Leviathan - Content

[Prince Ire]

Not for me they don't.

(Total War's strategy phase is turn-based.)

I believe he's referring to the fact that like Paradox, Creative Assembly is basically the only major company occupying their niche.

 

[Secuter]

Not for me they don't.

(Total War's strategy phase is turn-based.)

I believe he's referring to the fact that like Paradox, Creative Assembly is basically the only major company occupying their niche.

Suppose I should've been more clear. It is as Prince Ire say - they occupy a similar position as Paradox do: they're the only major company in their niche. But, at least in my opinion, they don't abuse their position with an abhorrent DLC policy.

 

[Nak'Arosh]

The most important question:

Will Australian indigenous unit will throw the boomerang on the enemy unit at war? This is the most important part of the Expansion. And the Australia indigenous will attack 2 unit with boomerang?

If not put, on a DLC heheheh.


This expansion will promise, I didn't not reading everything.

Hope to see steal technology or sell technology.

 

[MrSnert]

Features that basically fix stuff that doesn’t work, or complete previously incomplete released versions of the game should be free, but I’m not sure if a carpet siege button is one of them. I’ve never considered it a missing feature and I’ve never previously paid for it, despite having all DLC’s.

Now Missions on the other hand... I paid once for a game that gave me missions throughout the game, only to have it removed and replaced with an extremely barebones and incomplete feature that I’ve been paying for repeatedly to have decently fleshed out and completed... and will have to do so again with this one

 

[Katrex]

Well, good luck doing that for 50 GC per province.
Wide players already have to manage GC quite well as it is, I don't think they could afford doing it more than once or twice, if at all.

Why would I care about going over gov cap?

 

[Katrex]

Not really, it's perfectly possible to keep yourself below the GC limit even on WCs.
Using this button on dozens or hundreds of provinces will have a major impact on you nation, most important of all probably being the CCC penalty, and coalitions being far, far more annoying.

The thing to think about in wide play is how many provinces you can afford to state on your current GC.
Territories and TCs are essentially GC free with courthouses and town halls, so your nation's GC determines how many provinces you're able to fully state.
Losing 50 GC like that means you're not able to state about 166 development at minimum (with one state house per area and town halls in every stated province), which leaves you on a negative 150 development balance (since territories and GC have 90% autonomy).
So you have to ask if the extra manufactory is worth it, are 750 extra manpower (or 1500 with the right goods) or +1 goods produced in one single province worth 150 stated development?
I'd say not at all tbh.
You can always choose to play above your GC of course, but how much above will depend on your stating strategy and expanding infra will give you the same trade-off, or make your penalties even worse.

Even for tall play I can't see this being worth it outside your capital area, where you know you'll be developing a lot and already starts with -100% GC bonus to counter the +100% GC penalty it gives ( which I didn't even consider in the calculation above, so you're losing even more than 150 stated development for that extra manufactory).

Ah you seem to be taking this from an sp we perspective. I’m considering how to build the strongest country in an mp environment.

Gov cap only hurts advisors cost and ccr everything else it hits it’s fairly irrelevant but if you already have 200 provinces ccr is irrelevant. You can still dev them all to 20. At which point the question becomes what’s more valuable conquering more land or making the land you have better. Take a Russian steppe province you can fairly easily get 20k manpower from it, an extra soldiers house is is almost the equivalent of doubling its base manpower assuming 5/5/10 development.

If you wish to take a few hundred more dev that’s fine I’ll take a few million more manpower and we’ll see who wins. Sure I won’t be able to core any land I take... but I can just turn your entire country in to vassals. And sure my advisors will cost a tonne but I only need the mil one and well 300 per month for a level 5 mil advisor is still easily affordable late game on my 2k income.

It’s not a very fun way of playing but it is optimal for strength.

 

[Battlex]

Ah you seem to be taking this from an sp we perspective. I’m considering how to build the strongest country in an mp environment.

Gov cap only hurts advisors cost and ccr everything else it hits it’s fairly irrelevant but if you already have 200 provinces ccr is irrelevant. You can still dev them all to 20. At which point the question becomes what’s more valuable conquering more land or making the land you have better. Take a Russian steppe province you can fairly easily get 20k manpower from it, an extra soldiers house is is almost the equivalent of doubling its base manpower assuming 5/5/10 development.

If you wish to take a few hundred more dev that’s fine I’ll take a few million more manpower and we’ll see who wins. Sure I won’t be able to core any land I take... but I can just turn your entire country in to vassals. And sure my advisors will cost a tonne but I only need the mil one and well 300 per month for a level 5 mil advisor is still easily affordable late game on my 2k income.

It’s not a very fun way of playing but it is optimal for strength.

Over gov capacity does affect AE

Features that basically fix stuff that doesn’t work, or complete previously incomplete released versions of the game should be free, but I’m not sure if a carpet siege button is one of them. I’ve never considered it a missing feature and I’ve never previously paid for it, despite having all DLC’s.

Now Missions on the other hand... I paid once for a game that gave me missions throughout the game, only to have it removed and replaced with an extremely barebones and incomplete feature that I’ve been paying for repeatedly to have decently fleshed out and completed... and will have to do so again with this one

Missions were base game originally no? And the diet does give alot of the old missions, only purple phoenix added unique ones iirc

 

[magriboy0750]

Missions were base game originally no? And the diet does give alot of the old missions, only purple phoenix added unique ones iirc

Yes,but before RB/1.25,they had used the old EU3 mission system.

 

[Battlex]

Yes,but before RB/1.25,they had used the old EU3 mission system.

And now they're back in with 1.30

 

[magriboy0750]

And now they're back in with 1.30

You mean with the estates agendas?Indeed,it's the case.I have not thought at that.

 

[Vohen]

I’m considering how to build the strongest country in an mp environment.

Well, you should have specified that, shouldn't you.
Sorry to say, but my mind reading skills have been a bit rusty lately.

 

[Katrex]

Well, you should have specified that, shouldn't you.
Sorry to say, but my mind reading skills have been a bit rusty lately.

Amusing. But should I have.

Why should the assumption be a single player World conquest? One of the most tedious thigns to do in the game

 

[Katrex]

Over gov capacity does affect AE

Missions were base game originally no? And the diet does give alot of the old missions, only purple phoenix added unique ones iirc

Ae is irrelavant lategame.

 

[Battlex]

Ae is irrelavant lategame.

And gov capacity only matters early game because late game you have client states, all the gov capacity buildings, and all the buildings for gov capacity

 

[Vohen]

Why should the assumption be a single player World conquest?

I mean, we were talking about wide play.
Is there anything wider than a WC?

One of the most tedious thigns to do in the game

Not gonna argue there, I'm 100% with you.