Yay! I kinda feel like one of those people in the Windows 7 commercials.
Heir to the Throne - Dev Diary 9
- Thread starter Doomdark
- Start date
-
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.
Yay! I kinda feel like one of those people in the Windows 7 commercials.
I haven't been trolling these boards for some time until I saw HTTT coming out yesterday and spent a good portion of the day reading about it. This expansion looks fantastic, better than IN even..I'd love to get started with a HTTT game tonight.
When I did that they deleted my post! Lucky you xD Nice addition to the game ( I hope)
These DDs have converted me from an obnoxious naysayer to a definite customer, although I'll have to wait 10 days after the rest of you. We take Christmas literally here.
The only thing I wish I'd seen, but didn't, is random delays built in to units reacting to new orders. Maybe some day.
The only thing I wish I'd seen, but didn't, is random delays built in to units reacting to new orders. Maybe some day.
Combined maybe with some sort of time lock on switching leaders. I don't like exploits, but it's almost impossible to resist promoting your 6-shock general to command whatever army is in the most trouble, wherever that may be, and have him available there immediately, to be rotated with General 6-manoeuvre and General 3-siege as best serves.
Other leader-related changes that would be nice to see:
- the ability to stand down a king-general
- possibly, the ability to convert a monarch to admiral if you are towards the naval end of the DP scale
- the INABILITY to use any king-general outside the home continent... it is possible this prohibition should be extended to all generals, and that only conquistadors should be allowed to lead colonial armies. (The EU boardgame put similar geographical restrictions on leaders.)
Fleeing with, for example, 0.5 morale doesn't get you very far, beeing chased by a cavalry stack. And the AI has always been a little too good at instantly following your armies around. I fear that this latest instant wipe change will most likely be unbalancing. Very seldom in history, did a army get fully wiped out. The army might get scattered yes, some deserted but most of the men got reorganized back into the army. Have you thought of giving the country loosing a big army, some manpower back (like 20% of the total army wiped out)?
You have just made many people very happy! Although with balanced units across tech groups now, it will only be for flavour, but that is also important...
YES!
Landris said:
We could also unbalance them in new ways, in order to create a more complex balance.
Glorious.
Earl Uhtred said:
Ideally, the delay would be helped by the leader's M value. It'd kick in every time a new order is given. (& ideally, every time a new province is entered). It probably should be tied to an option slider, though. I know many people hate the unpredictability involved.
Switching leaders, I agree about, although I don't find it that hard to resist, after having played a bit, it becomes 2nd nature.
Admirals would make sense for Venice, perhaps, but it's probably not a a good idea. I find it hard to believe that James II, even, although an experienced admiral (& represented in the game), would've taken himself out of touch with his ministers so completely.
Also, your proposed restrictions on generals wouldn't work. Too many exceptions. Look at the Ottos, how can you limit them by continent? And there are too many generals who did fight in several continents. Wellington, for instance. 1st India, then Europe. And he was offered command in the US after Leipzig. Also might well have gone to Egypt, if the timing of that campaign would've been different. Or King Sebastian, who died fighting in Morocco.
I wouldn't want to enable them as conqs; they could explore everywhere.
You declare a war and you are alone on it unless you call your allies.