|
It's a little easter egg from Victoria 2. Contrecoup posted:Those stats are bast on game starts, so my 1001 experiments with being a Gothic culture no-religion Daimyo in Ireland or whatever poo poo I tried just to test how absurd of a country I could make are each considered just as serious as your actual attempt to play a long game and accomplish something. nah I forget exactly what the parameters were but Wiz said there was something that kept it from counting multiple restarts from the same computer within a certain period of time or something like that.
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
Larry Parrish posted:One thing I don't really like about custom nations is that it reminds me a lot of the ruler designer from CK2, which is usually really cool and I like to use it to customize my dynasty or sometimes do something silly like Muslim Tribal Ireland (don't do that, anyone you make a count will somehow make the church his primary title and become feudal and then they hate your guts. the player can't easily do it themselves, though.), but there's a million people in this thread who are like 'so i started in 1444 as a custom nation owning the entirety of the english channel with 10% discipline and 20% morale as traditions but i'm having trouble with france! what do i do?' and it's just like, wow. I'm guilty of this. I play real nations in multiplayer and in singleplayer I just mess around, often with ridiculously overpowered ideas. For some reason I tend to get bored of those games a lot more quickly than the real games, wonder why. e: like here are some ideas I used in my last game when I wanted to be the Pretty Borders Police and go around attacking nations everywhere to fix their horrible mistakes  when Common Sense first came out I did a -80% development cost run as China. it was not as fun as I had anticipated.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Karelia is directly connected to one of their provinces, so they're free to walk there. They shouldn't be able to walk past it though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Colonize the Philippines and Indonesia and get rich by sucking up all the trade at Malacca. Then use your 10% discipline, 15% infantry combat 10% morale to beat up on all your neighbors.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
so I immediately wanted to check, and ah
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Pyromancer posted:Is your tech considered to be primitive? I remember native Americans and sub-saharans had restriction like that - no building boats and only allowed to colonize directly adjacent, not even over same sea zone primitive is only for 100%+ tech cost, i.e. only American tech groups. Sub-Saharan and Indonesian (Chinese tech) teams both have 60%. Sorced posted:They spawn as a lucky nation with 50 regiments, 5k ducats, 1m manpower and also get 50 ducats/month, 75% core cost, +100% discipline, -10 unrest, +100k max manpower,, +100% manpower recovery, -1000 relations to everyone, -50% attrition from their invasion modifier. Also imperialism on everyone. I kinda want to play a real game against them. Jesus Christ. I wanna try that for my next multiplayer game I think.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
oh yeah I didn't see it mentioned, but you can still form Netherlands as Burgundy right? If you don't feel like starting as an OPM. They have to cede all their french territory to do it though (that, or totally wipe out France).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I would really like to see navies re-worked as the next big patch. I've noticed I think they're obviously not ideal but back when they didn't annihilate each other every battle and you had to spend half your attention each war going on hunt-a-ship 50 times it was way worse. Especially now that ships take longer to make, I like that the battles are actually decisive and can give you naval supremacy for a good while.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
I think he meant how development was useless to non-Western tech. No they didn't change that.Bort Bortles posted:I think that is the second time I have mentioned it Oh sorry I didn't mean to sound so harsh, I've just been noticing a lot of boat chat lately  Why do there need to be different kinds of boats for non-Europeans though? What would that add? The whole game is an abstraction; it's not like Europeans only used four different types of ships either, or for that matter, relied on armies of entirely longbowmen and knights that exclusively used the "line up in giant rows and poke each other" tactic. And how is naval combat boring or tedious? It's simple for sure, but the whole oceanic and trade systems are abstracted to an extent that without vast overhauls (which they've said aren't possible in EU4) I don't really see how having the naval stuff necessitate more of your attention being away from the land would be a good thing at all. I agree the suiciding boats thing is super dumb though, but that seems like more of a bug than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
 you guys are crazy, Humanist is like the perfect idea group if you want to do blobbing in most of the world. Religious unity, years of nationalism, +5 unrest for heathens and heretics. Better relations over time helps you manage the AE you'll be getting too. It might well be the best idea set in the game, there's not a single bad part of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
I really hope they change the economic mapmode too, am I the only one that has a really hard time with it? It's just a splodge of near-random colours, I don't see why they didn't just go with a gradient or something. Could stand to be changed to development instead of just basetax too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Yeah but that Rome was done by an AI  also wow even with that development those costs for Milan are insanely low, they really did make it easier.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
It means you're super easy to siege down but otherwise it should be pretty strong
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That's true. GDP per capita grew roughly 50% - 150% in Europe during the same period, which would in game terms bump taxes and (especially) production up significantly. GDP per capita in India and China was essentially stagnant during the same period. They could stand to nearly double development in most of the non-European world really, and let Europe eclipse it over the course of the game. Development opens up so many possibilities; I said I was glad they put it behind a paywall a bit ago since it makes Common Sense seem much more worth the price (unlike Art of War), but it's kind of a shame it's gonna keep more radical stuff like that from being introduced.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I've just finished rebalancing the entire world in terms of development, with manpower being directly dependent on population, while tax and production are dependent on GDP per capita too. The need to increase development was pretty varied though, with some non-European regions probably having been overpowered relative to Europe. (There's a lot of variation in Europe though.) On the other hand, India and China became massively more developed. Like, Ming starts out at over 9000 development. It might surprise you then to find that I'm adding some triggered modifiers which adds diminishing returns to additional development, curbing the power of large states relative to small ones, especially for early governments. That's a general system for all countries though, from the size of Anhalt and up to a potential super-Ming, not just a Ming specific handicap. Oh wow, can you post a copy of that? I wanna see. What sources did you use to judge population and GDP?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Yeah they key is that you're wildly underestimating how important this:TTBF posted:Aside from not draining your manpower is. Especially with the scary attrition you take sieging stuff down after Common Sense, mercenaries are what stop you from turning into a sitting duck after every major war.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
So that if a player decides to play them it can be a slightly less tedious experience. AI Siberians aren't really supposed to do anything other than let Japan take Hokkaido and the Manchus expand a little bit more.PrinceRandom posted:Also I'm trying to refine my merc strat. You don't want any as a standing force right? I'm generally really aggressive in my wars and it seems like it'd take too long to raise a merc force substantial enough to save manpower in fights If you can afford it and you keep the unit type up to date there's not really anything wrong with having them as a standing force, often it's more convenient that way. I regularly have woefully out of date mercenaries out in the colonies since you can't create them there and off-theatre wars are for some reason always huge manpower drains with regular infantry. They really don't take long to raise before a war though; it's like 15 days per regiment, that's the blink of an eye in EU4 time. Just plan to raise them a little bit before you declare war. If you're too lazy/ preoccupied to do that though, at least raising some for siege stacks a little ways into it is a good idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
it also doesn't have the same number of provinces in each region I don't think, they're randomly distributed. lots of the time there will be trade regions with like only 2 provinces in them.Agnostalgia posted:How doable is that Najd achievement to get the 500 Sunni provinces? I've never played as a muslim nation that wasn't Ottomans or a horde, so I was thinking of trying that one next. oh yeah it's like super easy man no problem at all definitely just jump right in
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Huh I wonder if making these tiles is why they added the console command to refresh the heightmap and stuff.PleasingFungus posted:I think you misunderstood; the question could be rephrased as 'can a landmass consist of multiple tiles, or does each tile need to have only sea borders?' The way you mentioned a 6x6 'supercontinent' being a single tile makes it sound like the answer is the latter. he answers in the Paradox thread: quote:Right now they're always surrounded by ocean, but we want to make it so they can have land borders. We'll see if there's time for it. Again though, they can be any size all the way up to the entire 8x9. e: Sorced posted:The most important part I thought you can't use Random New World in (achievement-available) Ironman games though can you? Koramei fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
It makes tons of sense, people forget they're over the cap all the drat time, whereas since when has anyone forgotten to hire a general? Whether an army has a general or not is like the first thing I check whenever I'm sending it to engage someone.Prop Wash posted:I haven't tried it in 1.13 but in 1.12 you absolutely could. Give it a shot at the main menu, it should still say achievement-eligible. Oh wow really? With how careful they are about achievements that seems oddly exploitable, but I guess most people won't feel like rerolling the random new world 30 times for the perfect run.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:I wonder if the patchnote means that if you do not have enough leaders you will get a notification and that one gets replaced if you have too many? Nope just checked in game, the original alert is gone. You're right, it does seem weird to get rid of it. I think the new alert is like 100 times more useful, but even so.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Korean is like a good quarter or so iirc if he holds all their provinces.Thunder Moose posted:So I got humanism for Japan with the hopes that the 50% cultural acceptance idea would allow easy integration of Ainu and Korean cultures - but both are still red to me; bug? Have you waited a couple of months? It can take a while to tick over. Ainu will never be accepted I don't think, but Korean should be fine even if you don't have Humanism. Only thing I can think of is that you developed the Japanese provinces a whole bunch or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Has anyone actually done 3 Mountains since Common Sense? It pretty much seems straight up impossible now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:People also use SAM to unlock achievements. Ryukyu is not even nearly one of the rarest achievements. It pretty much is. Most of the achievements that are rarer than it are only like a month old. I'm sure some people used SAM, and 3 Mountains might be targeted more than most achievements 'cause it's kinda infamous, but I still don't think it's a common thing? I used to get kind of pissed off at the lengths Paradox went to for making achievements hard to exploit in game (and I still think monthly autosaves make ironman a chore to play) but the achievement culture around this game is actually kind of serious, people care about them a lot more than in most games.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
I always go for genocide instead. feels cleaner.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Your march got their units stuck in the middle of a war. you really use them that much? keep in mind that for every time you've gotten hosed over by a mechanic like that, there have been several situations where you've benefited immensely by the AI having gotten hosed over and you knowingly or unknowingly exploiting it. it can feel bullshit sometimes but it all balances out in the end.Beamed posted:huh? Why would you use a console command at all? he was making a joke
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
No fault in people using console commands (my last singleplayer run had these ideas), I just think it's really silly to use broken game mechanics as your justification for it when they benefit you every bit as much as they hurt you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Poil posted:No, no, no, no, NO! It's already painful enough to deal with Muslim provinces as it is without adding more crap. If the Iberians had been able to conquer the North African coast as thoroughly in real life they would probably had managed to converted them. The whole area living under Catholic rule for a few generations with an active inquisition is likely to be successful (and quite inhumane). It should be painful. North Africa was never properly conquered during this period. I think it being super hard to convert would be perfect; Spain can still conquer and core the territories, but it will never be able to have a fully secure hold on them without taking serious interest. quote:The Manchu never gets strong enough to take on Ming. Ming just has way too much armies, manpower, money and military tech for Manchu to even stand a chance. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I'm still not totally sure where I stand, 'cause it's sort of a historical accuracy vs. streamlined (and maybe more fun?) gameplay argument and I can see reasons Paradox would want to support the latter, but: It's not that Ming has way too much military strength, manpower, money and tech (they are still woefully underrepresented in all those)- it's that large states in general in this game are way too stable. Paradox has three major systems they introduced over the past year or so- local autonomy, unrest, and development- all of which could be immensely interesting for internal mechanics in huge states- and they've honestly hardly done poo poo with any of them; the first two are just ways to make your expansion safer and more predictable, and the last is practically just a gimmick to let you play tall. so a few simple ideas to increase instability: 1. Rebels should be more threatening. Aside from a few historical events/ disasters (some of which are genuinely painful), when are rebellions ever a worry? When you're in a world spanning doom-war, I guess. And that's pretty much it. Historically rebellions, especially in large, decentralized, corrupt states (i.e. literally every state that got large enough), were frequently near existential threats- but I can count the number of times I've been broken by rebels without intending it in this game on one hand.
2. There should be more things that increase autonomy. This could go hand-in-hand with the tougher rebels thing- since they'll be winning a lot more, giving up autonomy could be a way to quench them. There are so many ways to reduce autonomy these days that I don't even care about it anymore unless I'm diplo-vassalizing (it's just the "you got new lands" tax basically), but if it were a thing that could recur in my heartlands if I hadn't been ruling properly I'd suddenly start noticing again I think. Some mods have done some interesting things- the Vanilla I.C.E. mod that got linked here yesterday had a sweeping autonomy increase for passing some reforms, the 1356 mod had an insanely painful like +.2 autonomy for the Mamluks at the start to weaken them- maybe those are a bit much, but for the base game the only (I think?) events that add autonomy increase never even go above your base. Increased autonomy over an entire state was a natural thing from time to time. 3. Eh they could do lots of poo poo with development I don't know. Thinking about it more, I think my "lands that swap hands a lot should suffer development loss from devastation" suggestion from a while ago sounds un-fun, but maybe an event for the same reason once in a blue moon would be interesting. Maybe not. It's certainly a system with a lot of potential. 4. The big, China related one: the principle problem people seem to have with buffing China is that it would then expand like crazy- but they need admin points to expand, and we have a great system in the game for draining admin points already- inflation. Why not just add an insane monthly inflation increase to China? It would represent corruption. When you have a good ruler or strong set of advisers they could combat it and have a period of growth (as they did historically), but when you don't, you'd be struggling to stay afloat. I've given this a good 5 minutes thought and it sounds like a flawless plan that would solve literally every China problem so I think they should just implement it immediately. A Buttery Pastry posted:Well, part of the problem is that the Manchu beating the Ming happened in large part through defection. Like, if you were to model it in-game, then the Manchu occupying the Ming provinces north of Beijing would instantly flip them to the Manchu, and spawn full armies the Manchu could then use to go further south. At the same time, the Ming would split apart, reducing their strength and dividing their attentions, allowing the Manchu the chance to roll into Beiijing and become the (Great) Qing and absorbing the neighboring regions. At that point it should basically be a free-for-all, with every Chinese power having the ability to fully annex each other in one go if they control each others capital. The (Great) Qing wouldn't be destined to succeed, but it'd at least have a shot. I don't think there should be Hearts of Iron style province-flipping, but as Ming become increasingly decentralized and corrupt, how about some events that split off chunks of their country as vassals- some of which could flip to the Manchus after they win some victories or something? Then the Manchus can spend a good chunk of time trying to unite these vassals after Ming get wiped out, like they did historically with the Feudatories in the south. PittTheElder posted:Nothing short of a heavy-handed DHE will ever come close to that. As long as there's a Burgundian inheritance that regularly makes one of the strongest countries in the game even stronger, I don't see why they can't add heavy-handed DHEs like that to other parts of the world too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I had maybe the inkling of an idea along the same lines, so I think this sounds like a great solution. I'm thinking it could be triggered by Ming losing the Mandate of Heaven, which would cause all of its provinces to gain autonomy quite rapidly. This autonomy could then be reduced in big chunks by giving viceroys more authority (releasing them as vassals), ideally allowing the Ming to regain the Mandate of Heaven and eventually reintegrate the viceroys. If they continue falling apart however it would then open up for the Manchu to come in and start taking over. Or one of the vassals could declare itself emperor, and then China would just become a giant version of the HRE thunderdome as everyone scrambles to come out on top. Oh yeah, that sounds perfect actually. Tying it to the Mandate of Heaven is a great idea. Maybe for reintegration there can be something along the lines of Imperial Authority that lets the Ming (or whoever came out on top- a Chinese analogue to the HRE emperor) pass a Renevatio Imperii-like decision to integrate 9000 development of provinces without spending half a game's worth of MP too. e: I think for all these cases- Mughals, Mamluks, Ming, probably Aztecs and Inca too- there just needs to be a way for certain countries to be able to integrate certain vast swathes of territory at very little cost. On the whole I really like the new balance in Common Sense, that makes expansion a lot slower, but I like that balance mostly wrt: Europe; there are a lot of situations where it makes less sense. quote:I hadn't even considered inflation as a balancing tool, but this actually makes sense. I will say however that another way to control AI China is to change its personality. Even the massively more powerful AI China I've created in my mod doesn't go on a massive rampage (anymore) after I decreased the chance of it getting militarist rulers, and increased the chance of it getting administrative rulers. Now I just have to deal with the problem of it always vassalizing one of its Jurchen neighbors, meaning the Manchu have no shot at ever appearing. Haven't managed to find where I can add a negative modifier to hordes getting vassalized though, but it seems like it should be possible, since the Pope has one. Huh, there might still be a way, but I searched for the modifier from the localization files ("DIPLO_POPE") and it's coming up as in the .exe its self, so I think you're out of luck. I'm wondering about whether the AI would just completely disregard the inflation as something to budget for too, since you can't mod the AI. it's a shame this is all coming up during the few weeks that Paradox devs will definitely not be reading this thread  Apoffys posted:Personally I dislike most of these events/decisions trying to force specific things to happen to conform to history. If game mechanics don't allow what actually happened historically to happen in the game, then perhaps the game mechanics should be adjusted. What's so special about the Dutch that they need to be an exception to the rebel game mechanics for example? The Dutch rebellion happened for specific reasons, which in the alternate history of an EU4 game might not come about or it might be equally valid for some other region. It's a difference in taste. Some people want basically just a whacky random Early-Modern geopolitical sandbox, some people want historical flavour that can play out in lots of ways, and some people want things to play out exactly as they did in history, except for specifically what changes due to their own actions. I trend towards the last one (and I think Pitt is firmly in that camp). I can see why not everyone does though. and to answer your question, most likely 'cause lots of Dutch people play the game Koramei fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Provinces are in history\provinces but you change terrain in map\terrain.txt The region triggers are probably for trade goods that change based on whether part of the map has been explored/colonized etc (like grand banks fishery, depletion of european beaver etc). I think it should just be the numbers in colonial_regions. Just experiment if something doesn't work though, that's a big park of modding. Incidentally, they really cut down the time it takes to launch the game with CS, kudos to Paradox for that. I used to have to wait like 3-4 minutes sometimes, now it's like 20-30 seconds at most. Makes modding a whole lot easier.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
It kinda seems like the people that like lucky nations like historical outcomes, so they could just add a toggle that when you turn it off, it randomizes it so some current colonizers won't pick the ideas, and some teams that normally don't will.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Ottomans could benefit a lot from colonizing into the Indian Ocean and East Africa. They'd need to tear through the Mamluks a lot faster than they do right now for it to be feasible though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
It's rough on my not dinky computer too. If I tune it out it doesn't bother me, but the moment I notice it's autosaving it'll start driving me crazy again. I really don't understand why they can't just change it at least to like every 3 months or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
VDay posted:As long as you have Common Sense, yes I believe so. constitutional monarchy, constitutional republic, english monarchy. no other conditions. it's also insanely easy to add it to other government types if you wanna mod it
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Knuc U Kinte posted:I wasn't complaining. I would have figured out what went wrong myself but I had the game on speed 5 so I missed the battle. Just wondering if they changed the way horde cav worked or if Korea had better units at the start so I could eliminate that and stop wasting money on horses if they don;t do dick for me. Horde horsies are by far the best units in the game at the start, and Korean units (Chinese tech) are tied for the worst. Two likely possibilities are 1. you attacked into mountains, which make up pretty much your entire border with them so I'd say that's the obvious one, and 2. they rolled a super-general (they start with the 6/5/5 King Sejong so this is also very possible). e: if you don't go 100% cavalry why are you even playing a horde. don't sully your ancestors' name with walking.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:The only bonuses I see from Confirm Thalassocracy are: Thalassocracy is available for three different points, and you ought to be dominating at least one of them anyway if you're in the trade game for real. I think you're right about the  thing though- that's the main difference between the two. Trade is good if you just want money to come in without really thinking about it; Maritime is better, but you have to be actively involved. Constant trade dispute wars and building and upgrading fleets and stuff. Force limits + repair + combat ability will make you practically unbeatable on the sea against any AI- you can win naval wars without even really paying attention, and without anyone competing on the sea you get so much more trade power. Especially in the beta patch where they made light ship steering more powerful. The naval tradition bonus (+ the extra from all those new light ships steering) gives you a whole bunch more trade steering too- way more than what Trade gives you.everyone really underestimates the repairing while not docked thing, that's one of the most powerful special ideas in the game. it completely changes how you treat your fleets (and if that "trade fleets don't auto-repair in colonial nations" bug is still in, it helps the trade game there too). also +2 naval leader maneuver is huge. faster fleets, less attrition, more trade power, and it's also the most important attribute for battles Koramei fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Jul 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Im my current game, Im trying to make a strong trading/colonial arabian power. Ive started as a custom nation created over Hedjaz, a merchant republic with that +1 merchant national idea. So Ive started with 4 merchants already. In your situation it might actually be better to take trade. For one thing there won't be that many super-fleets in the Indian Ocean, plus since you have a straight crossing to Africa that nullifies distant overseas (and it's easy enough to get that to India too), even if you do westernize (which you should), it might not be worth making them all trade companies. e:^ oh yeah true. since your capital is in Asia, you can't make trade companies anywhere in Asia, even all the way off in the Philippines (yes, this is dumb and should be changed). however, that's totally a moot point 'cause you should just take Expansion instead. It gives you a CB on all of Asia and Africa (once you westernize) plus an extra colonist for locking the land down, and a whole bunch of other bonuses too. Koramei fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jul 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
You don't need imperialism, if it's within your colonial range and on a coast you can core it, it doesn't need to be adjacent. The relative economy penalty is huge, you need to be like a hundred times stronger than them or something for it to not be a thing. And I'm guessing you're too distant in those cases 'cause they're... all the way across the world?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
If you have Wealth of Nations you can click on a button on the province thing right next to move capital.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
It's probably based on your capital.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 19:15
|
|