Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Battlefront IV - Lords of War

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
FAL said:
...which is the balance. The game balances itself because everyone knows the leader file and knows when to confront strong nations before they become even more uber when they get a super leader.
Click to expand...

I see that as an argument to delete the histrocal leaders, since everyone knows the old ones.

FAL said:
With random leaders only, how exactly are you going to prevent a country with a string of luck from dominating the game? Picture France getting a couple of 5/5/5 or better leaders and Austria nothing and no one knows it before it's too late.
Click to expand...

Well isn't that the fun part, NOT knowning what might happen?

And yes - we might all have a string of luck in the leadergenerator, but over 320 years that should be even.

FAL said:
Now everyone knows that France will get Turenne and that they need to prepare for the onslaught. That's the balance I meant.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's balance between France and Austria. But if they turn on Denmark, Sweden, Venice, Poland or whoever doesn't have an uberleader when these 2 does, the other nation is doomed.

And it doesn't go the other way around. Venice/Denmark and others doesn't get any of these uberleaders, so they are never in a position to make the onslaught.
 
Daniel A said:
Juv,

Do you mean this is some kind of known bug? Does it always happen that when you build a fleet in a port where you have such a double command you lose the newly built fleet if you try and merge it with the old? :eek:
Click to expand...

First and only time I seen this myself although I heard of it earlier.
 
juv95hrn said:
Fred. It would seem that my intuition about your explanation turned out to be frightfully correct.
Click to expand...
I didn't like the thought of dropping Poland for Portugal,
you guys underrestimate the need of Poland on this map.
They're alot more importent then Portugal if you ask me, especially in this game were Venice more or less has taken Portugals place.

Brandenburg don't have to expand into Poland as they did before, they got more then enough in Germany. And a german nation with Poland is gamebreaking indeed.
Finally a Poland add much more to the game, it's of course to prefer to have Portugal played aswell but we're only 11 players, and it has been hard enough to find replacements for those eleven.

As it looks like now, we need a new player for Holland. So that probably mean that we will have to move Lurken if no-one else is found.
 
It's true that Venice have taken "some" of Portugals place, but without Portugese leaders that'll never be the case. Getting an explorer 100 years after Spain doesn't make them Portugal.
 
Aladar said:
I see that as an argument to delete the histrocal leaders, since everyone knows the old ones.
Click to expand...

Not knowing things create unbalance.

I am not saying it can't be fun to play with random leaders only and I am not saying I would not play with random leaders only myself, I am only saying that the *reason* to play with historical ones as opposed to random leaders only, is to create a *balanced historical* game.
IE, Spain is then strong at start, weak at the end etc. Portugal not having leaders and staying a relative weak country in this field is part of that balance. And so on. Everyone knows the historical balanced role of the various countries and keeps it more or less intact. Part of the reason why France constantly fights Austria and Spain helps Austria in game.

You, from your part, don't really argue that random leaders are *balanced*, but that's it is more *fun* to play with them, which is an entirely different topic and not one I want to oppose at all :)

Anyway, since this is a game thread, I stop being offtopic here ;)
 
I agree Aladar. What FAL talks about is not balance, what he talks about is the predictabilty that is created if you have only historical and no random leaders. And the more predictable things are the easier it is for the players to balance out the unbalanced things that exist, if they want to that is.

I agree 100% with you that random leaders add much more to the balance than does historic leaders. But historic leaders are quite fun, especially when it is you yourself that gets them. Less so when your hostile neighbour gets them.

The easiest way to understand that randomness leades to better balance is to imagine that all things that are different in the game would be edited out. Monarchs, leaders, number of starting provinces etc, and then assume they all were redistributed randomly (but still quite fair as the random generator in the long run will get the distribution more and more fair - the law of big numbers or whatever it is called in English).

If we did like this for example Venice and France would in average be quite close in strength. In fact all nations would be quite close in strength from start, Sweden, France, Spain, Venice, the Navaho, etc. That would be a balanced game (from start).
 
Aladar said:
It's true that Venice have taken "some" of Portugals place, but without Portugese leaders that'll never be the case. Getting an explorer 100 years after Spain doesn't make them Portugal.
Click to expand...
You get one explorer and one conquistadore for each session, that is more then what Portugal gets at this times.

Also, the Portugese leaderfile is alot worse then Venices.
If you exclude the amount of conquistadores and explorers.
 
FAL said:
the *reason* to play with historical ones as opposed to random leaders only, is to create a *balanced historical* game.
Click to expand...

You are mixing two different concepts here, "balance" and "historicity".

FAL said:
IE, Spain is then strong at start, weak at the end etc. Portugal not having leaders and staying a relative weak country in this field is part of that balance.
Click to expand...

Not it is not. It is just an unbalanced and historical feature. The only true balance is when all player's are equally strong from start (as I wrote in an earlier post).

In Chill4 we made some kind of (failed) attempt to have a balanced game. With all nations at least a little similar to eachother in strength from start. Unfortunately we failed to realise the amount of inbuilt differences between our nations in that scenario so it did not turn out that balanced at all. But I would love to play such a game one day. I have some ideas about how to accomplish it.
 
Fredrik82 said:
As for the missing galleys,
you want money or the ships edited back in?
Click to expand...

Just throw in the 70 galleys in Essex where they were built and I'd be very happy.
 
I will need a sub until about 20.10 next monday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back