ACGEEP Members? Historical Inaccuracy?

[otacu]

It's not restricting the ability of colonizing by technology. It's the ability on how FAR you are able to efficiently colonize.

Here are my proposals for colonization to have more historical flavour without hardocoding limitations
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6414573&postcount=124

And btw there is a similar mechanism in Victoria


On the other hand triggers for National ideas is something that i think is strongly needed (and not even difficult to put in the game code i guess).

While i like the new dynamic system idea i think that right now it's just too random.
For example there were good reasons to why not every country in Europe decided to go and colonize the new world (and the beginning only iberian powers did so)...
Eu3 should simulate in-game the reasons why historically Poland, Switzerland, Serbia, Navarra, Savoy, Venice etc. didn't bother to go exploring America.
It's not like there was only "something wrong in the heads" of the kings...
If they want to colonize they should first solve their problems and get in a "similar situation" as historical colonial powers.
Not just: Colonist + empty province = Colonization

 

[Twoflower]

The way to keep the AI colonizing the "right" areas is simple: there's a reason they didn't colonize there. It was either unattractive or unavailable. This is a self-enforcing restriction.

And how do you propose to go about this? I cannot see a way to e.g. make AI Portugal realize that Brazil is the part of America closest to Cape Verde, and therefore the most easy to reach, supply and trade with. Is there any?

Btw, I agree with what seems to be a majority that messing around substantially with QftnW or implementing other gamey restrictions is not a desirable way of going about colonization, or with anything else, for that matter. And I also think that hard restrictions are crap

 

[unmerged(514)]

[...]
And if you restrict certain game choices from players in the name of historical accuracy (ie, QFTNW being restricted to certain nations), then by definition you are sacrificing gameplay in the name of historical accuracy.
[...]

I am not of the idea of cutting ANY nation from choosing QftNW. I only said, as it is now, it is *poorly* implemented.

[...]In that case, Portugal would indeed be one of the very, very few nations to start with QftNW.

The idea has merits, definitely. Maybe putting an extra restriction to be naval tec=X to be able to have it, on top of the standard requests for a new slot to open. I don't know if it is possible, but it has mrits. Anyway, the penalty for changing ideas should be much more relevant than a punny -3 to stability (yesterday, playing Fance, I gained those 3 stab in 2 years).


Let me finish pointing these ideas you are having really contribute to let the player make "interesting gameplay decisions based on History". And what you are really considering is none other than a more guided approach to the AI and the way the game unfolds, which, coincidentally, only underscore my point of view on the issue.

 

[unmerged(514)]

[...]

It's bad game feature that every national idea is available for every country.

Naval ideas shouldn't even be available for landlocked countries. And why should a merchant republic (and i guess with innovative internal policies) like Venice be able to take Deus Vult?
Scientific revolution for Theocracies sounds "strange" too....

What many players (and modders) want is not some hardcoded limitations for countries but limitations given by the game setup.

For example why not implement a range for colonization (tied to naval technology) like i proposed in another thread. This way countries will get their rightfull advantage from their position.

Agreed on all issues. And when sugesting exactly what you are sugesting here regarding tying different National Ideas to different techs, believe me I did not look at your sugestion. We are of the same mind.


Let me also add I find TEN national ideas for a period of 300 years to be over the top. Better if it were 5 or 6. It will led to more forethought, making each idea more valued, by reducing their prevalence.

This, tied with the "not going back approach" for NI... I mean, once chosen, no way to free the slot again. Only improves the gameplay. My opinion.

 

[unmerged(514)]

[...] Restricting them based on geographic position...I don'T know if we can restrict them from the players, but we can look into doing it for the AI.[...]

I am under the impression the AI will not change NI. They are predefined.

 

[Evie HJ]

That's well said.

 

[unmerged(514)]

[...]
2: Your discoveries spread to your neighbors anyways
[...]

You are pointing another glaring issue regarding colonization. Of course if in 25 to 30 years the discovered TI is available, any nation can silently build an overseas empire without ever having an explorer or conquistador.

I guess if we can mod the time to 100-150 years some good will be brought for the sake of gameplay.

 

[unmerged(514)]

It's not restricting the ability of colonizing by technology. It's the ability on how FAR you are able to efficiently colonize.

Here are my proposals for colonization to have more historical flavour without hardocoding limitations
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6414573&postcount=124

And btw there is a similar mechanism in Victoria


On the other hand triggers for National ideas is something that i think is strongly needed (and not even difficult to put in the game code i guess).

While i like the new dynamic system idea i think that right now it's just too random.
For example there were good reasons to why not every country in Europe decided to go and colonize the new world (and the beginning only iberian powers did so)...
Eu3 should simulate in-game the reasons why historically Poland, Switzerland, Serbia, Navarra, Savoy, Venice etc. didn't bother to go exploring America.
It's not like there was only "something wrong in the heads" of the kings...
If they want to colonize they should first solve their problems and get in a "similar situation" as historical colonial powers.
Not just: Colonist + empty province = Colonization

Very well put!

 

[Kal Torak]

In EU2 when exchanging maps you never got empty provinces. Why not use same solution? A country can get sea route for free, but not a map of an empty province?

Second sugestion: If a country doesnt have QftnW it can not send colonists, no matter hom much empty land is known.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

but remember that the chances that they will make changes you suggest drastically decrease if your suggestions dont concern "western" world

Actually....that's the opposite. AGCEEP is more concerned about Asia than Europe because Asia played signifigant role in this period and gets shafted in EU2 for historical accuracy.

 

[unmerged(514)]

Second sugestion: If a country doesnt have QftnW it can not send colonists, no matter hom much empty land is known.

And Russia should be forced to choose it to colonize the Urals... :wacko:

 

[Kal Torak]

And Russia should be forced to choose it to colonize the Urals... :wacko:

Why not? They were also searching for "new world/land" only in other direction. Tehnicaly every land you previously didnt know about it is new world.

 

[Evie HJ]

Talking about Asia, Jinnai, is there any chance at all that you could contribute your expertise (esp. with regard to the Sengoku Jidai) to the GBM project? :-D

 

[Namm]

Why not? They were also searching for "new world/land" only in other direction. Tehnicaly every land you previously didnt know about it is new world.

Rename "Quest for the New World" to "Quest for a new world" (Qfanw). Generic, covers both the actual New World and any kind of new world (e.g. Siberia from the point of view of the Russians etc.).

EDIT: Oh, and about NI's, what is this "Smithian economics"? Whatever it's supposed to simulate I very much doubt it had any kind of relevance during the time period of EU3.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Talking about Asia, Jinnai, is there any chance at all that you could contribute your expertise (esp. with regard to the Sengoku Jidai) to the GBM project? :-D

GBM??

 

[Chengar Qordath]

Why not? They were also searching for "new world/land" only in other direction. Tehnicaly every land you previously didnt know about it is new world.

True; Russia's colonial empire just happened to consist of overland colonies instead of overseas colonies.

 

[Evie HJ]

The Great Big Mod.

AKA "I can't believe it's not AGC-III/3GC" (as Duuk more or less put it).

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6426820#post6426820

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I'm not sure...as i said, i don't really want to work on a mod that has too much straightjacketing, which is what that mod is. I was far too uncomforatable with AGCEEP because it forced things along lines too much, like always having portugal colonizing the same provinces.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

My suggestion to cut down on non-traditional colonizers: A global minus to colonists per year and QftNW to have an equal bonus to colonists per year (and rename it to 'Quest for new land')

 

[Evie HJ]

...straitjacketing? The Great Big Mod?

The very mission statement begins :

It is a modpack for Europa Universalis III. It is designed to give players greater history-based flexibility, by increasing the number of history-inspired choices each nation is given. It is NOT an attempt to force the game to follow more historical roads or to increase historical exactitude.

While we may look into some slight tweaks to improve historicity of starting positions (ie, in 1453, Portugal *was* more likely to start exploring immediately than, say, Japan), what we're looking to do is increase the number of history-inspired options.

Essentialy the plan is to expand on what Paradox has made, not take away from it (except as minor tweaks). We might make some decisions and choices easier/harder, but there is very, very little we'd look into outright taking away or stratijacketing.