+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4 12 13 14 15 16 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 416

Thread: Omnium Contra Omnes a Multiplayer Modification

  1. #261
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Scion View Post
    How much is the non accepted culture stab modifier?
    It's +50 stab costs for each non-accepted province, not a percentage cost but an absolute increase (it's the same as base religious costs, there's a breakdown here). We can't make the magistrate spent on "Local Customs" systematically better than one spent on "Temples" (-16 stab costs) or "Courthouses", hence the numbers above with -8% taxation (which is a fraction of the original -30% taxes for non-accepted provinces).

  2. #262
    Major Scion's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the Throne
    Europa Universalis: RomeSword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedRome: Vae Victis
    Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    779
    Quote Originally Posted by silktrader View Post
    It's +50 stab costs for each non-accepted province, not a percentage cost but an absolute increase (it's the same as base religious costs, there's a breakdown here). We can't make the magistrate spent on "Local Customs" systematically better than one spent on "Temples" (-16 stab costs) or "Courthouses", hence the numbers above with -8% taxation (which is a fraction of the original -30% taxes for non-accepted provinces).
    But does it remove the non accepted culture modifier? the way its described it sounds like it goes from -30 to -38.

  3. #263
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Scion View Post
    But does it remove the non accepted culture modifier? the way its described it sounds like it goes from -30 to -38.
    No, "Local Customs" don't remove the non-accepted culture modifier. Taxes go from -30% to -38% (it's a "decision", there must be drawbacks to enacting it).

    Non accepted-culture:

    -30% taxes
    -30% manpower
    -1% missionary chance
    +3 revolt risk
    +50 stability costs (not a %)

    Local customs (on top of the above):

    -8% taxes
    -3 revolt risk
    -15 stability costs (not a %)

  4. #264
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Warehouses


    The old "trade depots" were renamed to "warehouses", so to fit new provincial decisions (pertinent to military aspects). A "warehouse" has slightly different purposes than a "depot" in modern connotations and business practices. As with other buildings "warehouses" values were reviewed with "workshops" as a reference.

    In vanilla it never made sense to build "trade depots", unless one wanted to unlock "custom houses" and "post offices" after hundreds of years of play. Workshops were always superior to "trade depots", which provide +1 trade income:

    +1 trade income equals +1 yearly production income when the province's production efficiency reaches 100%
    +1 trade income also provides +0.7 yearly trade income when the owner has a monopoly and trade efficiency of 100%

    In practice, in vanilla, by the time you can count on 100% trade or production efficiency you will have reached a high degree of centralisation and perfect stability. In that context a workshop will provide +3.5 ducats a year well above trade depots' +1.7 ducats. Moreover, it can be easily demonstrated how "marketplaces", which cost 25 ducats less, are a far better investment than "trade depots" (provided that the trade good's price is superior to ten or production units are above one). The building doesn't even increase trade prices in vanilla: it's unequivocally a bad investment. Its only use is advised in poor, low manpower, remote, provinces, where trade buildings will reach up to "Custom Houses" and increase global trade income and efficiency.

    The mod's intention is to review buildings so that:

    a) higher ends of a building branch are superior to lower ones
    b) buildings of a given level aren't manifestly superior to others of the same level

    In "Omnium Contra Omnes", warehouses thus provide +3 trade income. The effects are comparable to workshops, in income terms:

    a workshop provides +2.25 ducats a year 1.25 ducats being inflation free (neutral stability, centralisation)
    a workshop provides +3.5 ducats a year 2 ducats being inflation free (max stability, max centralisation)
    a warehouse grants +2.5 ducats a year considering a monopoly in trade centre attached to the province, 50% production and trade efficiency

    Once again, we can make several considerations:
    • workshopsincrease the inflation-free income component, while trade income doesn't unless one is equipped with "national bank", "masters of mint", "treasuries", etc.
    • workshops will increase force limits, both land and naval
    • additional trade income can, in specific cases (mercantilism), increase compete chances
    • unlike in vanilla, warehouses actually make sense in gold provinces (whose trade good price is zero) as does the next building in the trade branch
    • warehouses increase the chance of a trade station (trade leagues) being founded
    • lastly, warehouses allow a decision named "Logistical Support" which temporarily increases supply limits



  5. #265
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Cores, released vassals and infamy

    It is possible, in vanilla, to follow these steps to lower one's infamy:
    1. release a vassal whose province(s) feature a player's core
    2. wait five years for the automatic truce with the released country to end
    3. declare war on the previous vassal
    4. annex the country
    5. release it again
    This operation can be repeated ad libitum, provided prestige is positive. The net loss in prestige terms is, at worst, ten: the release costs 20 prestige, the "conquest" annexation rewards one with 10 prestige. Each released province will decrease infamy by two. There aren't limits to how often this operation can be undertaken. Vassals don't need to be released, when prestige is a concern. A "fake" war against an ally (or the AI) can trigger the relatively painless emancipation of vassals.

    Since the benefits from this reiterated mechanic can be great, with no drawbacks but a temporary state of war, the mod attempts to hinder its occurrence. There are two solutions:

    a) curtail the infamy loss on releasing vassals with a core on
    b) remove the overlord's cores on the released provinces

    Solution (b) was preferred, as (a) can still be seen as a legitimate action, when carried out but one time. The overlord will now forfeit its cores on those provinces which are released as vassals. As in vanilla, the sale of provinces also results in the forfeit of cores. As a consequence, if a province was to revolt to a vassal, the overlord would lose its core on it.


  6. #266
    Plotter who lurks among you Checco's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis 3Divine WindHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: Rome
    SengokuVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessCK2: Holy Knight
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bologna, Nord Italia
    Posts
    1,875
    Nice to read you after so much time, folks .

    Happy to see the mod is tested and developed.

    Since I'm on an annoying mood, I'd like to post my 2 cents about the above post .

    As much as the "Release, Conquest, Rinse & Repeat" of a vassal is highly exploitable, it's the only way to achieve many achievements (in the literal sense).

    But MP has way more noble aims than collecting achievements, so between the a) curtailing the Infamy loss and b) remove the overlord's cores, I'd suggest to go straightly for b).

    I have noticed how since late expansions, cores have gained in importance in EU3, to the point that imho a realm is better judged by its cores than its borders (look at Byzantine's playability if you want an extreme example).

    Cores should be the most valued feature of a nation, as they:

    -Significantly increase inflation-free income
    -Totally prevent several kinds of nasty rebellions (including the otherwise very annoying Nationalism modifier)
    -Take part in accepting other cultures, doing a mix of the 2 above
    -Grant a juicy CB that allows infamy-free conquest and stability-hits-free declarations of war
    -Allow the Funding of rebels if the province is someone else's, with the chance of defection (and above all the chance to cackle about one's evil plotting nature)

    The only drawback is 'Uncontested Claim', laughable at best even if not compared with any of the above benefits.

    Releasing vassals while giving up cores on them can still be useful, I humbly suggest to increase the Infamy decrease as those lands will hardly return anytime soon.
    "Scissor is overpowered, Rock is fine" - Paper

    "If he turns you the other cheek, it means you did not hit him hard enough" - from the "Gospel of Checco"

    "God save the Stats" - Checco, playing Primus Under Pares II

  7. #267
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    I am glad to hear back from you, Checco. Concerning "cores", I agree with your every point — I would add:
    • conquering your own cores allows you to maintain whichever building is present
    In vanilla, you can turn 1/3rd of your income to inflation-free ducats — in the mod, the ratio is exactly the same, but the largest factor in fighting inflation is the number of "treasuries" built on the total national surface. The more provinces one owns, the more treasuries will be required to achieve the 1/3rd ratio. Census taxes from cores are therefore paramount, given the increased difficulty in turning income to ducats, for large countries, without minting.

    In our recent test campaign, the previous Russian player didn't bother "integrating cores" on Novgorod, but doing so would have likely allowed Russia's formation earlier (now completed by MadMagnum). As Poland I didn't have enough ducats to erect new buildings: the prospect of minting to build constables, with Poland's abysmal monthly income, wasn't promising. I "integrated" Bohemia and Erz, 19 tax base combined: over 25 years, I spent 4.75 magistrates to gain about 480 ducats in census taxes (cores and accepted Czech culture) and bits more in tax income. At this time, in the test campaign, I wouldn't repeat the operation — as funds allow me to actually use those magistrates to construct buildings. Cores "integration" would have proved beneficial for HRE countries (to shorten the "unlawful territory" period).

    So, yes, cores are indeed precious. Our French player, in the test campaign, was coerced into conceding provinces to his sworn enemy, Burgundy. He now has the opportunity to "Question Legitimacy", assuming he has the funds. Any building the Burgundians will construct on these cores may be snatched by the French, on reconquest.

    As for vassals and cores, solution (b) above is already in place. The solution doesn't come without possible problems though: when revolts erupt in a player's province, and the area defects to a vassal … the core on the province is forfeited (which could be seen as a legitimate dynamic).

  8. #268
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Electors as vassals

    The diplomatic game, leading to the Holy Roman Empire's crown, is often simple: the one player vassalising most electors rises to the HRE throne. A vassal usually boasts excellent and ever increasing relations with its overlord, in most cases (+200 to voting weight). Alliances are always "likely" to be set with vassals (+30 voting weight), while the latter are prevented from entering such deals with other countries. Lastly and most important: a vassal's vote is heavily influenced towards supporting its overlord (+250).

    The mod wishes to alter this dynamic by making HRE votes more reliant on active diplomacy, that is such elements as:
    • diplomatic skill
    • diplomatic relations
    • royal marriages
    • infamy
    • legitimacy
    • prestige
    • alliances
    A few measures were introduced, so that acquiring elector-vassals wouldn't automatically allow one to be crowned emperor.

    Firstly, a "Subordinate Electors" triggered modifier was introduced. Every elector that is a vassal, or a junior partner, increases its overlord's infamy by +0.25 a year, it also decreases diplomatic skill by one. Both infamy and diplomatic skill are incredibly relevant in determining independent electors' votes. So, having one elector-vassal may alienate all the other independent electors. The infamy and diplomatic skill penalties depend on the number of vassals, among electors: they can reach up to +1 infamy per year and -4 diplomatic skill, when four electors are in fact vassals — that is to say, the almost certainty of being crowned HRE.

    Secondly, the process leading to a country becoming an elector was changed. Vassals or junior partners aren't valid candidates as electors, nor are those countries whose infamy is more than a third of their limit (human countries sometimes meet that threshold). These are the items affecting chances of becoming electors:
    • low infamy
    • same religion as the emperor
    • high prestige
    • high diplomatic rating
    • one among the historical electors (Cologne, Mainz, Trier, the Palatinate, Saxony, etc.)
    For a new country to be chosen as "elector", an old elector has to be removed. In vanilla electors were removed when their relations with the emperor and any neighbour elector dropped below zero. That dynamic was changed — it was an easy task to retain the HRE crown on, simply by sending insults left and right, to those countries which were vassals of other players. The most important factors dictating whether a country will lose its status as elector are three:
    • high infamy
    • low diplomatic rating
    • low prestige

    Two changes were included, in the mod, to breathe new life to elections: bribes and pleas of emancipation — they will be described in successive sections.
    Last edited by silktrader; 12-03-2012 at 15:27.

  9. #269
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    "Fraudulent Elections"

    This new event's goal is to liven up the race to becoming the Holy Roman Emperor, by promoting espionage.

    The event's (poorly written) description reads:

    The Lord hasn't graced every ruler with the same moral fibre as $MONARCH$. One of our covert agents has perceived an irrepetible chance, that of bribing a rather venal Imperial elector — who shall remain unnamed for his safeguard. We're informed that, on providing a modest compensation, we could budge the latter's vote in the forthcoming Imperial elections, sapping our rivals attempts to ascend to the Holy Roman Empire's throne.
    Any player, who can already count on a vote, with a view to becoming the Holy Roman Emperor can receive the event. There needs to be an eligible AI state who would otherwise vote for another candidate and who hasn't nurtured grandiose relations with the receiving country. The event is moderately rare, it has 50% to happen within 35 years — but it is significantly hastened by having spies, a spymaster and the "Espionage" national idea.

    The player will be presented with two options:

    a) play by the rules, ignore the offer
    b) bribe the elector

    The second possibility costs relatively little (less than a month of income); it will decrease the AI state's relations with their previously backed HRE candidate and increase the standing with the player's country. The difference is significant and should tip the vote in all but few cases. Vassals, junior partners and countries at war with the player aren't susceptible to bribes. It goes without saying but the same monarch can't be bribed more than once, the event would otherwise become redundant in many circumstances.



  10. #270
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    "Prince-Elector Pleas for its Freedom"

    This new event is triggered by any played HRE country featuring one or more vassal-electors. It's purpose derives from:

    a) the need to hinder players acquiring multiple vassal-electors at the same time
    b) the wish to to offer inexpensive ways out of vassalisations within the HRE

    While the first point doesn't need an explanation, we can elaborate on the second one: players may accidentally end up with several vassals or junior partners, who happen to be electors — they may also want to get out from a situation that was previously unplanned for. The "Subordinate Electors" triggered modifier can increase infamy until it becomes a danger: the event will present the opportunity to relinquish one vassalisation, but retain positive relations and create an alliance.

    The pathetic description reads:


    It is well known that members of the Electoral College are vigorously influenced by aspirant Emperors. The extent to which ambitious claimants go is bound to concern once autonomous Electors, as their authority and sovereignity are compromised by their servitude.\n\nThere are universalist and localist conceptions of the Holy Roman Empire. The latter — which we are reminded of on this day — obstracises the Emperor's want to ascertain unchecked supremacy. With that view, citing the Golden Bull of 1356, our vassal and Prince-Elector vehemently pleas for its sovereignity to be restored.

    The event is rather infrequent, as it has 50% of happening within a century. Its occurrence though is drastically sped up the more "subordinate electors" or high infamy one has, and when legitimacy is low — the shortest "mean time to happen" is 35 years.

    Option (x) will decrease relations between the lesser party and the overlord by 135, what's more: it will decrease prestige and add infamy (3). Option (y) will increase prestige, release the lesser party, but create an alliance with the newly independent country and significantly increase relations. Bear in mind that the normal release of a vassal costs 20 prestige and relations drop.

    The triggered modifier by the name of "Subordinate Electors" shares the same design as "Pleas for Freedom": discouraging monopolised electors — it is though far more predictable. While the costs of "Subordinate Electors" are exclusively diplomatic, and can be offset with adequate planning (infamy is countered with a decent monarch, or an embassy), the costs attached to this event are also monetary (that is, bringing relations back up). Vassals with low relations are a bit more rebellious in the mod …
    Last edited by silktrader; 13-03-2012 at 17:29.

  11. #271
    First Lieutenant madmagnum's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneMarch of the EaglesRome Gold
    Semper FiSengokuVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Rome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordCK2: Holy Knight500k club
    Europa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Kyiv, Ukraine
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by silktrader View Post
    "Fraudulent Elections"

    This new event's goal is to liven up the race to becoming the Holy Roman Emperor, by promoting espionage.

    The event's (poorly written) description reads:



    Any player, who can already count on a vote, with a view to becoming the Holy Roman Emperor can receive the event. There needs to be an eligible AI state who would otherwise vote for another candidate and who hasn't nurtured grandiose relations with the receiving country. The event is moderately rare, it has 50% to happen within 35 years — but it is significantly hastened by having spies, a spymaster and the "Espionage" national idea.

    The player will be presented with two options:

    a) play by the rules, ignore the offer
    b) bribe the elector

    The second possibility costs relatively little (less than a month of income); it will decrease the AI state's relations with their previously backed HRE candidate and increase the standing with the player's country. The difference is significant and should tip the vote in all but few cases. Vassals, junior partners and countries at war with the player aren't susceptible to bribes. It goes without saying but the same monarch can't be bribed more than once, the event would otherwise become redundant in many circumstances.


    I think this should a spy mission. It would add less randomness but more player control. In my opinion events are good for something that cannot be controlled and invoked by player, but in this case why ruler can't at least try to bribe an elector whenever he wants to do it? Why wait for an event?
    Last edited by madmagnum; 13-03-2012 at 11:44.

  12. #272
    First Lieutenant madmagnum's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneMarch of the EaglesRome Gold
    Semper FiSengokuVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Rome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordCK2: Holy Knight500k club
    Europa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Kyiv, Ukraine
    Posts
    220
    Quote Originally Posted by silktrader View Post
    "Prince-Elector Pleas for its Freedom"

    This new event is triggered by any played HRE country featuring one or more vassal-electors. It's purpose derives from:

    a) the need to hinder players acquiring multiple vassal-electors at the same time
    b) the wish to to offer inexpensive ways out of vassalisations within the HRE

    While the first point doesn't need an explanation, we can elaborate on the second one: players may accidentally end up with several vassals or junior partners, who happen to be electors — they may also want to get out from a situation that was previously unplanned for. The "Subordinate Electors" triggered modifier can increase infamy until it becomes a danger: the event will present the opportunity to relinquish one vassalisation, but retain positive relations and create an alliance.

    The pathetic description reads:


    It is well known that members of the Electoral College are vigorously influenced by aspirant Emperors. The extent to which ambitious claimants go is bound to concern once autonomous Electors, as their authority and sovereignity are compromised by their servitude.\n\nThere are universalist and localist conceptions of the Holy Roman Empire. The latter — which we are reminded of on this day — obstracises the Emperor's want to ascertain unchecked supremacy. With that view, citing the Golden Bull of 1356, our vassal and Prince-Elector vehemently pleas for its sovereignity to be restored.

    The event is rather infrequent, as it has 50% of happening within a century. Its occurrence though is drastically sped up the more "subordinate electors" or high infamy one has, and when legitimacy is low — the shortest "mean time to happen" is 35 years.

    Option (x) will decrease relations between the lesser party and the overlord by 135, what's more: it will decrease prestige. Option (y) will increase prestige, release the lesser party, but create an alliance with the newly independent country and significantly increase relations. Bear in mind that the normal release of a vassal costs 20 prestige and relations drop.

    The triggered modifier by the name of "Subordinate Electors" shares the same design as "Pleas for Freedom": discouraging monopolised electors — it is though far more predictable. While the costs of "Subordinate Electors" are exclusively diplomatic, and can be offset with adequate planning (infamy is countered with a decent monarch, or an embassy), the costs attached to this event are also monetary (that is, bringing relations back up). Vassals with low relations are a bit more rebellious in the mod …
    I think the option (x) should have more impact. Maybe lower opinion with every elector? Maybe special modifier that temporary lowers influence on every elector? 135 relation hit can be too easy to recover, especially with OPM electors.

    About option (y): Given event MTTH, relations boost and alliance - won't it be too easy to vassalize the elector again very quickly, making the event almost irrelevant?
    Last edited by madmagnum; 13-03-2012 at 11:26.

  13. #273
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Quote Originally Posted by madmagnum View Post
    I think this should a spy mission. It would add less randomness but more player involvement into HRE politics. In my opinion events are good for something that cannot be controlled and invoked by player, but in this case why ruler can't at least try to bribe an elector whenever he wants to do it? Why wait for an event?
    a) conceptual answer

    Not every ruler is as twisted as you'd picture him — how could you determine whether he's a good candidate for a "bribe": spy success chances? You have four spies, with 43% of bribing an elector, here are the results of your attempts:

    1) want a bribe? no
    2) want a bribe? no
    3) want a bribe? noooo
    4) want a bribe? ok

    1) want a bribe? sure
    2) want a bribe? why not
    3) want a bribe? not this click, no
    4) want a bribe? thanks

    The option to send more casual gifts at any time is still a valid one.

    b) practical answer

    The spy mission interface is loaded as it is. The mod added several missions (and there's one more in the making): that's a long list to scroll down to already. I personally prefer to have a modest number of options, but all relevant (as with advisors, national ideas, etc.). The spy mission to "bribe" HRE electors would only concern HRE countries: a small portion of playable countries. Unfortunately there are only three "potential" clauses in spy missions, which hide them: "capital", "port" and "daimyo".

    To achieve the event's results through spy mission you would need yet another event anyway (to make so that the rival losing relations with the elector is visible to the player).

    So, frankly, these aren't particularly strong arguments to oppose a "Bribe Elector" spy mission (I merely have an interface concern). If other people agree with substituting the event with a spy mission we shall do that.

  14. #274
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Quote Originally Posted by madmagnum View Post
    I think the option (x) should have more impact. Maybe lower opinion with every elector? Maybe special modifier that temporary lowers influence on every elector? 135 relation hit can be too easy to recover, especially with OPM electors.
    There are too many modifiers around, in vanilla and the mod; but we could add infamy to option (x) — which decreases overall electors opinions.

    About option (y): Given event MTTH, relations boost and alliance - won't it be too easy to vassalize the elector again very quickly, making the event almost irrelevant?
    If the event has fired it's because you likely have several "subordinate-electors" already: chances of diplomatically gaining vassals when you already have many aren't very high. It's nonetheless a possibility, one which depends on the monarch's diplomatic rating, infamy, etc. Given the number of "subordinate-electors" you will have a decreased diplomatic skill and, possibly, some infamy, ergo lower chances to diplo-vassalise. The moment the vassal is free other players will be able to intervene …

  15. #275
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Tolerance

    The changes introduced to tolerance , by "Omnium Contra Omnes", are justified by these needs:
    • never allow higher tolerance for heretics or heathens, compared to one's own religion
    • increase "Ecumenism" and "Humanist Tolerance" relevance
    • differentiate "Noble Republic" from other governments
    • spark "Religious Wars", during the "Reformation" period
    • curtail revolt risk reductions

    Both "heretics" and "heathens" represent groups of creed, not simply one alternative religion. The idea of a "state religion" is that it shall be preferred over others. It is paradoxical that a group of religions be preferred to the dominant or the state's religion — at least in game terms.

    "Ecumenism" and "Humanist Tolerance" are systematically discarded as national ideas (they would waste slots): the distinctively better alternative in vanilla is to convert provinces. Even "westernising" countries have that option, despite "innovativeness", thanks to decisions and triggered modifiers.

    Every "republic" has higher tolerance for heretics and heathens, in vanilla. By comparison, the "Noble Republic" form of government has no comparative advantage, in terms of bonuses — "Administrative Republic" is invariably preferred.

    The "Reformation" period is, oddly, an opportunity for Catholics to gain some missionaries ("Counter-Reformation") and for converts to gain additional income. It's nowhere near as bloody and chaotic as historical evidence suggests — it's dull. A newly reformed country split between Catholicism and Protestantism, with perfect stability and a healthy record, is a common sight. What's more, in several campaigns you end up witnessing an overwhelmingly Protestant Europe within fifty years, with one or two Catholic players left, benefiting from cardinals and the Papacy bonuses.

    As written elsewhere, revolt risk decreases abound — to the point where legitimacy or war exhaustion are never a threat. Each tolerance point diminishes revolt risk by one, so this game's aspect is particularly relevant for revolts.

    This is a list of elements affecting tolerance, in vanilla:


    Own:

    +3: Base
    +2: Monarchies Legitimacy
    +1: Theocracies, Papacy

    -3: Excommunication
    -2: Monarchies Legitimacy
    -1: Edict de Nantes

    Heretic:

    +4: Ecumenism
    +3: Liberte, Egalite et Fraternite
    +3: Ottoman Tolerance
    +2: Edict de Nantes
    +2: Monarchies Legitimacy
    +2: Buddhist, Confucianist, Pagan
    +1: Protestant, Reformed, Hindu
    +1: Republics
    +1: Declaration of Indulgence
    +1: Neo Confucianism

    -2: Base
    -2: Monarchies Legitimacy
    -1: Theocracies, Papacy
    -1: Spanish Inquisition
    -1: Conventicle Act
    -1: Test Act
    -1: Catholic

    Heathens:

    +3: Liberte, Egalite et Fraternite
    +3: Ottoman Tolerance
    +2: Monarchies Legitimacy
    +2: Humanist Tolerance
    +1: Republics
    +1: Buddhism, Confucianism

    -3: Base
    -3: Sakoku Law
    -2: Monarchies Legitimacy
    -1: Theocracies, Papacy
    -1: Shiite, Shinto
    -1: Spanish Inquisition
    -1: Anti Muslim Edict
    Several combinations allow a higher tolerance for heretics than one' own state religion, here's a pair:

    Reformed + Ecumenism + Republic — Own (+3), Heretic (+4)
    Protestant + Edict de Nantes + Indulgence + Republic + Ecumenism — Own (+3), Heretic (+8)

    But consider the Ottoman Empire and this possibility, in vanilla:

    Ottoman Tolerance + Ecumenism + Republic— Own (+3), Heretic (+6)

    You could turn Shiite and gain -6 RR, +6% population growth in every Sunni province, while benefiting from +0.5 morale and without needing to convert one Muslim province. This solution isn't sought because people don't trouble themselves to convert to Shia Islam. Ecumenism, in this case, isn't a necessity.

    Without further elaborations, these are the new tolerance values, in "Omnium Contra Omnes":


    Own:

    +3: Base
    +1: Orthodox Patriarchate or Mecca Sharifate or Curia Controller
    +1: Theocracies or Papacy or Noble Republic

    -3: Excommunication
    -1: Fading Catholicism
    -1: War Against the Mecca Sharifate
    Heretic:

    +4: Ecumenism
    +2: Noble Republic
    +1: Edict de Nantes or Declaration of Indulgence
    +1: Buddhist, Confucianist, Hindu, Pagan
    +1: Neo Confucianism

    -3: Base
    -2: Counter Reformation
    -2: Denounced Neo-Confucianism
    -1: Theocracies, Papacy
    -1: Conventicle Act or Spanish Inquisition
    -1: Act of Uniformity
    -1: De Heretico Comburendo
    -1: Catholic

    Heathens:

    +4: Humanist Tolerance
    +1: Ottoman Tolerance
    +1: Ibadat Khana
    +1: Noble Republic
    +1: Buddhism, Confucianism

    -3: Base
    -3: Sakoku Law
    -1: Theocracies, Papacy
    -1: Shiite, Shinto
    -1: Conventicle Act or Spanish Inquisition
    -1: Anti Muslim Edict
    Compared to vanilla you may notice fewer elements affect tolerance, in fact a few are now mutually exclusive ("Spanish Inquisition" is a peculiar version of the "Conventicle Act", as is the "Edict de Nantes" for France, etc.). These are the maximum tolerance values that can be achieved:

    vanilla — own tolerance (5): base (3) + legitimacy (2)
    mod — own tolerance (5): base (3) + papacy (1) + curia controller (1)

    In "Omnium Contra Omnes" most countries will make do with lower tolerance, compared to vanilla; since legitimacy doesn't affect tolerance. The "Curia Controller", "Mecca Sharifate" or "Orthodox Patriarchate" don't concern most countries — they are elements of contention (that is, only one player can benefit from them at any time). Let's consider heathens tolerance:

    vanilla — heathen tolerance (5): base (-2) + legitimacy (2) + Ottoman tolerance (3) + humanist tolerance (2)
    mod — heathen tolerance (3): base (-4) + Ottoman tolerance (1) + humanist tolerance (4) + noble republic (1) + house of worship (1)

    In this case the association of the "Ibadat Khana" with "Ottoman Tolerance" is a bit of a stretch, but it's nonetheless a possibility. These changes carry two tangible consequences:

    a) heathen tolerance is generally lower compared to vanilla: therefore increasing stability, manpower and revolt risk concerns in heathen provinces
    b) humanist tolerance or missionaries become essential in dealing with heathen tolerance

    Conclusions:

    Given the generally lower heathen and heretic tolerance, the mod invites players to choose among three options: a) steer clear of heathens and heretics (colonise), b) convert provinces or c) tolerate heathens and heretics. The "Reformation" wave in Europe tends to be a bit bloodier than in vanilla, as the spread is slower and tolerance deeply affects stability costs, along with manpower and tax income.

    Conversion will be discussed in other sections. The rationale is that while they aren't more expensive than vanilla's, they take longer — as base chances are lower. Such elements as rulers administrative skill, theologians and control over holy places arbitrate conversion chances.

    "Noble Republics", which now conveniently become available when the "Reformation" starts, are a good measure to placate religious revolts. The government form will be discussed elsewhere: it has its drawbacks, like a weak "administrative efficiency", resulting in fewer slider changes.

    "Humanist Tolerance" and "Ecumenism" are now the most determinant factors affecting heathen and heretic tolerance. The two ideas were reinforced as they are now required for beneficial decisions and events.

  16. #276
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Updated "Immigration Incentives".

  17. #277
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Personal Unions

    Prestige farms

    The "Restoration of Union" casus belli could be used to pump prestige. That is, in vanilla, one can lower relations with his junior partner, wait for the union to dispel itself on monarch's death and gain 50 and more prestige from winning a "Restoration of Union" war with a minor country. The operation can be repeated and easily allows one to maximise his prestige, depending on the government form ("Noble Republic" is particulary good in this case) and the number of lesser partners.

    While normal "Claim Throne" and "Fabricated Claims" wars bestow a normal rate of prestige, the "Restoration of Union" casus belli now doesn't increase prestige: the "pump" is therefore drastically limited. Bear in mind that prestige changes from reclaiming unions are partially hardcoded — forfeiting the "Force Personal Union" peace offer in any such war will actually lower prestige.

    A "Game of Thrones"

    Since spheres of influence and new HRE dynamics introductions, "Personal Unions" have become a great bargain expansion wise. A customary practice, to expand in the Holy Roman Empire, is to either a) use opportunities to "claim thrones", as during targets regencies, or b) wage war against future targets, by increasing the AI's war exhaustion, thus decreasing their legitimacy and then claiming their throne.

    It isn't surprising to witness countries featuring five or six personal unions at the same time. The Ottoman player, for instance, could very well force Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, etc. into unions — eventually gaining cores on the whole North Africa, at monarch death. There isn't a "diplomatic maintenance" cost to keeping several personal unions at once. The mod wishes to introduce such a cost.

    In "Omnium Contra Omnes" there's a rather simple mechanism severely hindering the establishment of more than two "Personal Unions" at any time. An event, named "Game of Thrones", will decrease exceptionally decrease diplomatic relations with every junior member — as is well known, positive diplomatic relations are necessary to inherit junior partners. The player will thus have the choice to ignore the event's effects and lose the union on his monarch's death, or he will be forced to shower junior partners with lavish gifts to restore positive relations.

    To be more specific, the event could fire when (both):
    a) a country leads two or more personal unions
    b) diplomatic relations with any lesser partner are positive

    "Game of Thrones" has 50% chances of being triggered every half century, which exceeds monarch average lifespans. These elements though also affect the process:
    • any junior partner features a non accepted culture
    • any junior partner develops a bigger army than the senior
    • any junior partner is larger than the overlord
    • any junior partner's religion differs from the overlord's
    • overlord's low legitimacy
    • the more unions one has, the more frequent the event
    • an ambassador will significantly slow down the events occurrences
    • high monarch diplomatic ratings delay the event
    Subordinate Electors

    It is particularly rewarding to vassalise or force "Prince Electors" in unions, to the point where diplomatic manoeuvres within the Holy Roman Empire become trivial, actually absent. For this purpose a triggered modifier and a set of events were introduced: this article provides more details.

    Last edited by silktrader; 20-03-2012 at 11:45.

  18. #278
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    Spheres of Influence

    It is necessary to premise the following bits with an observation: most players will have obtained and maintained about ten spheres, in the the middle to late game. The most active players may very well collect twenty or so countries, within their sphere of influence.

    Ten spheres equal +0.50 magistrates and +10 diplomatic skill, in vanilla. The last item basically allows immediate "inheritances" and likely "diplo-annexations". The magistrate gain is unchanged in the mod, but "diplomatic skill" is increased by +0.2 per country — meaning that a modest sphere of influence won't bear significant diplomatic effects.

    Spheres of Influence and Reasons for War

    In the unmodded game, the owner of the sphere receives a casus belli when an influenced country is attacked. There are two problems with this system, which is otherwise laudable in principle:
    1. whenever a sphered country is dragged to war with another player, without being directly declared war on, the "Sphere of Influence" casus belli won't be triggered
    2. whenever a country is sphered after it has joined a war, the master won't benefit from any casus belli
    In "Omnium Contra Omnes" several cheap "casus belli" were removed, such as the "Alliance" one (for which there is a diplomatic option dubbed "Call to Arms"!). It is slightly harder to find a reason to declare the right war, which reinforces such aspects as "Liberation" wars ("Bill of Rights"), or "Imperialism", etc. The owner of a "sphere of influence" will now receive a casus belli against any country at war with their minions. This mechanism is particularly relevant, as it indirectly allows "prestigious" countries to gain ad-hoc casus belli, depending on circumstances.

    Suppose that the Ottoman Empire is at war with Crimea, which belongs to their "sphere". The Russian player, provided he has enough prestige, can steal the "sphere of influence" and gain a casus belli against the Ottoman Empire. Holy wars were changed, so that cores need to be adjacent to religious enemies to acquire a CB.

    The Need for Prestige

    The process through which a country is "sphered" is rather simple: each successive addition to one's sphere of influence costs two prestige — the 10th country will cost 20 prestige, far from an insurmountable cost. In the mod, each sphered country consumes prestige, or more specifically, each sphere increases prestige decay by 0.28%. The consequences are many:
    • it may be necessary to choose which country to sphere, to save prestige in the long run — rather than adding anything that moves to ones sphere
    • large spheres of influence will never decrease the master's prestige below zero, they simply determine a faster loss the higher prestige one has
    • it costs prestige to enlarge ones sphere of influence (a rather easy step), but it also requires prestige to maintain a sphere of influence
    • several governments, like "Empire" in particular, allow one to rack many countries within one's sphere of influence — due to higher prestige gains
    • several national ideas, like "Glorious Arms" and "Naval Glory", can fuel magistrate gains by increasing available prestige
    An example follows: a country boasting 20 sphere members will lose a little more than 5% prestige yearly — that is, 5 prestige yearly when it's at 100 prestige, 2.5 prestige when it's at 50 prestige and about 1 prestige per year when it's at 25 prestige. In conclusion, it will be harder to maintain high prestige the more aggressively one expands his "sphere of influence". Prestige has a direct impact on administrative efficiency, as it allows more magistrates per year.

    There also is a diplomatic cost to accumulating sphere members. Each lowers diplomats by 0.1 — meaning that "aristocracy", high diplomatic ratings, "embassies" and the "Cabinet" national idea, all allow easier gains in "sphere" terms.

    Let us compare means to gain magistrates, in the mod:

    "Feudal Monarchy" provides +0.4 magistrates per year
    "Empire" provides +0.6 magistrates per year
    "Absolute Monarchy" provides +1 magistrate per year
    "Expanded Bureaucracy" provides +0.4 magistrates per year
    "Separation of Powers" provides +0.65 magistrates per year
    each stability level grants +0.2 magistrates per year
    each college grants +0.08 magistrates per year

    a sphere of influence composed by ten countries provides +0.5 magistrates per year

  19. #279
    First Lieutenant madmagnum's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneMarch of the EaglesRome Gold
    Semper FiSengokuVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Rome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordCK2: Holy Knight500k club
    Europa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Kyiv, Ukraine
    Posts
    220
    What do you think about letting vassals to call their liege into war even if liege has truce with vassal's enemy?

    Maybe an event that fires for liege if he has vassals being in a war he is not in and brings him in this war?

  20. #280
    Sometimes Hero Demi Moderator silktrader's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A woman's womb
    Posts
    5,924
    You are suggesting that overlords receive an event allowing them to initiate wars against their vassals enemies, without losing stability obviously. I see why this can be desirable — to avoid a human player starting a separate war against a human vassal, and keeping at war after the truce with overlord. I don't see major drawbacks at this moment.

    Technically, it may be simpler to force a white peace between the vassal and the aggressor, when a truce with the overlord is in act. Otherwise I doubt we can let the overlord in the same war with his vassal (for war score purposes), or even with the same casus belli. Since they are separate wars, the aggressor will have to fight the overlord, but may still annex the vassal by dealing directly with him.

    I didn't express myself very clearly, so I'll bring up an example:

    In "Est Modus in Rebus", recently, Milan declared war on Austria. The Italians didn't call in their vassals, the Papal States. When the war was about to end Austria declared war on the Papal States, seeing as Modena still featured the "Unlawful Territory" modifier, despite being a core for quite some time (I am decreasing the removal's MTTH). When Milan peaced out, Austria remained at war against the Papal States — Milan's vassal. The Italians couldn't intervene without losing five stability, due to the truce. Milan might have prevented these circumstances by calling in the Papal States during the original aggression.

    Now, suppose a newly introduced event put Milan and Austria at war. There would still be two separates wars, war scores and leaders: so Austria could nonetheless annex the Papal States.

    What do you think.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4 12 13 14 15 16 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts