-
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.
There is hope for Rome? 
And I also hope that barbarians are changed a bit... why is the greek city Trapezunt 'barbaric', and many other greek cities not owned by 'nations' are also 'barbars'.
And I also hope that barbarians are changed a bit... why is the greek city Trapezunt 'barbaric', and many other greek cities not owned by 'nations' are also 'barbars'.
He didn't state a year, thou, so still it's done when it's donekokomo said:WOW. This is the first time in years that I see Johan mentioning a release date
Seriously, nice to hear that you continue working on this game. It has great potential
EDIT: Any chance for including 'do not autoassign governors/researchers at start' button, similar to HoI2 Generals?
It's great to hear that Britainnia will be getting playable tribes! It's also great to see that Paradox are working to improve Rome (even though it's good anyway!)
I'd like to second this, as it's something that I'd like to see, also.
I'd like to second this, as it's something that I'd like to see, also.
Please, add the option of creating client states out of backwater provinces (without having to get barbarians to occupy them first).
Make the wealth of characters inheritable or at least fix it! Also vassal kingdoms would be nice as well, a country that cannot refuse to join a war if it is demanded by its master, instead of just being allied and a tribute state. This should be in the same notion as the create client state demand, which is IMO also really necessary.
Also it would be nice to see that the rebels/revolters are better organised, just like in EUIII NI, instead of being defeated instantly after their morale has been destroyed.
Also it would be nice to see that the rebels/revolters are better organised, just like in EUIII NI, instead of being defeated instantly after their morale has been destroyed.
Last edited:
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
A "normalization" of wealth would be nice as well. So that character wealth and state wealth is comparable.Van Diemen said:
What about moddability of those factors? Like:Johan said:
*PERCENTAGE_OF_NAVAL_PER_FLEET?
*NO_CB_NEEDED 20
Those changes are really great, but it would be even better to make them moddable.
Additionally, I'd like to ask for one more thing beside 'allow to not assign governors/researchers at startup'. Make entire character system more moddable. Allow us to change character-to-province ratio; average spawned character stats, age and gender etc.
More specifically on gender: Allow us to mod the game to allow different gender approaches for each country. Thus allow one country to accept female generals while another one doesn't. That goes for ruler inheiritance as well. It would be nice to be able to make one country matriarchal in it inheiritance structure, while another country remains patriarchal. It would improve the ability to make fantasy mods.Keraunos said:
This would mean that smaller nations would make less chance of getting a favourable peace against bigger nations, and as the nations are already vey stuborn i think this is a bad choice.
hmmm, I think it is a good thing. The warscore system as it is now makes no sense at all. The problem is that all provinces are worth like a minimum of 10% spanning to like 20% (or higher?) warscore, which is okey if the nation consists of 6-8 provinces. But when you have conquered all of Carthege, stripped them of their navy and destroyed all their armys. And they say "No, we will not submit ourselves to you, instead here take these 6 provinces from us. Have them or have nothing, this is our final offer", then something is quite wrong because they are not in a situation to bargain.ForVictory said:
Whatever demands I make on them, they should have to accept with the option if they decline that they will be fully annexed instead. I mean, yes, either they give up all their provinces, except for their capital, give up their claims on all that I've conquered and pay a huge tribute to me, that will make sure they won't trouble me again. Atleast they would have their independence. If this doesnt work for them? Fine, I'll annex all them fully instead.
I know this isn't what we are talking about, but as I understand it, it sounds like all provinces will be given a value depending on who is owning it. Meaning, if mighty carthege has 50 provinces, then the average score for each province will have to be 2% per province. (at least this is how it should be). This will of course also make it harder to earn warscore, especially, as you say as a minor. But then again, it isn't very realistic that a minor backstabbs the great powerhouse, while he is busy elsewhere, conquers 3-4 provinces and then get's to make huge demands on them in a peace negotiation. They should still be able to make demands, but those should be more in proportion. Especially when it comes to the AI making tribute demands on the player.
How often havn't I lost a useless province or two in northern greece to macedon, cause they backstabb me, when Im busy elsewhere and all of a sudden their tribute demands comes in. In this situation the game seems to take into consideration that yes, Rome is a big country, therefor we can demand more in tribute (reffering to monthly tribute payed with cash, not ceding provinces) then we would from a small country who can't afford it. Yes that is true, we should pay more if that treaty was proposed to the Illyrians. If 50% of rome has been conquered by their enemy, they should be able to demand a hell of a lot more in cash per month than if Numidia, consisting of 4 provinces, lost 50% of theirs.
I mean, this put's me in a situation where I might have said, yes you can have that province, but hey I ain't handing you those 3 gold coins a month that you seek.
If it's like I hope, this would mean that conquering Carthege/Selucid etc, shouldn't take 8-10 wars over a spann of 100 years where I crush them silly, ruining their economy, annhiliating their armys and depleting their manpower each time. I guess it will still take 2 wars to kick their buts, or maybe even 3 since, you might not be able to demand all 49/50 from them in the first treaty, (since the computer is so extremly stubborn). Sounds to me like there could be no negatives in balancing the values?
Good idea. I didn't mention it simply because I have minimalistic approach - I want at least those things to be done (as without them the game loses much...).Sute]{h said:More specifically on gender: Allow us to mod the game to allow different gender approaches for each country. Thus allow one country to accept female generals while another one doesn't. That goes for ruler inheiritance as well. It would be nice to be able to make one country matriarchal in it inheiritance structure, while another country remains patriarchal. It would improve the ability to make fantasy mods.
Save those 'more advanced' ideas for future patches/expansions
lolbin, you're reffering to stubborn AI. I must admit I like the way that stubborn AI refuses peace. After all, countries historically had to achieve significant victory and then only got part of their gains. Look into Punic Wars: it took 3 heavy wars to defeat them.
The only things peace-AI lacks is it's inability to realize relative war capacity. It keeps fighting even when already broken (like after loosing armies/fleets/key provinces). It makes sense if they can make enemy pay dearly for any further advancements, but if it means only depleting own cash and manpower (for those tiny armies and fleets you immediately crush) - it's pointless.
Keraunos said:
Well sure, the computer should not be stupid of course, but how can you say that, in the punic wars, Rome only got parts of their gains? In fact, the punic wars serves as a perfect example to my theory.
The first punic war, allthough spanning for allmost 25 years, was not as large scaled as the second punic war, which was the desciding factor in the wars against the Carthegians. The first punic consisted of naval battles and mostly skirmishes on Sicily. At sea, the romans had the biggest casualites, allthough many due to storms and bad weather. However, the Carthegians could not afford a prolonged war and was eventually forced to sue peace with rome, which consisted of carthege giving up on their claims on sicily and withrawing all troops from sicily. In the aftermath of the war, Carthege faced civil war, when the mercenaries rebeled, and Rome took advantage, siezing Sardinia and Corsica from Carthege aswell.
The second punic wars, was the most decisive amongst the three wars. Hannibal laid siege to Saguntum (modern province of Valencia, Spain), a Roman ally city state, and thus the war had started. For 15 years, Hannibal fought the romans away from home, destroying all opposition but failing to make Rome submit themselves. While Hannibal was stuck in Italy, Rome stole Spain from Carthege and eventually took the war to africa, forcing hannibal to retreat and after the decisve roman victory in the Battle of Zama, Carthege had to give up Spain and became a client state of rome, not being allowed an army and only a small naval fleet. Numidia used Cartheges weakend state to seize power of most other african provinces.
The third punic war consisted of pretty much one single act only. The siege, battle and destruction of Carthege, in which Carthege was burned to the ground, not to be rebuilt. This was the final strike from Rome and they now fully annexed what was left of the former medeterainian powerhouse.
Yes, it consisted of 3 wars. But in neither of these wars, Rome managed to complete that full destruction that I'm talking about. I mean, when I have conquered all their provinces, routed their armys and sunk all their ships, they still say "Hey, we aint defeated! We are stubborn and since the game gives me the option to decline peace treatys, even when utterly destroyed, I'm going to continue doing so, without you being able to force us upon anything, til you give up and settle for those 6 useless provinces in western africa. Isn't this great? :rofl: :rofl: ". You say, that doing this 3-4 times is not enough to be able to annex them fully? Wouldn't ONE single war be enough if all of them were conquered?
Actually, 1st Punic War was probably as massive as second one, only we don't have such good sources as those that describe 2nd Punic War.
What I mean is that no Med. Power was broken in one battle, thou many victories that can be considered as 'decisive' were won. After Zama Carthage wasn't stripped of all it's land, as you would like to do. Carthaginians considered their 'war capacity' nicely and gave up much, still retaining their african lands. Same can be said about Magnesia and Kynoskefalai.
The game doesn't consider major victories as significant facts; it measures war progress by occupying provinces. When you occupy all the provinces, you can assume that you gained such a victory. Although outright annexation should be ruled out (it was highly unrealistic for time period), AI should consider peace offers more carefully, beeing more reasonable (and decide not to cripple itself any further by continuing war that cannot be won).
For me, diplomatic system should remain the same. It's other war factors (duration of movement and recruitment; AI garrison & attack forces, making battles more significant, 'current military strenght' > 'military potential' in deciding 'war capacity' etc.)
What I mean is that no Med. Power was broken in one battle, thou many victories that can be considered as 'decisive' were won. After Zama Carthage wasn't stripped of all it's land, as you would like to do. Carthaginians considered their 'war capacity' nicely and gave up much, still retaining their african lands. Same can be said about Magnesia and Kynoskefalai.
The game doesn't consider major victories as significant facts; it measures war progress by occupying provinces. When you occupy all the provinces, you can assume that you gained such a victory. Although outright annexation should be ruled out (it was highly unrealistic for time period), AI should consider peace offers more carefully, beeing more reasonable (and decide not to cripple itself any further by continuing war that cannot be won).
For me, diplomatic system should remain the same. It's other war factors (duration of movement and recruitment; AI garrison & attack forces, making battles more significant, 'current military strenght' > 'military potential' in deciding 'war capacity' etc.)
Keraunos said:
Well, maybe I was abit unclear. Yes, the first punic war was a major one, but what I failed to point out is that these wars differed in what the both sides were trying to achieve. In the first punic war, the war was mostly about gaining control of sicily, whereas the second punic war was about the complete control of the medeterainian.
Yes, Carthege were allowed to keep most of their mainland provinces, but with Numidia now neutral in the conflict, they now took advantage of Cartheges weakend position (as a client state to Rome) and occupied most of these provinces, thus compromising Carthege even further. Not to talk about the amounts of cash Carthege had to pay Rome.
My point is that if I manage to fully destroy one nation, they should not be the ones dictating the terms. Sure, I might not be very intrested in annexing them, if it was possible for me to force them to disband their army and not raise one again etcetc then I would gladly take that instead. But the only option other than taking provinces in peace negotiations is getting cash. And that is not enough for me to be able to secure that they won't rise against me again, allthough I could never be a 100% sure of course, but well, I hope you get my point?
To connect this to the topic aswell, with these new values to each province it actually gives you the possibility to actually claim what you have won. If I have 20 provinces from Selucid, then the peace treaty that the selucids were so desperate to sign, won't make them come out with 14 of their previously occupied provinces under their control again. At least, that is my view.
Victories, and losses, also figure into the war score.
Hold the cursor over the war score percentage and you can see a list of the items that go into the calculation of war score.
Hold the cursor over the war score percentage and you can see a list of the items that go into the calculation of war score.
Citizens, freemen and slaves.
I agree.
Also the concepts of who would constitute citizens, freemen and slaves and how they could be used would vary from state to state. For example:
For the Romans only Roman Citizens were citizens, but citizenship could be granted to individuals or the free citizens of whole communities or states, usually as a reward for some service or loyalty. Freemen would constitute freed slaves and free natives of provinces who were not Roman citizens. The proportion of slaves would vary from province to province, for example in Italy in the 1st Century AD slaves made up a large part of the population, but in Roman Egypt which had a large, free agricultural workforce there were relatively few slaves. For many parts of the Empire we have little information, but we do have some for Italy and Egypt. And slaves were in extreme circumstances enroled in the army of the Republic, specifically to fight against Spartacus. Yes, against Spartacus. Many slaves were recruited to fight Spartacus in return for being made free after he was defeated.
In contrast in the Seleucid Empire, which is a kingdom with subjects rather than citizens, the 'citizens' would be the Greek colonists and perhaps the Persian and other Asiatic nobles who would serve in the army, the free population would be the native peasantry and 'hill tribe' warriors who would constitute internally raised mercenaries (e.g. Galations, Kappadokians). Slaves would be present in smaller numbers than in Italy, perhaps similar numbers to Egypt, but would never be offered military service with so many free peasants and tribes to recruit from.
Also a tech system similar to HOI2 would have been better, with the difference of being event driven rather than being there 'all the time'. Like the HOI2 system, but with only the secret weapons, with an 'expert' working on the solution to the problem rather than an ongoing thinking about by the Citizens 'led' by a character.
kristoff said:
I agree.
Also the concepts of who would constitute citizens, freemen and slaves and how they could be used would vary from state to state. For example:
For the Romans only Roman Citizens were citizens, but citizenship could be granted to individuals or the free citizens of whole communities or states, usually as a reward for some service or loyalty. Freemen would constitute freed slaves and free natives of provinces who were not Roman citizens. The proportion of slaves would vary from province to province, for example in Italy in the 1st Century AD slaves made up a large part of the population, but in Roman Egypt which had a large, free agricultural workforce there were relatively few slaves. For many parts of the Empire we have little information, but we do have some for Italy and Egypt. And slaves were in extreme circumstances enroled in the army of the Republic, specifically to fight against Spartacus. Yes, against Spartacus. Many slaves were recruited to fight Spartacus in return for being made free after he was defeated.
In contrast in the Seleucid Empire, which is a kingdom with subjects rather than citizens, the 'citizens' would be the Greek colonists and perhaps the Persian and other Asiatic nobles who would serve in the army, the free population would be the native peasantry and 'hill tribe' warriors who would constitute internally raised mercenaries (e.g. Galations, Kappadokians). Slaves would be present in smaller numbers than in Italy, perhaps similar numbers to Egypt, but would never be offered military service with so many free peasants and tribes to recruit from.
Also a tech system similar to HOI2 would have been better, with the difference of being event driven rather than being there 'all the time'. Like the HOI2 system, but with only the secret weapons, with an 'expert' working on the solution to the problem rather than an ongoing thinking about by the Citizens 'led' by a character.
