The answer is Git gud?
now it will be easier to give countries to give land to other countries.
now it will be easier to give countries to give land to other countries.
- 2
1.14 will destroy small countries
- Thread starter Politic Revolutionnaire
- Start date
-
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.
"I am bad at the game and hate that I cannot cheat by having my allies do all the work for me for nothing."
- 5
- 4
Only thing is, larger nations tend to need the extra monarch points and to that end the +3 which is rather only +2 compared to smaller nations, means very little to that end since their added cost for using them the way like smaller nations are much higher than the monthly +2.
Both nations can take equally in a war, since the cost of taking provinces are the same (not counting ideas and special modifiers), and while the +2 does give the larger nation an edge here, the smaller nations have it easier building tall. Just look at the few OPM that skyrocket their dev since they don´t conquer or conquer as much. They equal larger nations quite well and are a force to be recoigned with.
Also, AE are accumulated faster the larger you are, so here the larger nation can actually take less provinces in the long run than the smaller nations (not counting inside HRE modifier). But I will agree on some points made... The cost of monarch point, mostly in events, should scale just a bit for larger nations since they do have the ability to invest in expensive advisors. Not as much as a 100 MP cost would suddenly become 400, but at least 120 MP.
This might add some more decisions on whether to expand out or up
Yeah... Did laugh about the statement "does this work as intended"... Hell... we don´t know how it will work yet until december 1st :-Dpeople complaining about a new expansion days before its release without actually playing or any other concrete evidence?
now that's something i've never seen around here.....
just kidding, we see this a lot
IMO it shouldn´t be a matter of waiting on the alliance, it should be a matter of shared interest, something the AI could do a bit better. Dislike the modifier to "having too many great powers"... Well we might need to have a few more great powers against massive blob Otto. He borders you all and he already showed that he wiped his ass against that other "great power" when he went at it alone with the not so great powered allies.
The prior change with the cooldown timer was a way to do this, something Wiz (i believe) quickly agreed didn´t work well and was an arbitrary change to prevent it that made little sense and didn´t really fix the issue. The AI were still your attack dog, you´d just roll the alliances and wait for the cooldown to go down. And since the cooldown started from war breaks out and any larger wars where you need your attack dogs usually takes 4-6 years, the modifier usually didn´t take much effect. Instead they could have made the timer start from peace 5 years ahead.
Had many wars where I used this method and made sure to have an inter-war which I could do alone or with some other ally until I could get the next grand war going with my loyal attack dog.
This new system makes a whole lot more sense
Byzan... who?... I´m somewhat a romantic about this one too, but I´m a realistic, pragmatic aswell, so I see it as it is... They should be hard, since they should be about to be extinct and recovering from 1444 should require some luck and skills
Only makes it more satisfying when you do achieve Roman dominance
Where does that knowledge comes from :-D I have been working on making such a system so that I can suggest it to PDX with most mechanics and balancing to make it more likely they accept it
No need to if they already are doing this
Has been supporting this for ages!... Would be the proper use of the term "coalitions", the period had "many" ad hoc alliances that weren´t alliances. Some were even made with "enemies", since their common interest or threat provided them with at common goal, but they weren´t allies and wouldn´t be called to war against any other unless it was to further their common interest.
Sometimes they did end up in alliances, and sometimes they did end up attacking each other or aiding in the others wars (since a weak coalition partner, only weakens yourself). This would also be great way for an anti-blob mechanic that doesn´t relate to AE, which quite frankly... The AI rarely ends in...
It+s way more linear than exponential, the costs for expansions are the same for both countries, and the larger nation needs to use MP on more stuff and provinces. Kinda evens it out
Didn´t they make this change, so you couldn´t get achievements with older versions and with disabling DLC? or was it only that you couldn´t switch them on and off...
The decision probably shouldn´t change culture... But it´s probably to prevent rebels from spawning there... Which never happens due to their national ideas and choosing humanism... so really, makes no sense
- 1
Hard to say yet how exactly 1.14 will change the plight of smaller nations, but if recent history is any guide, the chances that this new war-score feature will be well-implemented on launch day are pretty slim. It's possible that 1.14 will be easier for smaller nations: the 10-year limitation on offensive calls to arms will be gone, after all.
Personally, I'd just as soon keep that timer; it may not be ideal, but at least it's simple and clearly works towards its intended purpose.
Personally, I'd just as soon keep that timer; it may not be ideal, but at least it's simple and clearly works towards its intended purpose.
The thing is, we don't know yet. It's almost necessary in some ways - since the human player likes expanding, unless the AI does something similar, the challenge will end pretty soon.
Personally, once I've become the dominant power, I tend to start a new game as it becomes a routine, mopping up exercise after that. Someone has mentioned the idea of big empires struggling once they get too large. I think that's a good idea - with the caveat of the player taking idea routes that help prevent this.
I.e. if you want to go large, you have to get admin and humanist (for example) and maybe even something else. That way, you almost have to balance out the hard-as-nails mega army approach with need to be able to keep the thing together. Obviously cultural and religion will play their part too.
Personally, once I've become the dominant power, I tend to start a new game as it becomes a routine, mopping up exercise after that. Someone has mentioned the idea of big empires struggling once they get too large. I think that's a good idea - with the caveat of the player taking idea routes that help prevent this.
I.e. if you want to go large, you have to get admin and humanist (for example) and maybe even something else. That way, you almost have to balance out the hard-as-nails mega army approach with need to be able to keep the thing together. Obviously cultural and religion will play their part too.
It didn´t work as intended, since the timer only addressed the frequency of using attack dogs, and usually you have 2 or 3 larger allies so going to war while rolling them, was a breeze. The new system, might (if balanced well and implemented proberly) mean more meaningful alliances and DoW. Since the AI sounds to be more willing to attack if they are promised something in return, and tends to react more heavily if you stab them in the back and gives them nothing.
Also the favour system, still makes you able to declare some wars without needing to give up anything in return, other than a promise to support them later. Sounds like it does require some greater relationship with your allies, and declaring against a threat or a rival of theirs makes it easier... Hopefully, the AI will counter in a DoW that when they have cores or claims, they will not join a war not being promised something, or at least make it a lot pricier to do so...
Actually playing a bit further gives you some surprises
have had a few games where I thought it was all good, just needed to wrap up the last bits of pieces to gain the achievement. Then I end up in a war against another major player, where I initially gets stomped. Really shook me up, and made me involved again Suddenly the time ran fast again, since I made it my new challenge to show those powers who´s the real boss, the wars on that scale are actually quite fun and can really drag out. Especially if you have to change tactic entirely, against your previous "roll-over-destroy-all" tactic ;-) Had the mistake of doing that as Ceylon owning nearly all of India and a greater part of Indochina, Persia who had been my ally for decades had a province I neede for the achievement. Luckily I had the sense of declaring the war without dragging Otto into the mix, but my arrogance was nearly the end of the war.
Had to slow down progression hugely, since their morale and armies devastated me (though being western and ahead of them in mil) 1-1, even had trouble 1-2 and it required so much tactics and "skills" to pull this off, since if I hadn´t, they would have easily dispatched me making the achievement impossible from then on. Went ahead a few wars more, just to show them that their initial success was not going to be repeated ;-)
Haven´t taken humanist for ages... Haven´t any trouble with rebels anyhow, and that´s even as Ceylon...
Well don't get your hopes up too high. You'll probably have to wait a week or two for the hotfix to correct the inevitable problems.
There are two types of gamers.
Those who are obsessed with Achievments
Those who don't get why anyone would be obsessed with Achievements
Yes and no. Like if you go back one patch or turn of DLC it kinda feels gamey. But If I were to load up a really old version like 1.0 that's like playing a totally different game.
- 1
The first sentence contradicts itself: "The timer didn't work to reduce players' ability to use attack dogs; it just reduced the frequency with which they can do it."
Like I said, it's not perfect, but the timer does at least clearly work towards its intended goal. A partial fix doesn't equal zero fix. Combine the timer with the attitude system, and it really isn't anywhere near as easy to cheese your way to greatness as a tiny starting nation, even in 1.13. Large nations will generally start with a defensive attitude; you have to spend a few years earning their trust before they're willing to join offensive wars, or you'll have to declare war on one of their rivals -- irrespective of the timer, which is a further constraint. And sure, you can rotate allies once you've gotten past the trust threshold, but if you're spending relations slots on extra alliances so you can rotate offensive calls to arms, then that's a significant disadvantage that was absent previously, when you could just ally France and call it into every war.
The more allies you have, the fewer vassals you can take without eating into your dip pool, and the more potentially annoying calls to arms you'll receive.
All the rest of the stuff you've typed hinges on your speculative parenthetical -- "if it's balanced well and implemented properly." The new system could be hideously broken when it launches. It could be cheeseable even long afterwards. Or it could be a work of art worthy of Mozart. We have no idea, at the moment. You yourself observe how it might actually make the alliance game easier for small nations. "the favour system still allows you to declare some wars without needing to give up anything in return." Wonder if favor will bypass/override trust/attitude.
Only thing, it doesn´t contradict itself, and the "wait" to gain trust are rare enough to not really be a matter and once you get there it only changes when their interest in your provinces begins. So if given some thought, like players knowing which provinces said nation will have a natural desire to or gain a mission, you have yourself an attack dog who helps you no matter what.
The intention was NOT to use allies as attack dog, the times DIDN´T prevent players from using AI as an attack dog, it only limit how frequent this could happen, the AI was still used as an attack dog, which the intention was to prevent. So the modifier didn´t work as intended. How on earth do the timer prevent that? They still gladly accept my CoA, they still gladly pour resources and manpower into a war they gain nothing from, they ask no questions towards you having lost 0 men since you avoided all battles and let him take the heat, even gamey tactics to prevent him from occupying provinces he has claims and cores on was too easy to exploit and prevent the opinion modifier after peace and if you screwed him, it´s rarely enough to actually make them break the alliance thus preventing the use of him again.
The new system makes AI weigh their interest into the war against their attitude and favour you pour into the demand, being short of these you can still manage to get them to join if you promise them something in return. Playing the diplomat, by gaining more favour which can be used for calling wars more regular then makes sense, but my guess is, that this drains the favour pool quite heavily, so if player doesn´t do something else to increase favour, I´d guess that would make the new "timer" take more than 10 years but where you actually are able to attack a common rival in 6 years if you promise him lands, in which case you don´t only get stronger you also strengthen the potential later enemy and by stabbing him in the back, he will not help you in the next war or simply seek another alliance since he gains nothing from you, even if he loves you to bits.
EDIT: some lines from the DD suggest my statements
"AI allies who value their alliance with you will know to avoid taking these provinces, and will know to give them to you in a war, but if what they consider rightfully part of THEIR country happens to the be same land you do, this will naturally cause some friction in the alliance, and may ultimately lead to it breaking."
"Each participant in a war has a War Contribution score based on how much they have participated in battles and sieges, and your ally will expect a share of the spoils roughly equal to their contribution: If they do half the work, they expect to get half of the spoils taken, assuming there are that many provinces that they actually want, and disappointing them will result in a significant Trust hit."
Last edited:
Why ignorant people keep desire for "strong Byzantium" in 1444
go ignorant on something else
go ignorant on something else
- 4
A strong Denmark on the other hand ;-)Why ignorant people keep desire for "strong Byzantium" in 1444
go ignorant on something else
I don't know about the rest, but war contribution system, if implemented, will ruin the game for minors for sure. They will never manage to win as many battles or take as many provinces as any more powerful state - which means they can never have as much war contribution as any major power allies. Which means they will barely get one or two scraps of the victory.
So minors cannot get enough land and will forever stay minors as they cannot ride the allied help wave to become more powerful. Got France as an ally playing Castille, trying to attack Aragon? Sorry, France will take most of Aragon because it will have most of the warscore.
So minors cannot get enough land and will forever stay minors as they cannot ride the allied help wave to become more powerful. Got France as an ally playing Castille, trying to attack Aragon? Sorry, France will take most of Aragon because it will have most of the warscore.
- 5
- 2
there is another factor - land given with no CB, no co-belligerent can be worse than no land at all due to aggressive expansion. That's something like ~2x more AE than you would incur had you declared a war yourself.
Was this even thought about? Guess we'll see - there are a bunch of examples with 'can only take coreable provinces' that indicate that devs are not evaluating even simple implications of gameplay changes and this one is much more complex than most.
Was this even thought about? Guess we'll see - there are a bunch of examples with 'can only take coreable provinces' that indicate that devs are not evaluating even simple implications of gameplay changes and this one is much more complex than most.
- 1
If I go back to 1.13, I won't be able to get any achievements that were added in 1.14. And apparently with 1.14 you won't be able to repeatedly toggle DLC on and off. Other than that it should work as usual.
I see you point, but hopefully they thought about that too since they aren´t the stupidiest guys with loads of money ;-) But could be a stupid oversight if not at least given war contribution according to size, so smaller nations have it easier to gain it.
However, since you shouldn´t be using Otto as an attack dog, it does makes sense that they more easily makes WC (war cont.) since you would then have to give it a deep hard thinking on whether to call them or not, since you know that calling them would mean that you could demand less if not trying to actually win the war. But as stated, seems reasonable that a 1/4 country that actually fights as much and with as much risk not ends up with 1/4 of the WC, could find it reasonable that an even war with unequal allies would end somewhere between 30-40 % WC.
Basis of the argument, either you can´t win the war without Otto and you need to accept the fact that you either piss on them or let them have more of the spoils, or you try and attack them with other allies and gain a greater WC score. After all, if you CAN`T win against the nation without Otto, it only makes sense they get their fair share, and getting 30 % due to WC is still a lot more than getting 0 % from not going to war
Only thing, they will be less willing to give you provinces you have not tagged as "province of interest", so it would be better than before where you suddenly ended up with a province far away from your initial zone of expansions. They would then, hopefully, give provinces in this order... Core, claim, interest... where non-interest or claim would be highly rare at happening.
So unless you tag all as interesting to you, you wouldn´t be at a risk of ending in that situation
the up side, I guess "interest" can be used even when you cannot claim the province so it´s made easier to suggest that you want that italian province Okay
though that still doesn´t tell if it has been made impossible to gain achievements by 1.14 by going back could have mixed it up, and it does makes sense either way... But at least, it´s only a few days to find out ;-)
Actually the power increase of a megablob in human hands is pretty much linear. The rate at which development is gained mainly depends on constants like coring speed (staying under 100 oe) and adm power gain (not constant throughout the entire game, but pretty much constant for long intervals/rulers life spans).
The power increase of a minor on the other hand can actually be exponential. How much development a small country can grab is often mostly dependent on it's current strength, so the larger it gets the more land it can grab - i.e. exponential growth. In the short term exponential growth can be quite a bit smaller than linear growth.
- 1
Thing is at the time these were the only two catholic countries that were in any place to actively participate in the crusade (other german/HRE states partially funded/participated). Immediately after the King's death the country fell into a civil war.
France and England were still in the 100 years war, Venice was in decline and had active treaties with the Turks, most of Italy was uninterested in the thought and Iberia still had a bunch of unfinished business and rivalries/consolidation to take up their resources.
France was typically the biggest contributor to the crusades and not participating to any significant extent crippled any hope of success (Actually every crusade had mitigated effectiveness due to constant infighting between monarchs/leaders/generals).
in the hands of a human player once technology and army allow them they grow at an increasing though non exponential pace until hindered by monarch points (unless western and procterting everyone) I agree that small countries grow exponential to starting development but their growth is more off a quadratic in that it allows relative to size exponential growth slows then increases with technology
People panicking for no reason, Byzantium is easy, it's the poor man's hard nation which is why DDRJake hates it so much. Corfu, Naxos, hell even the Knights, Cyprus, Manipur, Jangladesh, Trebizond, Theodoro, Ryazan, Muscovy's vassals, and especially Ryukyu are all much harder.
- 1