<3
Jesus, I am buying this game as soon as I can. Something like this... it is remarkably similar to what my own design would be.
A plea to rethink badboy/infamy
- Thread starter Dawkins
- 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.
<3
Jesus, I am buying this game as soon as I can. Something like this... it is remarkably similar to what my own design would be.
that sounds most intelligent and brilliant!
I hope you manage to implement it as intended.
Also, what plans are there about internal BB problems, such as the current mass of bad events if one goes over the BB limit. Is there a similar "Ruler is an awful person" malus within your nation?
I'm happy to hear this, sir, as I was quite satisfied with the replacement BB system in Crusader Kings II.
I would like the country to have relationships with its own provinces. That way high WE or drastically worsening international standing would make your provinces dislike you, which would lower their production and income and possibly make them revolt if you can't placate them. Imagine having to suck up to a rival neighbour just because an important border province are worried about a possible war and starts to withhold gold and production.
Badboy isn't ideal but the CK2 system is a lot worse.
You can absorb giant swathes of land, break truces over and over, get caught murdering people over and over to inherit their lands and the only consequence is an opinion penalty which rarely makes any difference and which goes away on ruler death. It can also be cancelled out by high diplomacy and long reign bonuses pretty easily.
I'm pretty sure that if you got caught murdering several Capet children in order to claim the throne of France people would have been a bit more upset than they are in CK2.
Infamy in EU3 has its quirks, but it does make you expand at a more careful, measured pace.
You can absorb giant swathes of land, break truces over and over, get caught murdering people over and over to inherit their lands and the only consequence is an opinion penalty which rarely makes any difference and which goes away on ruler death. It can also be cancelled out by high diplomacy and long reign bonuses pretty easily.
I'm pretty sure that if you got caught murdering several Capet children in order to claim the throne of France people would have been a bit more upset than they are in CK2.
Infamy in EU3 has its quirks, but it does make you expand at a more careful, measured pace.
hmm, in CK2, the only land you absorb is through inheritance or small wars. Your vassals hate you, everyone starts hating you, and relations determine pretty much all interaction in the game. Infamy meanwhile is just a number that doesnt effect you at all internationally, and marginally within your country, until you go over it.
This is good to hear. I'm wondering how it relates to coalition systems. A big problem in EUIII was that countries with -200 relations would refuse to ally even if it were necessary to take down a bigger threat. Will coalitions be willing to look past relations in order to deal with a crisis?
I think this could be overcome if particularly large nations have flat relations penalties with neighbours, and neighbours tend to form coalitions against them. France should, due to it's size, only be able to form an alliance with the Ottomans and Poles.
It makes you expand at a boring, math-oriented pace. Go too slow and you waste infamy decay. Go too fast and... well, there's no reason to expand too fast, aside from rare, time-limited opportunities (racking up infamy just before Holy War goes away, for example).
Your complaints about CK2's system seem like they'd be relatively simple to tweak/fix, since I imagine it's just a question of adjusting the weightings for AI decision making.
CK2 has much more of a focus on internal threats. So no doubt in order for things to be balanced in eu4 there will be much harsher external penalties. Magni mundi had a bit more of an internal focus but I doubt eu4 will go in that direction.
I would really like to see more of a "balance of power" approach, where your neighbors start to form alliances if you become powerful and aggressive. I never felt EU3's badboy system was effective in stopping ahistorical blobbing anyway.
But do -200 (or whatever bad relations will look like in EUIV) automatically mean that nations will form alliance block against you, and or attack you in a way similar to the "containment wars" of BB-systems? As far as I remember bad relations in EU3 or Vicky certainly did not mean that the nation would attack you, if it had no particular interest in your territory. This needs to be changed. If you can just be like "-200 relations, so what if they hate me, they're not going to do anything about it" - a concept of conquest impacting relations, won't really help to stop expansion. Which is precisely what isn't really working in CKII imho.
If on the other hands really bad relations make other countries do something about it, and actively try to make an agressive alliance against you, this could be cool.
I tend to agree with this.
Good. BB wars are a tedious feature of EUIII, one that causes the late game to be nothing but a continuous round of war and more war even if you win every single time.
Imagine the scene:
Blackadder-esque flunky: "Your Majesty, do you remember how we got our arses kicked 12 times already by the Brits?"
Queeny: "Yeah, sure, that was a pretty stupid thing to do, wasn't it?"
Flunky: "Yup - but we're still angry at them: let's do it again!"
I understand the game cripples conquest in order to slow down blobbing, but in the end it just means that you blob in a gamey fashion. The way it was handled in CKII was much better - you have to have title to the land in order to claim it. Nothing stops you claiming the Scottish Crown as your own whilst playing as England except that this is difficult to do. Wars could be fought without bringing the entire world against you just so long as you have a valid reason for starting the war. The real check on blobbing is you can never be sure that your vassals won't raise an insurrection against you and try to steal your titles, or that foreigners or infidels won't take the opportunity to declare war and seize that juicy piece of land they've had their eye on for so long.
Again:
Flunky: "The Brits are warring over some far-away piece of land, maybe we and our allies should consider taking advantage of this opportunity to take them down a peg or two?"
Queeny: "Oh goodie! Let's!"
Agree. CKII makes you work for your wars. I can't attack Ireland until I have some good reason for doing so, so I try to get a claim on one of their titles. A few decades later Hey Presto! I've got a claim to a duchy, or maybe the entirety of Ireland, assemble the troops and off we go!
In EUIII it's "Oh, since everyone's forgotten about my aggression thirty years ago, time for another generic war in which I easily defeat the enemy and then spend years reducing his forts, and then only claim a couple of more provinces despite having conquered and occupied the entire country. Ho-hum.".
One thing I'd like to see in EUIV, though, is that holding unassimilated territory should act to lower opinion of you no matter how long it is held. The Russians, Spanish, British, French - they all suffered for holding down other peoples. The more unassimilated territories you hold, the more negatively, all things being equal, other countries should see you.
VickyII also has a decent system - you have to manufacture your war goals. Although in some ways this can seem a bit generic (i.e., playing as the CSA I can manufacture a claim on any state in the USA, rather than on states in which I have an interest because e.g. there is a Dixie population - why the CSA public would buy the idea that they should annex Nebraska rather than Kentucky I don't know) it works well. The mathematics of the infamy counter, and the fact that my attempts to build a case for war are always exposed fairly quickly, are a bit of an immersion-breaker, but not nearly to the degree that they are in EUIII.
I think the Paradox crew have been through a learning process and am sure they'll come up with an even better system.
Last edited:
That, I'm sure, would be one set of modifiers:
You occupy one of our cores -50
You oppress people of our culture -20
You oppress and are trying to convert people of our faith -30
I am so glad this new approach to relations seems to have been adapted for Paradox games in general, it makes for much deeper diplomacy.
CK2-system is made to fit the time period. And remember that there is a feudal system which works quite different than the emerging states of the EU3-period. People do not care much if their ultimate lord is King of France or King of England, as long as their local rulers is of their own people. Other leaders were much more tolerant of warmongering (as long as it didn't hurt them), either because they heard only rumours from far away lands, or because they were hoping to do it themselves (like the American Dream). As far as killing other people, people considered life and death different. There is the kinslayer-"trait" ofcourse, and there is revenge. Both ways to deal with this.
Badboy is just not relevant in that era.
That's really only if you heavily land your heir, and otherwise land people very particularly. If you do anything out of line in a standard CKII game, or even have bad traits, you're going to get a ton of succession and independence wars.
EU doesn't have landing mechanics. You hopefully can't do anything to be perma-friendly with a neighbor.
As the poster above said, it doesn't fit the era. You shouldn't have a coalition of Lithuanians and Germans attacking Sicily because you were a little too aggressive taking Berber land.
