Is there any difference between generals and conquistatods in terms of pips?
Once you unlock conquistadors do you need generals?
Once you unlock conquistadors do you need generals?
100 Army tradition, difference between generals and conquistadors
- Thread starter Autoclave
- 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.
Fix it so Conq is no longer generals or fix it so you can't recruit generals if you enable conq?
probably making it so there is a difference between explorers/conquistadors and generals/admirals as right now the only difference is that explorers/conquistadors can go into unknown provinces in peace.
Since when is there NOT a difference between Generals and Conqs? I remember reading quite some time ago that someone did a set of comprehensive tests based on using the console to grant mil power and spawning gens and conqs and noting the pips each had at specific tradition levels. The Conqs routinely tended to score lower in all cases.
Should look for a link if that's the case. The last time I remember reading a summary like that the data showed no difference at all.
Paradox has answered that question on one of their videos. I think it was Wiz who said there was no difference other than the unknown territory reveal for explorers and conqs.
Why did they even make a separate set then, instead of just granting the ability to the current generals / admirals?
So you have to spend the military points to hire them? Could still work if the ability was only granted to generals/admirals hired after you got the idea though so in that case I don't know why they didn't do that.
"Sorry Sir, you need to be trained at the new academy in order to walk to the west."
"Damn!"
But seriously, it's not like generals live that long. yeah, you could have just granted the ability to new hires from that point on, rather that making it apply to current ones.
There was a difference in EU2, EU3 inherited the separation while making them otherwise qualitatively equal (probably for gameplay reasons, since in EU2 leaders were obtained automatically while in EU3 you had to "buy" leaders, which would really suck if a colonizer had to buy 2x as many leaders). EU4 merely continued this.
I wish there was a difference. That Conquistadors would roll with 60-80% of the normal tradition.
But I feel for game balance the way it is is fine.
But I feel for game balance the way it is is fine.
.png){kind=avatar}
Well if C/E are worse leaders then G/A then you have to make a tradeoff of getting a weaker leader that can explore or a stronger one that will make war less costly.
a case of concluding what you wanted the test to have as result, no doubt.
20 other tests likely would have given other esults.