in which a large divergence developed between Europe and the rest of the world.

# ¿ May 31, 2013 20:38

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Fintilgin posted:

Huh. No coring overseas? I like that change, if true.

What about, say, China coring Taiwan or Malacca coring other parts of Indonesia? There has to be some ability to overseas core!

# ¿ Jul 18, 2013 20:38

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

pdxjohan posted:

Here's an exclusive EU4 screenshot for you guys..

Well, that just swayed me into pre-ordering.

# ¿ Jul 19, 2013 15:56

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Still doesn't make sense, because the Swedish nobility would probably be more French than Swedish. Put them in Paris, and they would be 100% French within the year.

Kind of like the Manchus in China? For comparison's sake, Paris' population at around 1500 was estimated ~500,000. Beijing's population was estimated at ~1,000,000 proper, ~3,000,000 metro.

It's definitely more feasible to burn Paris to the ground and resettle it than to do the same to Beijing, and it nonetheless took the Manchus several generations to assimilate!

# ¿ Jul 19, 2013 23:30

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Beamed posted:

Please, go on about misunderstanding actual Chinese history.

No way, man. I totally took a 200-level course in Chinese history and that makes me an expert on all facets of the topic :smug:

# ¿ Jul 19, 2013 23:39

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Mister Adequate posted:

I suppose the germane question for EUIV is: Could a different path in the decades before European contact have any realistic chance of leading to a different fate for Native American states? I know we can game it and conquer the world with Iroqious and so forth, and I'd certainly love to see a much more fleshed out New World, but I'm not sure decisions made in 1453 would be enough to make a lot of changes, so I can forgive Paradox on this front. That said the rest of the non-European Old World will hopefully get much more attention this time around because there's no excuse for anything in Afro-Eurasia being treated in such a manner.

It's fairly unlikely. While there are certainly things that individual people could have done differently, there were also some much larger trends that couldn't really be bucked. Earth entered a small ice age, according to varying sources, either right before the EU3 time period or somewhere early in the EU3 time period that substantially disrupted Native American societies. Additionally, European contact brought diseases with extremely high mortality rates that further disrupted local societies. When Europeans arrived to try to conquer and colonize the Americas, they weren't fighting Native American societies at their peak; they were fighting Native American societies that had just experienced huge (negative) upheavals.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2013 20:06

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Sampatrick posted:

In North and Central American societies I can agree with this, but I don't necessarily think this is accurate for South American societies like the Inca, which were affected much less by the Little Ice Age than more northern societies. I feel like the Inca Empire could have survived European contact if it wasn't for Atahualpa meeting the Spanish with only a small retinue of body guards; it certainly is possible that if he had taken a larger body guard then the Inca Empire could have survived contact.

Yeah. The Incan empire is the greatest exception to this rule. The Spanish showed up during a time when the empire was under a great deal of internal distress, but it's easy to imagine that that might play out differently. It's harder to imagine that the little ice age wouldn't happen.

Also, they had potatoes. When will EU4 model potatoes? They're amazing.

# ¿ Jul 20, 2013 20:17

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Eh, no tags. Why not a re-imagined shogunate system, but for the tributary empire of the Aztecs? European provinces can become part of it but Europeans are limited to only having as many soldiers there as their new world provinces support. They can then ally with internal states only within the scope of the tributary empire, i.e. if you ally with the tlaxcalans against the aztecs they won't join you against the french.

In fact, make it one of the core mechanics of that system for people to form coalitions against the aztecs and for the aztecs to smack them down if they're too weak; make the eventual collapse and either colonization or reform of the aztec empire inevitable.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2013 21:12

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Fister Roboto posted:

Making the map a sphere would be completely pointless anyway, because of the way the map actually works. Army positions aren't stored in map coordinates (although the position of the figures on the display is). Instead there's a database of province adjacencies that says "Toulouse is adjacent to Carcassonne, and there's a distance of X units between them." Changing the map to a globe would be purely cosmetic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe those distances are generated automatically based on province size/proximity.

That said, it would be possible* to apply some distance scaling based on latitude to make larger provinces in the northern and southern extremities functionally smaller**, and that might actually be an interesting idea.***

* This would fall apart for provinces that had substantial north-south geography.
** This might need to be tweaked a bit to make the east-west scaling more aggressive than the north-south scaling based on province dimensions.
*** This would probably be confusing.

# ¿ Jul 22, 2013 15:33

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

RabidWeasel posted:

The handsoff game is great, the AI still spectacularly fails in some cases (Poland and Lithuania being utterly incapable of beating rebels still, OPM Novgorod and Byzantium for 200 years, France looking like the HRE and France itself having like 3 provinces) but hey the OE does great in Asia, Muscovy goes eastward a long way, no British Finland or Spanish Anatolia, and almost no snaking. Wiz mentioned on the official forums that he's still working on the AI for now and he specifically pointed out OPM Novgorod as something that he really wants to 'fix' so the AI will likely see even greater improvements.

The hand-off between the hungarians and the austrians in the face of the ottomans is still really lackluster. That, and the Burgundian succession. I realize it's a sandbox game, but as it stands, neither of those events are even remotely possible, let alone plausible. I'd like to see those addressed in EU4 or in some expansion. It might be neat for a more powerful co-religionist neighbour to be able to partition a weaker co-religionist neighbour that is getting overrun by a mutual religious enemy: Austria could take over any parts of Hungary they can get their hands on (and thus enter into war with the OE) if the OE is winning a religious war against Hungary; the OE could take over any parts of Algeria that they could get their hands on if it's being overrun by Spain or France, etc.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 15:47

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Wiz posted:

You really should not look at one game and assume that is the only way things can happen, nor do we want every game to develop the same way no matter how historical it is.

This is true, but since those were sticking points in EU3 we're on the lookout for those in EU4. It's not that Burgundy must die, or that Austria must inherit Hungary and Bohemia - it's more that the engine should allow for certain types of monarchies (of which Burgundy is an example) to disintegrate and be inherited by neighbours, or that it should allow prestigious and powerful countries (like Austria) to sieze the territory of their losing neighbours to keep it from falling into the hands of religious enemies, or something like that. It would be nice for the mechanics to be fairly generic; I could see a "low coherence monarchy" mechanic working for Poland and Burgundy, where Poland's chronically low coherence causes its territory to regularly break off in little chunks, and Burgundy's extremely low coherence causes the monarchy to simply evaporate once the king dies.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 18:51

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Burgundy wasn't even a monarchy though, it was the personal possessions of the ruler of the Duchy of Burgundy, but the dukes was still subordinate to France. (Not to mention a junior branch of the French royal family.) The king of France was the rightful heir to the French territories at least, it had nothing to do with the Burgundian realm being "low coherence" or anything. Even if Charles the Bold had somehow managed to be recognized as king, had he died before managing to create a male heir, the King of France would just become the King of France & Burgundy. Though of course pressing that claim would probably see an intervention, which might end up with the dissolution of the kingdom and a partition pretty similar to the one in history. (Assuming the Habsburgs still marry Mary.)

Basically, a limited dynastic system is really what's required to model the situation in Burgundy. What you would need to do would be something like this:

1: Dynasties are defined with main and sub branches.

2. They're all ranked, with the main branch of course being #1.

3. If a hereditary country* has its local dynasty die out, the country is inherited/put into a personal union with the country of the same dynasty with the highest prestige. Depending on country rank, this might switch the personal union around from how it would have been in EU3. (So a small German county would not inherit Denmark, but instead Denmark would inherit it for example.)

4. If the entire dynasty dies out, the top dynasty inherits their stuff. If that was the main line, the former #2 becomes the main line.

5. Some sort of compromise system, if the inheritance is going to upset the balance of power. Mods managed to do something like that in EU3, so it should be possible.

*As opposed to the elective monarchies that are still kicking around in some number at the start of the game as I recall.

Well yeah, but I wanted to dodge out on modeling dynastic stuff for the EU series.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 19:34

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

gradenko_2000 posted:

In terms of IRL history, how close was "Germany" to forming prior to the 19th Century? Is the ability to unite Germany in EU3 as much of a pipe-dream as the ability to reconstitute Byzantium in Victoria 2?

Also, what was the actual historical deal between Burgundy and France? I never even heard of Burgundy (except maybe as a geographic location) before EU3, but apparently Burgundy was strong enough to have stood up to France for a while and is represented in EU3 as a really strong land power. What's the context?

It was pretty much a pipe dream. The only way "Germany" could have formed would be if some monarch in the German region carved out a Germany-sized kingdom for himself, which is what "France" was during most of this time period, too. Maybe, eventually, such a Germany-sized personal kingdom would see its inhabitants develop the notion that they were part of a unified nation near the end of the game's timeframe.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 20:50

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Fister Roboto posted:

This is 100% WAD. Welcome to playing as a "primitive" nation! Best way to deal with that is to leave a single regiment in each province as you chase them so that they eventually have no place to run.

I'm hoping Ethiopia is not this broken in EU4.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 22:21

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Beamed posted:

I just noticed - the Manchu own China?

That must have been a later start.

I wonder if EU4 is going to be able to handle things like the Manchu conquest of China? It's pretty much impossible in EU3 :china:

# ¿ Jul 26, 2013 17:16

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Beamed posted:

It was a mod(Maybe EU3+, or WAMMO) that did a system I quite liked: Until you claim Beijing, you're just another Turkic/Mongolian tribal nation, but once you've captured it, you can reform into a Despotic Empire or whatever as the Qing(with the option of the Jin, but that's just a pipe dream..for now). The other country either splinters or just gets huge rebellions from losing the Mandate of Heaven, and now all countries within China or bordering it (with some exceptions, this would need tweaking) getting the "Mandate of Heaven" Casus Belli on other countries. Once enough 'key' regions were controlled, like Beijing, X'ian, and Nanjing, something similar to that, then all other countries would lose the CB besides you, and you'd gain the flag "Mandate of Heaven".

A man can dream

It would honestly not be terrible for there to be an event chain where occupying Beijing in a war gives you a choice where you can either declare yourself to be a new dynasty or not. Then, you get cores on China proper + your existing cores. Of course, the existing dynasty can still protest, but this should also cause them some kind of crisis event that makes them weaker. I'm pretty sure that EU3+ or something did do something like that with just about all of China's neighbours.

On a semi-related note, is there really a hands-off mode in EU4? That will make it way easier to see if some of the events I put together actually accomplish what I hope.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2013 18:25

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Beamed posted:

Yeah, just make a quick check to ensure they're an actual neighbor of China and not, say Japan/European/etc., and that'd work kind of well.

Yes, although Japan should absolutely be a legitimate target for this event, given that Japanese high society spent most of this time period emulating China (poorly).

# ¿ Jul 26, 2013 21:49

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

The Nozzle posted:

It might also encourage Spain and Portugal to actually colonize South America and not Canada.

Isn't there some kind of tradewinds simulator in EU3 that helps fix that? It's faster to go from Iberia to Central/South America than it is to go to North America.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2013 05:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 01:31

Dibujante: Jul 27, 2004

Beamed posted:

It wouldn't be because of Japan that it wouldn't be a legitimate target, it would be because of China.

How so? Although Chinese elites probably considered the Japanese to be barbarians, they probably also considered the Manchurians to be similar.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2013 21:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Paradox Grand Strategy: From the Carnival of Lust to the Enlightened Times

«‹›9 »