• 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.
AND Two interactive Sessions!
 
Quantity is fine, as long as we also get Religious Ideas in the end I'll be happy.

By the way, is anyone interested in trying out some other Interactive AARs? Currently I'm participating in a Victoria 2 AAR (if you don't have the game that's not important, you don't really have to know how the game mechanics works to play), so if anyone is interested I can give you the links.
 
Almost 50 pages and CM hasn't even played yet :p



Well yeah, but how many AARs have half a dozen dev diaries?

I get a feeling this is going to one of those seminal AARs, that people bring up when the game's AAR collection is brought up. Like Boatmurdered for Dwarf Fortress, or In The Shadow Of Certain, Painful Doom. EU4's not yet had something on that scale, if you don't count DDR Jakes adventures in game exploiting.

This is already a brilliant AAR, and it hasn't even started. I know it's heresy, but it would be amazing (for the AAR) if we get destroyed, and the world goes grimdark as we try to survive as an ever shrinking shell.

But success will be great too, and I can't wait to see what Czoklet has done with Asia. But I hope that it won't get boring if the Imperium finds it lacks enemies. Of course, in that case, we could always have a civil war or a model of corruption in the Senate. Or perhaps, if I dare say it, Rev. Byzantium?
 
Not as terrifying as having to stand against revolutionary Xenoi Xolai.

I just realized that if Pisa somehow (despite having a faster tech speed than their overlords until they get their tech cost idea rolling) westernizes, as the AI is wont to do if they're not western in 1.8, they could break free of the aztecs and thus be free for annexation.
 
Last edited:
Not as terrifying as having to stand against revolutionary Xenoi Xolai.

I just realized that if Pisa somehow (despite having a faster tech speed than their overlords until they get their tech cost idea rolling) westernizes, as the AI is wont to do if they're not western in 1.8, they could break free of the aztecs and thus be free for annexation.

I'm not sure if that's a good thing because the Imperium hates Pisa or a bad thing because the Imperium also hates the Xenoi.
 
given how in the games the ruler becomes less directly involved from CK2 to Vicki2 I could see the Imperium coming to be ruled by a Big Brother like Emperor Saint Markos the Eternal (we've always been ruled by Markos, we've always been at war with the Xenoli)....Or at least, that is what a Pisan heretic would say...
?
Also just wondering, is it actually possible for a revolution to occur that could actually manage to overthrow a monarch in EU4?
 
It seams to me, that in Art of War republicans are much more successful. In my game there were revolutions en gros all over the world and republics of all kinds showing up.
 
This is assuming we're not a TPM with only Crete and Malta to our name by the end of the game.

I'd like to see, if we are successful, some good model of corruption that will fester the longer we are prosperous and powerful.I saw the 'high' 'medium' 'low' and 'no' corruption triggers in the dev diaries, but I don't know how Czoklet is planning on implementing them.
 
This is assuming we're not a TPM with only Crete and Malta to our name by the end of the game.

I'd like to see, if we are successful, some good model of corruption that will fester the longer we are prosperous and powerful.I saw the 'high' 'medium' 'low' and 'no' corruption triggers in the dev diaries, but I don't know how Czoklet is planning on implementing them.
The corruption in the Imperium would clearly be extremely high nonexistent
 
This is assuming we're not a TPM with only Crete and Malta to our name by the end of the game.

I'd like to see, if we are successful, some good model of corruption that will fester the longer we are prosperous and powerful.I saw the 'high' 'medium' 'low' and 'no' corruption triggers in the dev diaries, but I don't know how Czoklet is planning on implementing them.

PPA has a few things in place for that already to give you various maluses while you're under 3 stab.
 
I hope to finish tweaking today, so it's not that far away ;)
 
It is binding - senatus consultum requires absolute majority and indeed quorum is equal to 12 Senators but majority =/= quorum:

Article 24 - Quorum
1. For the vote to be valid, a quorum is necessary, which exists when at least half of the Senators have presented their position during the debate.
2. Qorum and current number of Senators is included in the annoucement of the Senate Session issued by the President of the Senate.

Article 25 - Simple majority and absolute majority
1. Simple majority (when there are more votes for than against) is required in all matters concerning advisory prerogatives of the Senate (resolution).
2. Absolute majority (when there are more votes for than the sum of votes against and abstentions) is required in all matters concerning legislative prerogatives of the Senate (senatus consultum).

Wait, it seems we have a problem with interpretation:

Absolute majority (when there are more votes for than the sum of votes against and abstentions) is required in all matters concerning legislative prerogatives of the Senate (senatus consultum).

And according to wikipedia:
Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot.

I guess it's a typo because what I wanted to say was that votes "against" and "abstain" don't count... but I also said that I'll obey the rules and "abstention" may mean also "not being present during voting". In which case there would be 9 votes for Reds' proposal, 7 votes "against" and "abstain" and 6 abstentions (only 18/24 Senators voted).

Crap.
 
Last edited:
It is binding - senatus consultum requires absolute majority and indeed quorum is equal to 12 Senators but majority =/= quorum:



Wait, it seems we have a problem with interpretation:



And according to wikipedia:


I guess it's a typo because what I wanted to say was that votes "against" and "abstain" don't count... but I also said that I'll obey the rules and "abstention" may mean also "not being present during voting". In which case there would be 9 votes for Reds' proposal, 7 votes "against" and "abstain" and 6 abstentions (only 18/24 Senators voted).

Crap.

The wonders of bureaucracy :p

Well since it is not binding you can choose another thing but you have to implement a modifier for 5 years (by event should be fairly easy) with +2RR, -1legitimacy and +0.01 WE.
So this way you can go against the Senate if you think we are fools who make bad choices but it will cost you ;)