Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Mantis42
Jul 26, 2010

I just think it's a bizarre start date for Imperator 2.

ilitarist posted:

This depends a lot on the pacing. To be honest, EU4 felt already too long for me, I'd prefer it to be denser, especially now that Tinto focused on bringing more flavor and special events and missions to countries. I enjoy playing late game EU4 due to how evolved and transformed the wolrd becomes, but still it feels like the same systems can't handle Medieval armies and dynastic policies at the same time as Napoleonic warfare and Great Power games.

I think I had a higher campaign completion rate than the average EU4 player. Part of that was picking small countries often but the other part was adjusting my pace to the game's length. Putting it on top speed more, not expanding so aggressively bc there's always more time, etc.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ilitarist
Apr 26, 2016

illiterate and militarist

Dr Kool-AIDS posted:

I'm pretty excited about this project. 4 definitely started out a bit too similar to 3, and it doesn't seem like they're going to have that problem this time. That doesn't mean it'll necessarily be good, but it should at least be interesting.

They pushed themselves into the corner with 11+ years of support, you can't make EU but better again.

But then I also thought it was true for CK2 and CK3 is not really a revolution the way EU3 or Victoria 3 or HoI4 were. Go figure.

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

Reveilled posted:

I wonder how they’ll model the early warfare situation for England. It’s notable that in EU4 Great Britain pretty much always forms by England conquering Scotland very early on and then just waiting for Admin tech 10, and it usually stomps all over Ireland similarly early despite the challenges of actually ruling Ireland meaning they couldn’t actually make any conquest stick until the late 16th century. 1337 nominally starts with England in an even more commanding position—sure, they’re losing a war to effectively vassalise Scotland, but will the AI actually accept defeat or just turn around and win that war most of the time, starting the unification of the isles even earlier than in EU4? If England does vassalise Scotland, in EU4 this would effectively create a docile client, but in practice all it ever did was create a constant rebellious ulcer as Scotland just kept trying to win its independence over and over and over again. Any attempt to subdue the Irish Lords mostly just led to them saying “OK, yes England, you’re in charge” and then going right back to ignoring them the second the armies were gone. In neither case could England just annex a bit of Scotland or Ireland in one war, then another bit in a second war, then finish them off in a third war, which is exactly what happens in EU4 almost every time.

Not to say that these problems of simulation are unique to Britain and Ireland, they’re just the area I’m familiar with. Mostly I just worry that all the reasons why European monarchies couldn’t get larger before the birth of the administrative state won’t be adequately modelled and we’ll just see the map painting shifted back a century.
IIRC, England (possibly the British Isles in general) were very overdeveloped in EU4 compared to where it should be at the time, basically as if you pulled the early 18th century version back in time. Even if that imbalance was uniform across the islands, the fact that it skewed the balance between France and England might've done a lot to let England run wild. Based on the numbers I find doing a quick Google, the population disparity between England and the rest of the British Isles should be much much smaller than it is today, which combined with France being more of a threat (and prize!) might be enough to keep Scotland free.

Hopefully vassals and personal unions are just generally unruly if they don't feel like they're being respected, so even if England does vassalize Scotland it can just choose to rebel the moment England attempts poo poo in France.

Reveilled
Apr 19, 2007

Take up your rifles

A Buttery Pastry posted:

IIRC, England (possibly the British Isles in general) were very overdeveloped in EU4 compared to where it should be at the time, basically as if you pulled the early 18th century version back in time. Even if that imbalance was uniform across the islands, the fact that it skewed the balance between France and England might've done a lot to let England run wild. Based on the numbers I find doing a quick Google, the population disparity between England and the rest of the British Isles should be much much smaller than it is today, which combined with France being more of a threat (and prize!) might be enough to keep Scotland free.

Hopefully vassals and personal unions are just generally unruly if they don't feel like they're being respected, so even if England does vassalize Scotland it can just choose to rebel the moment England attempts poo poo in France.

One of the other factors, I think, are the game’s truce mechanics. If England fights off France, they’ve then got 5+ years of an uninterrupted free hand in Ireland and Scotland because trucebreaking costs loads of stability and aggressive expansion (and as far as I know, the AI never does it). But historically if France and England signed a peace treaty and the next year the English king then got tangled up in Ireland, France would be invading England’s continental holdings within a month or two, peace treaty be damned, and neither French society nor the wider diplomatic world would much think him the lesser for it.

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

Reveilled posted:

One of the other factors, I think, are the game’s truce mechanics. If England fights off France, they’ve then got 5+ years of an uninterrupted free hand in Ireland and Scotland because trucebreaking costs loads of stability and aggressive expansion (and as far as I know, the AI never does it). But historically if France and England signed a peace treaty and the next year the English king then got tangled up in Ireland, France would be invading England’s continental holdings within a month or two, peace treaty be damned, and neither French society nor the wider diplomatic world would much think him the lesser for it.
Would be interesting, making truces a bit less binary. Like, in the above example, France could basically be exempt from diplomatic (and internal) consequences, because the French and everyone else agree that the French crown has a claim on those English-ruled territories. Perhaps in another situation, it does piss off your neighbors, but your own country is fine with it because it believes those territories rightfully belong to it despite what everyone else thinks. Or like, it's a holy war, so your people just appreciate you doing the Lord's work. A country that is being sufficiently aggressive might also justify breaking a truce against, in the other eyes of everyone else feeling threatened.

Lot's of possibilities really, and something that could switch up the diplomatic gameplay from previous games.

fuf
Sep 12, 2004

haha
Here's my dumb wish: stop making all the numbers like +0.10 and -0.05. gimme some nice big numbers that are easy to read.

ilitarist
Apr 26, 2016

illiterate and militarist

fuf posted:

Here's my dumb wish: stop making all the numbers like +0.10 and -0.05. gimme some nice big numbers that are easy to read.

Hight time for gamedesigners to start using ‱ symbol. You can get +100‱ and feel good about it.

But really when I have an issue with numbers it's because of the sheer number of modifiers. No single bonus feels important after early game cause you have so many ideas, estate modifiers, permanent bonuses from missions, dozen government reforms and so on. Sadly EU4 went through a period where every expansion was obliged to add a new important value onto the systems.

Demon_Corsair
Mar 22, 2004

Goodbye stealing souls, hello stealing booty.

ilitarist posted:

But really when I have an issue with numbers it's because of the sheer number of modifiers. No single bonus feels important after early game cause you have so many ideas, estate modifiers, permanent bonuses from missions, dozen government reforms and so on. Sadly EU4 went through a period where every expansion was obliged to add a new important value onto the systems.

This is what I struggle with in almost every paradox game. Dozens of different stats and modifiers and only a handful that are really impactful.

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

ilitarist posted:

Hight time for gamedesigners to start using ‱ symbol. You can get +100‱ and feel good about it.

But really when I have an issue with numbers it's because of the sheer number of modifiers. No single bonus feels important after early game cause you have so many ideas, estate modifiers, permanent bonuses from missions, dozen government reforms and so on. Sadly EU4 went through a period where every expansion was obliged to add a new important value onto the systems.
Conquest of Paradise: +0.1 to numbers
Wealth of Nations: +0.2 to numbers
Res Publica: +0.15 to numbers
Art of War: +0.05 to numbers
El Dorado: +0.05 to numbers
Common Sense: +0.05 to numbers
The Cossacks: +0.25 to numbers
Mare Nostrum: +0.05 to numbers
Rights of Man: +0.1 to numbers
Mandate of Heaven: +0.1 to numbers
Cradle of Civilization: +0.35 to numbers
Dharma: +0.05 to numbers
Emperor: +0.05 to numbers
Leviathan: +0.05 to numbers

feller
Jul 5, 2006


Demon_Corsair posted:

This is what I struggle with in almost every paradox game. Dozens of different stats and modifiers and only a handful that are really impactful.

That’s better than all of them being impactful! If you’re struggling just look up the ones that matter and focus on them. And hope eu5 stays a lot more disciplined

EricBauman
Nov 30, 2005

DOLF IS RECHTVAARDIG
I think it makes sense for them to want to model the shift from feudal/dynastic to nation states, especially given that the feudal model used in ck is actually more fitting for the early eu period than it is for the ck period.

Dynasties are kind of underplayed in the eu franchise, when in actuality a ton of wars in the period were about personal claims based on feudal and dynastic relationships.

But I'm afraid it's going to be a one way street, with progress only going one way.

I wonder how it would model the English civil war, which is an attempt to do away with the old dynastic order and create a new type of country, that kind of overshot the goal and then reversed a bit. You'd almost need to separate out royal power (vs parliament or states general or whatever the game would call it) from the form of govt if you wanted to model that. It needs way more depth than the ck2 crown authority and council mechanics

ilitarist
Apr 26, 2016

illiterate and militarist

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Common Sense: +0.05 to numbers

Initially Common sense added a lot more numbers but they were retroactively moved into the base game. Still it makes sense to use patch version, not DLC specifically when evaluating the number of numbers. I am sad to say I am left unsatisfied with your analysis.

Demon_Corsair posted:

This is what I struggle with in almost every paradox game. Dozens of different stats and modifiers and only a handful that are really impactful.

To me they all feel impactful but with the sheer amount of important modifiers most feel inconsequential. They did some good job with making modifiers availability different. E.g. prestige bonuses are everywhere but getting max absolutism or core cost reduction is still rare and precious. What I mean is I no longer get the idea of what is my country good at. There was a time when you got the idea from the ideas, maybe a government type. But now there are also numerous government reforms, permanent modifiers from missions, all that stuff. If you open the page of various bonuses your country has modifiers for everything.

ilitarist fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Mar 24, 2024

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

ilitarist posted:

Initially Common sense added a lot more numbers but they were retroactively moved into the base game. Still it makes sense to use patch version, not DLC specifically when evaluating the number of numbers. I am sad to say I am left unsatisfied with your analysis.
I based the number entirely on the short description I found on a list of DLC, haven't even played like half of those.

fuf
Sep 12, 2004

haha
Am I missing something in Imperator (with Invictus) or do I really need to accept each export trade request manually? The automatic trade button only does imports. It looks like the AI will only request an export if you have a surplus, and I think outside the capital province I would basically always prefer the money from the export rather than the stacked bonus, so I am just clicking "accept" every time. Would be nice to do it automatically.

KOGAHAZAN!!
Apr 29, 2013

a miserable failure as a person

an incredible success as a magical murder spider

fuf posted:

Am I missing something in Imperator (with Invictus) or do I really need to accept each export trade request manually? The automatic trade button only does imports. It looks like the AI will only request an export if you have a surplus, and I think outside the capital province I would basically always prefer the money from the export rather than the stacked bonus, so I am just clicking "accept" every time. Would be nice to do it automatically.

You have this backwards, I think? IIRC, AI only ever requests exports (trades of your goods to them), they never try to trade goods to you. If you have accept all trades on and you're still seeing trade offers, you probably also have block capital surplus on and they're offers for goods produced in the capital.

fuf
Sep 12, 2004

haha

KOGAHAZAN!! posted:

You have this backwards, I think? IIRC, AI only ever requests exports (trades of your goods to them), they never try to trade goods to you. If you have accept all trades on and you're still seeing trade offers, you probably also have block capital surplus on and they're offers for goods produced in the capital.

No sorry that's what I meant, I just phrased it badly. I mean "my goods to them". The AI requests my goods and I have to accept each time, when I'd rather just auto accept (as long as I have a non-capital surplus).

ThatBasqueGuy
Feb 14, 2013

someone introduce jojo to lazyb


There's a lil amphorae in a couple province management areas that lets you set auto-trade for regions, though its bad at valuing the most feedy food since i had places go into starvation importing livestock instead of grain

ilitarist
Apr 26, 2016

illiterate and militarist
In the top right of trade screen you have "accept all trades" option, and underneath there's "Block surplus". I recommend ticking both unless you have a plan and you'll be fine. You can also control automatic trade for every province.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

fuf
Sep 12, 2004

haha

ilitarist posted:

In the top right of trade screen you have "accept all trades" option

Aha! thank you, this is what I was missing.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply