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.
Lol, so there is no worry except for the chance you might need previous exploits for new achievements.
Hey, well with it being christmas I guess we are allowed to wish list.
Honestly I've only seen people complain that they can't do old achievements with the new content. Which can be a little annoying.
mercury, aren't new achievements typically balanced for the new content?
Oh my goodness, my lord you finally showed up. I didn't know you were a dev. I thought DDRJake was the name of a beta test patch.
*bows*
Just because a poor system introduced in the beginning was used by many people to gain their precious achievements doesn't give it a free ticket to be left alone in future patches.
It may destroy the most obvious opportunities for small countries to blob quickly, but it will certainly not destroy them in a sense of making them unplayable. That's just plain wrong and shortsighted.
It may destroy the most obvious opportunities for small countries to blob quickly, but it will certainly not destroy them in a sense of making them unplayable. That's just plain wrong and shortsighted.
- 1
I would disagree with Theodore because their eastern surrounded by easy neighbor to expand into while Byzantium could in theory win just with Serbia if mamuks decimate ottoman navy they have no real expansion except ottoman knights are Ireland basically
Countries don't start/join a coalition if they don't think their combined forces can beat you. This is what leads to "fun" stuff like Gelre annexing Utrecht and spawning a coalition of Burgundy+France+15 HRE minors or whatever, while Ottoblob annexes half of Europe in 50 years without a single coalition.
Classic case of a mechanic working as designed, but not as intended.
- 2
I think it all depends on how exactly the new trust/favours system is going to play out. Surely it will be more difficult for a small country to choose France or the Ottomans as a permanent ally who just help them win their wars and don't want all too much in return. But it will still be possible to ally big power A, win a war, give them their share, dissolve the alliance and ally big power B instead once they get in your way. Or just betray big power A by not giving them what they expect, if they start to dislike you just attack them together with big power B. But this really all depends on how fast you can build up trust with new allies and whether only the nation you betray in a peace deal will care or everyone will care.
That´s true... and odd really, but was to circumvent the exploit of rolling coalitions thus limiting their effect... Agree that it work as designed, but doesn´t really solves the issue... at all
Hopefully they will take this into account... Actually have been lobbying in the small to have trust implemented, not entirely by this, but as a factor where other nations deem they can trust you.
It was intended to be used to remove truce timers, having them more limited with massive penalties, but then having a longer period after the short one where you are allowed to attack, but will reduce trust of other nations and remove trust of target, the peace deal is meant to be the outcome and end of reason to war. If the peace-deal are "broken" too often, the target nation would be less inclined to make peace with you, since you have shown you would simply declare war again after awhile. In other words, you cannot be trusted to keep the peace.
This should also have some smaller effect on other nations which in effect would mean continous warfare would severly limit other nations trust towards your peace-dealings since you show through continous wars that peace... isn´t really an option, more an obstacle... This could be used to form coalitions along with AE, and would make it more difficult to strike new alliances.
The trust could be reflected as simply as an increased warscore cost for provinces that are not core, since war rep and humiliate would still be "okay" it would not cost more, but still have an effect on trust if you keep doing this continously towards many targets or against the same... Just a quick rundown on my sketches
I think some concern is that some starts aren't necessarily difficult but you still need to restart if x or y happens. That's not true difficulty. Furthermore, how can you contribute meaningfully to any war around you as Navarra?
The other concern is the fact that changes have been continually introduced that favor larger powers rather than smaller ones. Truce timers and Forts are the most obvious, now you get this and Revanchism? It's not as though there isn't any precedent for Paradox screwing over smaller nations in favor of larger ones (since obviously smaller nations are instantly wiped off the face of the earth and cannot use long truces or Revanchism to their advantage), yet it seems this is what the majority wants because the majority does play larger nations.
All I want is for something to be actually difficult. Not restart if x or y warns you before you wanted to do something or declares on you, but this experience is lost on many but many also perceive this is as difficulty. It's not. It's a test of patience which is a form of difficulty, but not a particularly engaging or fun one. I agree attack dogs shouldn't be unconditionally loyal but honestly the whole war system, war leader and gains and such is very screwed up anyway. This might help and encourage you to actually help allies but because war leaders still gets control of when wars start and end, there still may not be a lot of incentive.
It's true I haven't played the patch yet and all the features added together might just work out, but if past history is anything to go by there is just cause for concern.
The other concern is the fact that changes have been continually introduced that favor larger powers rather than smaller ones. Truce timers and Forts are the most obvious, now you get this and Revanchism? It's not as though there isn't any precedent for Paradox screwing over smaller nations in favor of larger ones (since obviously smaller nations are instantly wiped off the face of the earth and cannot use long truces or Revanchism to their advantage), yet it seems this is what the majority wants because the majority does play larger nations.
All I want is for something to be actually difficult. Not restart if x or y warns you before you wanted to do something or declares on you, but this experience is lost on many but many also perceive this is as difficulty. It's not. It's a test of patience which is a form of difficulty, but not a particularly engaging or fun one. I agree attack dogs shouldn't be unconditionally loyal but honestly the whole war system, war leader and gains and such is very screwed up anyway. This might help and encourage you to actually help allies but because war leaders still gets control of when wars start and end, there still may not be a lot of incentive.
It's true I haven't played the patch yet and all the features added together might just work out, but if past history is anything to go by there is just cause for concern.
So... is everyone ignoring the point already stated in this very thread that War Contribution is based on size, so a smaller country will have a much easier time gaining WC than a larger one? If you're playing Navarra, and France is helping you fight Aragon or something, just go and siege a damn province. It's not that hard, and you'll get a lot more WC for doing it than France would for doing the same thing.
It makes sense and I figured they'd have something to offset to leave nations playable to at least average players, but I don't have much confidence in it working well in practice...at least not initially. There are a LOT of ways wars can shake out.
- 1
In terms of things working out in practice, we'll just have to see, in my opinion.
I'm incredibly weary of Revanchism as a mechanic. From what little I've seen the number seem completely out of whack, and seem, and yes, this is that old boogeyman again, like something that was created primarily as a multiplayer assisting tool rather than a mechanic based on a simulation of what plausibly would be expected to happen given the conditions of the game.
Additionally, COMMAS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COMMAS.
Additionally, COMMAS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, COMMAS.
- 2