1.14 will destroy small countries

[User4035]

1.14 will destroy small nations
1.15 will boost small nations with the Leagues mechanic. Which is similar to federations except for the rest of the world. So as a small nation you'll be able to form a league. For example - the Hansiatic league.

 

[earlofbrigand]

On the subject of the Ottomans, I think the 'balance of power' thing could be reworked a little - maybe in another DLC as Paradox can't do everything at once. As I mentioned above, the Byzantines were not exactly helped by European nations - in fact, many were happy to trade with the Ottomans and make alliances with Muslim states for their own benefit. It wasn't such a cut and dried religious malus issue.

Maybe some sort of 'temporary alliance' could exist. Ottomans and Austria agree to parcel up the Balkans in a war, but then go back to hating eachother or something!

 

[earlofbrigand]

1.14 will destroy small nations
1.15 will boost small nations with the Leagues mechanic. Which is similar to federations except for the rest of the world. So as a small nation you'll be able to form a league. For example - the Hansiatic league.

Is that a guess, or just a great idea?! It could be great - the 'Celtic League' of the Irish minors and Scotland would be interesting. How would it work? Would it be like a pooling of sovereignty (not sure how this would work) or a NATO like thing? If it's just trade, it would be interesting, but the idea could go further

 

[User4035]

Is that a guess, or just a great idea?! It could be great - the 'Celtic League' of the Irish minors and Scotland would be interesting. How would it work? Would it be like a pooling of sovereignty (not sure how this would work) or a NATO like thing? If it's just trade, it would be interesting, but the idea could go further

There is a thread in the suggestion forums. It sound pretty solid.

It would work like the native federations mechanic. Although the bonuses would be a little different.

 

[bbqftw]

I can't wait to see how badly war contribution is implemented tbh

Either its something that will be rather straightforward to game (casualties inflicted, sieges), or it'll be something that rewards moronic AI behavior (casualties taken, attrition siege losses)

I'm putting my bets on casualties taken

 

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

Please learn what "exponentially" means then get back to me. Also, Byzantium and Albania and Theodoro are all supposed to be hard. That's why they're achievements.

it's certainly not linear

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

it's certainly not linear

It's probably polynomial, though.

 

[Shaaaq]

On the subject of the Ottomans, I think the 'balance of power' thing could be reworked a little - maybe in another DLC as Paradox can't do everything at once. As I mentioned above, the Byzantines were not exactly helped by European nations - in fact, many were happy to trade with the Ottomans and make alliances with Muslim states for their own benefit. It wasn't such a cut and dried religious malus issue.

Maybe some sort of 'temporary alliance' could exist. Ottomans and Austria agree to parcel up the Balkans in a war, but then go back to hating eachother or something!

Thing is Poland and Hungary (typical allies of Byz in game) the day before the start date just failed a crusade aimed at driving the turks out of Europe.
It's your ball to judge whether or not byzantium would have actually gained anything from its success (bar keeping Constantinople longer).
The trading between the Turks and Europe with exception to short exchanges with England/Protestants and long exchanges with France after the fact were more of bribes to keep nations out of the war(s); case in point the bribes to Venice and Genoa to keep them out from intervening in favor of Byz during the siege of Constantinople (ironically not interfering accelerated their decline considerably).

Also Austria would have never been friendly with the Ottomans even in a temporary alliance as many of its merchant trading woes originated from ottoman (muslims in general too) backed Barbary pirates and then there's the fact that Austria doesn't want a powerful imperialistic empire right on it's behind especially with France on the other side and the Burgundy Succession still a viable reason for France to rival Austria. The Osman victory at Varna should have instilled a considerable amount of fear in the hearts of the holy roman empire and these would have undoubtably been confirmed if/when Hungary was consumed.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Why are people so concerned about achievement difficulty changing in future versions? Even if 1.14 made The Three Mountains literally impossible to get by removing the RYU tag, you could still just use an earlier version to get it. Is it really that big of a deal?

 

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

It's probably polynomial, though.

probably then again it depends on so many variables we might as well give up

 

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

Why are people so concerned about achievement difficulty changing in future versions? Even if 1.14 made The Three Mountains literally impossible to get by removing the RYU tag, you could still just use an earlier version to get it. Is it really that big of a deal?

because reverting to old versions and old bugs is really contra the purpose of the game which moves forward not backward

 

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

Thing is Poland and Hungary (typical allies of Byz in game) the day before the start date just failed a crusade aimed at driving the turks out of Europe.
It's your ball to judge whether or not byzantium would have actually gained anything from its success (bar keeping Constantinople longer).
The trading between the Turks and Europe with exception to short exchanges with England/Protestants and long exchanges with France after the fact were more of bribes to keep nations out of the war(s); case in point the bribes to Venice and Genoa to keep them out from intervening in favor of Byz during the siege of Constantinople (ironically not interfering accelerated their decline considerably).

Also Austria would have never been friendly with the Ottomans even in a temporary alliance as many of its merchant trading woes originated from ottoman (muslims in general too) backed Barbary pirates and then there's the fact that Austria doesn't want a powerful imperialistic empire right on it's behind especially with France on the other side and the Burgundy Succession still a viable reason for France to rival Austria. The Osman victory at Varna should have instilled a considerable amount of fear in the hearts of the holy roman empire and these would have undoubtably been confirmed if/when Hungary was consumed.

problem with game is it doesn't stimulate the difficulty that the ottoman had set capturing cities until they discovered cannons

 

[grommile]

problem with game is it doesn't stimulate the difficulty that the ottoman had set capturing cities until they discovered cannons

It also doesn't simulate the fact that the Ottomans pitched up outside Constantinople with at least fifty thousand men, and successfully stormed the city less than two months after arriving.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

because reverting to old versions and old bugs is really contra the purpose of the game which moves forward not backward

Well if you don't want things to stay the same then what do you want instead of the changes that you think will make smaller nations harder? (even though you haven't actually played the game yet to find out.)

 

[Zelius]

I can't wait to see how badly war contribution is implemented tbh

Either its something that will be rather straightforward to game (casualties inflicted, sieges), or it'll be something that rewards moronic AI behavior (casualties taken, attrition siege losses)

I'm putting my bets on casualties taken

Eh, they've got a pretty decent War Contribution system in CK2 last I checked (... months ago), so it's probably actually decent. I don't think there's any reason they would base it off casualties sustained etc. Only hiccup might be from how contribution scales with nation size.

 

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

Well if you don't want things to stay the same then what do you want instead of the changes that you think will make smaller nations harder? (even though you haven't actually played the game yet to find out.)

changes that balance the game between gameplay and historical accuracy

 

[happymix91]

Blame the game with being more fair? Whining about the thing which didn't even happen?

Players always think how to exploit and backstab when they have an ally, and become not being able to do this more.. Great change, isn't it?

There is a thread in the suggestion forums. It sound pretty solid.

It would work like the native federations mechanic. Although the bonuses would be a little different.

So it is just you hope.

 

[Vaximillian]

Furthermore, Byzantium must be destroyed.

 

[Knut Skallagrim]

Amen to that. I don't like the idea of picking a small nation and letting France/Austria/Poland do all the heavy lifting for free. Yes it makes the game easier but it's not fun in the long run, if you want to experience high numbers and easy wars now you've to keep in mind that you've to pay something for it, instead of dowing with your 9k army a bigger country just because you know that AI will happily send to death his mens for free.

 

[earlofbrigand]

Thing is Poland and Hungary (typical allies of Byz in game) the day before the start date just failed a crusade aimed at driving the turks out of Europe.
It's your ball to judge whether or not byzantium would have actually gained anything from its success (bar keeping Constantinople longer).
The trading between the Turks and Europe with exception to short exchanges with England/Protestants and long exchanges with France after the fact were more of bribes to keep nations out of the war(s); case in point the bribes to Venice and Genoa to keep them out from intervening in favor of Byz during the siege of Constantinople (ironically not interfering accelerated their decline considerably).

Also Austria would have never been friendly with the Ottomans even in a temporary alliance as many of its merchant trading woes originated from ottoman (muslims in general too) backed Barbary pirates and then there's the fact that Austria doesn't want a powerful imperialistic empire right on it's behind especially with France on the other side and the Burgundy Succession still a viable reason for France to rival Austria. The Osman victory at Varna should have instilled a considerable amount of fear in the hearts of the holy roman empire and these would have undoubtably been confirmed if/when Hungary was consumed.

Interesting. I didn't know that about the failed Hungarian-Polish crusade. Maybe then..... there could be a 'get out of jail' card IF the Pope decides to have one last crack at the Turk a few years later. The Papal Action 'crusade' is useful as an exploit, but doesn't really incentivise anyone else to join in. The Papacy had lost a lost of sway by then, but was still powerful beyond it's means as a purely economic and military power.

On a side note, I took back Constantinople as Venice last night. It had only been in the Ottoman's possession for a couple of years and had already become Sunni Turkish! In real life it was still predominantly Greek in the 19th century.