Please, game balance. Go for it. Do it. Whatever.
But don't make it so that stuff gets more expensive in an illogical manner, for no in-game reason at all.
Please, game balance. Go for it. Do it. Whatever.
But don't make it so that stuff gets more expensive in an illogical manner, for no in-game reason at all.
Of course there's an in-game reason: game balance, which you just said you were all for. If there was a set cost it could take small one province counts years to get money for a claim whereas large powers could afford a few claims a year. It helps give an advantage to the smaller powers, meaning they aren't priced out of ever getting new land. Because its dependant on your income it means the cost is never really economically crippling, and whoever you are playing as it still takes the same amount of time to get enough gold for claims.
No it is based on two things your rank and your income. If you are a count with primogeniture and 7 counties things will always be cheaper then a King with 6 demesne. Example your Papal indulgances, or pressing claims. That is just the way it is. If you are higher in rank it will always go up even if you have no extra provinces or vassals.
This is my AAR thread for Alsace.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...d.php?t=460411
I intend to hold Central Europe before crusading. Then maybe a World Conquest.
Also, if a vassal of yours revolts, and you put down that revolt, you may revoke one of their titles no cost.Originally Posted by TerribleTodd
Game balance is NOT an in-game reason, dude. In-game means it makes sense INSIDE the game world. Thats my entire point.
Also, a king has 1 chancellor. A count has 1 chancellor. Hey cool, a king can buy more claims..... if only the chancellor would trigger that often! And who cares for fabricating claims on a king level? If I, as king, had conquered only stuff I had a fabricated claim for, I'd not yet have left the British isles yet. Fabricating claims is to get started as a small lord, and to grab a super province from a vassal maybe. If the latter costs more money because the province is super developed and rich, cool. But thats NOT the case. Its more expensive because I am better at making money. Say what?
Stop just being opposed to what I say because you like it the way it is. My argument was that rising costs for the same services makes no in-game sense, and you havent given one logical reason against that.
this this this this
omg
this
elitists...
Charging a King's Chancellor more than a Count's Chancellor for a crooked and corrupt service makes perfect sense to me.
Nothing scares infantry like tanks that can see them. Nothing scares tank crews like infantry they can't see.
If you think someone's trolling, PM a moderator.
If you are a powerful king of a vast territory and you are rich, you bet I'll be going to charge you a small fortune for my highly illegal and potentially life-threatening (to myself) services. Conversely, if you are a lowly count or a pretensions duke with a lisp, I might feel sorry for you and give you the idiot's discount.
Yes! Absolutely! But his service doesnt get more expensive because he works for a king, but because his lord has a bigger income than 20 years ago.
A count and a king with the same income pay the same for a claim. What gives.
Lessing, take it to the bugs forum. Ok?
Yea, read my last post. Also, if I come to you and you think you can charge me more because I am rich, I turn around and look for somebody with a better sense of business.
I didnt get rich by paying overpriced services.
Its not a bug, ok? Its a mechanism that you people here are trying to find an IN-GAME justification for, but fail.
No. It's a mechanism for which you accept no justification. Let us be clear on that.
None of your examples made sense. See comparison to real life. Prices dont rise because I am good with money.
can't argue with that
But prices for illegal activities rise if you have more money.
Now, argue with that.
If people know you have more money they will charge you more for the same services because they know you are willing to pay more if you really want them, especially for illegal things. Or you could imagine because you are larger and richer people are less likely to want to help you extend your empire further so to get help you need to pay more. Take your pick from either of them. To be honest I don't give a toss if you decide to believe the extra price is due to a conspiracy involving templars and aliens, at the end of the day its just a game mechanic, and whether it makes sense or not to you its good for game balance. It won't be removed and I hope that not many people will support you in wanting it to be removed.
+1.
There should be a cap, because eventually the cost of fabricating a claim > cost of building a new holding, at the rate things are going. The cost of holdings don't exponentially rise with your income, but fabricating claims does? The cost of most things in the game remain level, or increase at small increments. I don't know how people can argue "game balance". If you're rich, why not "balance" the cost of your levies as well?
The cost for some legal activities in CK2 rise with your income, too (holding a feast, inviting a noble). So there goes your argument.
In the real world, do you think Al Capone paid his thugs and bootleggers more money because he got richer? Preposterous. If anything, he paid them less because it became more dangerous to defy him.
Rich people pay more for services because they can afford better quality. Thats not the case here.
I never campaigned for having it removed. I'm just saying it's a lazy mechanic, and there should be an in-game explanation or another mechanic to balance the game.
Why not? I have some time on my hands?
"Some" has no meaning to you at all, does it?
Also, what does one thing has to do with the other? You cannot argue that all Apples are rotten because the basket has rotten Apples.
I'm entirely not sure what you are trying to do here. For every real-world example you give me, I can give you another one that demonstrates the opposite. And in the end what it will always boil down is that it can make sense in-game to have this feature. Something you refuse to accept (I suspect, out of sheer stubbornness at this point)
Take it to the Bugs forum.
Or the Mods forum. They'll think about messing with it.
Posting Permissions
