So what exactly is the advantage of letting foreign families join your realm, anyway? What incentive is there to do that?
More people. A larger pool of characters to use for positions as generals, admirals, governors, ministers, etc.
So what exactly is the advantage of letting foreign families join your realm, anyway? What incentive is there to do that?
What's the point in playing a game if the same thing happens every time? Just watch a documentary then!Not sure I like this, I prefer my history games to have fairly consistent outcomes.
EU1 and 2, Victoria, to name three. Old school PDS in other words. Before historical plausibility .I'm not sure what other Paradox games - if any - have that trait, and it seems pretty anathema to their ethos as a developer and basic replayability.
EU1 and 2, Victoria, to name three. Old school PDS in other words. Before historical plausibility .
I am so tired of this argument. What's the point of calling it historical if everythign that happens is just random. The point is to try to make subtle changes to history and how those over time affects the outcome. What if Carthage beats rome is an intresting enough scenaro without the danes becoming the dominant people of Sweden.What's the point in playing a game if the same thing happens every time? Just watch a documentary then!
Vic2 sort of is, it's a lot less random than the other games. Also HoI has the options of historical focuses.I'm not sure what other Paradox games - if any - have that trait, and it seems pretty anathema to their ethos as a developer and basic replayability.
I do like the option to force families out through civil war, I always liked the idea that fighting civil wars should be something you ought to do on a regular basis because in reality they did happen fairly often.Would be interesting to know if a Civil War happens and you win it if you can also get rid of the families who started the Civil War.
Might be a good way to occasionally streamline your Empire. Insult some and fight a CW like when you can't expand because AE has to tick down and such. Get rid of the weeds occasionally.
Not the same thing happens every time but the game at least allows for that happened historically to happen. I might even argue the historical being the likeliest outcomes. But at the very least the initial conditions that led to the historical outcomes ought to be represented.A game where the same thing happens everytime sounds crazy boring.
They don't take 2%, they expect members of their family to be appointed to posts where they earn salaries of at least 2% of your total income.If each family takes 2% of income, is it not in your best interest to just murder them all?
It's called historical because it takes place at a point in history. It's not a history simulator. It's still a video game before it would ever be a historically accurate "what if" simulator.What's the point of calling it historical if everythign that happens is just random. The point is to try to make subtle changes to history and how those over time affects the outcome. What if Carthage beats rome is an intresting enough scenaro without the danes becoming the dominant people of Sweden.
They don't take 2%, they expect members of their family to be appointed to posts where they earn salaries of at least 2% of your total income.
Ignore this & the family will feel scorned.
Families tend to be larger than a single individual, so no.So does this mean you effectively have a limit of 50 employees?