Another post in the series what's wrong with this game

[dm99]

Parliament has a debate you can use for RT. There are also events that let you trade stab for it at low-ish values, and if you re-elect a lot on short cycles, you can afford to buy it up with MIL w/o falling behind in tech.

I guess you can try to push reforms through quickly too if you're something like a pirate republic, with an amazing CB and access to razing sooner if you get through them.

This is an Italian region. The Republic has the Italian Signoria type. Cycle 12 years. Now 13. Fall for the election of a relative 12 (13). Fall for re-election 30 (32.5). The candidate usually does not survive the second re-election. With the sources I currently have (that's Papal Bonus, Reform, and 100 Power Projections), I'm missing 12 every cycle. Strengthen Government grants 3 per 100 mil mana. This is the case when it just infuriates me to pay such a price. It would be nice to have 5 more for 100, but 3. If you pay the whole difference, it's almost -2.6 mana per month. Well, there will be no more 100 power projections, the rivals have become much thicker, and most importantly further.

In principle, with a short cycle, at first glance, the losses are the same, but the fluctuations occur at a higher level, which is not so annoying. And then you know what you pay for. In 12 years, with a short cycle, 3 re-elections can be carried out, which leads to +3 to all attributes of the ruler, and here only one. True, here initially you can be lucky and the attributes will be high, or maybe very unlucky.

And without this bonus that I took in the reforms everything was even worse. And all other bonuses in policies. Those. you need to take two groups to get another 0.2. Basically one, but... 0.2. Yes, and this group is not needed, Italy needs an army, navy and trade. At one point, all the big players really want to get Italy. This needs to be dealt with. And again, if I don't deal with the Ottomans, no one will. But I just love this part. True, there is still a war of leagues ahead, which, after the constant active presence of the Ottomans, I really do not like, and not because our side is losing, but because it is very, very long and dreary.

This event, which you mentioned, often appeared in the form of stability or money, but it also happened with traditions once. There was also a strange event that made re-election free, but I don’t remember the price. Therefore, of course, I count on the Parliament, but remembering my luck, as well as the impudent greed of the parliamentarians, I would not count much .

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

I think, perhaps, what the game is trying to go for is a 'jack of all trades, master of none' type situation where you can either stack larger bonuses in one thing to the comparative detriment of others, or you can try and cover everything and will get smaller bonuses. I mean you can't be good at everything, you can see this in the timeframe some with countries that tried to focus on having a really good army and a really good navy, quite often they just picked one or the other. There was a good article on it but I can't remember where...

 

[dm99]

I think, perhaps, what the game is trying to go for is a 'jack of all trades, master of none' type situation where you can either stack larger bonuses in one thing to the comparative detriment of others, or you can try and cover everything and will get smaller bonuses. I mean you can't be good at everything, you can see this in the timeframe some with countries that tried to focus on having a really good army and a really good navy, quite often they just picked one or the other. There was a good article on it but I can't remember where...

Well, about the army and navy, not quite so. In singleplayer, quality in an army provides a tangible advantage, the main one being that the AI is aware of this advantage, which allows it to be kept from making rash decisions with a smaller, but much better army. Group Quality as an analog of Nuclear Deterrence for AI .

In the Navy, everything is determined by the number of heavy. Once the entire width has been filled with heavy, no AI will be able to compete. You don't need quality, you just need money. This feature, by the way, looks rather strange in the Mediterranean, where galleys should give some effect, alas, practically not. Of course, if the full width of the galleys goes against several heavy ships, they win. But with an equal width of the two fleets, there is no chance.

It seems that building galleys is easier and cheaper, but oddly enough, the main limitation is the force limit. And formally, five galleys will beat a heavy ship of equal cost, but force limit and width do not allow this to be done. And it turns out a strange situation, when the force limit is less than the width, then it is more profitable to build heavy ships, they at least give a significant effect against equal opponents. And when the force limit is large, there are no questions at all.

By the way, this dilemma, whether to collect more bonuses of the same type in one stack, or expand coverage, has never arisen. Most of the bonuses are collected somehow by itself. When the goal is clear and the means are clear, then bonuses are one side of the coin, and new opportunities are the other. And whether to pursue one additional bonus is determined by the value and the path. If this path leads too far away from the goal, then this bonus is simply not needed. And about the value, one out of five or six + 10% does not play a special role. While one of the two certainly matters.

 

[FishieFan]

Well, about the army and navy, not quite so. In singleplayer, quality in an army provides a tangible advantage, the main one being that the AI is aware of this advantage, which allows it to be kept from making rash decisions with a smaller, but much better army. Group Quality as an analog of Nuclear Deterrence for AI .

That's just deterrence in general not just nuclear deterrence.

In the Navy, everything is determined by the number of heavy. Once the entire width has been filled with heavy, no AI will be able to compete. You don't need quality, you just need money. This feature, by the way, looks rather strange in the Mediterranean, where galleys should give some effect, alas, practically not. Of course, if the full width of the galleys goes against several heavy ships, they win. But with an equal width of the two fleets, there is no chance.

It seems that building galleys is easier and cheaper, but oddly enough, the main limitation is the force limit. And formally, five galleys will beat a heavy ship of equal cost, but force limit and width do not allow this to be done. And it turns out a strange situation, when the force limit is less than the width, then it is more profitable to build heavy ships, they at least give a significant effect against equal opponents. And when the force limit is large, there are no questions at all.

By the way, this dilemma, whether to collect more bonuses of the same type in one stack, or expand coverage, has never arisen. Most of the bonuses are collected somehow by itself. When the goal is clear and the means are clear, then bonuses are one side of the coin, and new opportunities are the other. And whether to pursue one additional bonus is determined by the value and the path. If this path leads too far away from the goal, then this bonus is simply not needed. And about the value, one out of five or six + 10% does not play a special role. While one of the two certainly matters.

When leviathan hit, galleys got reworked to the point that even when coastal and not inland sea it might be worth favouring galleys over heavys. Med states also often have galley combat ability ideas

 

[dm99]

When leviathan hit, galleys got reworked to the point that even when coastal and not inland sea it might be worth favouring galleys over heavys. Med states also often have galley combat ability ideas

Theoretically, it is possible that with all the bonuses, three galleys will defeat the heavy ones. But with a fully filled width, even if these widths are equal, the galleys have no chance. The mechanics of naval combat is so arranged. Again, proven in practice.

The only option is a carefully calibrated approach of reinforcements. But in this case, it will be a Pyrrhic victory. And who forbade the opposite side to do the same.

 

[Bohemian_warlord]

You don't need quality, you just need money.

Thats how things should be, navy should be way more about money than the army. Quality just says how much bang you get for your buck.

What needs to change is FL of heavies, so it is 3 times the FL of galleys. Or remove naval FL altogether since we have the sailors mechanic that does the same thing but somewhat better.

 

[Oporto]

You don't need quality, you just need money.

 

[CthulhuTactical]

Was OP trying to make a troll attempt? Most of your points would take the last amount of any complexity from this game.

 

[dm99]

Was OP trying to make a troll attempt? Most of your points would take the last amount of any complexity from this game.

Well, maybe a bit. But mostly they were rhetorical questions from the series of what the hell is the world arranged this way and not otherwise .

But I managed to communicate with smart and interesting people, as well as to experience the wrath of the discontented masses.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

Well, about the army and navy, not quite so. In singleplayer, quality in an army provides a tangible advantage, the main one being that the AI is aware of this advantage, which allows it to be kept from making rash decisions with a smaller, but much better army. Group Quality as an analog of Nuclear Deterrence for AI

In the game to an extent. What I am trying to say is that it is harder to be the best at everything because by choosing to stack a larger bonus for one thing, you would be missing out on a bonus for another thing which would occupy the same slot, sometimes big bonuses to one thing will come with a malus to another thing, so you would never be able to reach the 'cap' on everything, hence you can either be 'the best' at one or two things or go for smaller bonuses for everything.

Now in game naval quality barely matters compared to quantity but it isn't that way in real life. It was hard for a lot of states to properly maintain a large, high quality army and a large, high quality navy at the same time. Often rulers had to choose between one or the other. There was a good article I read about it regarding Brandenburg a while ago but I can't find it.

 

[dm99]

In the game to an extent. What I am trying to say is that it is harder to be the best at everything because by choosing to stack a larger bonus for one thing, you would be missing out on a bonus for another thing which would occupy the same slot, sometimes big bonuses to one thing will come with a malus to another thing, so you would never be able to reach the 'cap' on everything, hence you can either be 'the best' at one or two things or go for smaller bonuses for everything.

Now in game naval quality barely matters compared to quantity but it isn't that way in real life. It was hard for a lot of states to properly maintain a large, high quality army and a large, high quality navy at the same time. Often rulers had to choose between one or the other. There was a good article I read about it regarding Brandenburg a while ago but I can't find it.

I understand your idea and generally support it, but I have never really come across a situation where you have to choose one bonus or another. I think it depends on the purpose and style of play. Naturally, I can not do everything, I have to sacrifice something. But attempts to build the game differently, each time lead to disappointment, let's say there is a feeling that I'm doing the wrong thing. This does not mean that this path is wrong or I can not cope with it, I just do not like it.

And of course you are right that trying to be everything is to be nobody. But it's like that in all games.

As for the fleet. Naturally, quality should determine, this is an axiom. But that's how it works in this game. In fact, many countries can build a decent army, but very few can build a navy. So it's just a quantity. I've always been interested in the Navi group, but it could only be 7-8 and usually I don't get that far.

 

[Kurfürstin Adelheid]

but I have never really come across a situation where you have to choose one bonus or another.

I was thinking with regards to the Machiavellianism reform. With diplomatic ideas, you will lose no stability when declaring a no CB war, but you would be unable to reach the maximum amount of AE reduction because the reform gives +15% AE impact. There are other examples as well but I can't remember off the top of my head.

I've always been interested in the Navi group, but it could only be 7-8 and usually I don't get that far.

The Naval idea group does what it says it does but because naval battles are not that impactful it usually doesn't mean anything. Because you can just spam loads of ships...

 

[Diskianterezh]

I opened this thread thinking that I will find some discussions about what is lacking inn the game - because indeed there is much to discuss - and you managed to critic everything that work and every good thing they added and that improve the game, what the heck ?

I feel like you want to play a big blob France or Ottomans with infinite money, manpower, stacking bonuses of 300% Morale and base 250% discipline.

More seriously, i understand that everyone have his own fun and love different things in a game and I will not force you to enjoy the game the same way as everyone, so thank you for your point of view.
I'll however have to respectfully disagree with this point of view.

 

[dm99]

I was thinking with regards to the Machiavellianism reform. With diplomatic ideas, you will lose no stability when declaring a no CB war, but you would be unable to reach the maximum amount of AE reduction because the reform gives +15% AE impact. There are other examples as well but I can't remember off the top of my head.

For starters, I usually don't care much about AE impact, except at the very beginning. Then I do capture not the whole world, but only separate parts. Therefore, it is possible to smear AE with a wide, but not large layer. And besides, I don't care at all.

But in my humble experience, -20% AE is a lot and noticeable, i.e. +15% is a lot for the ability to start a war without CB.

A war without CB, in addition to falling towards stability, gives all sorts of unpleasant things, if I'm not mistaken. Immediately +30 AE, +4 war exhaustion, and yet no one wants to participate with you. In my opinion, the drop in stability by 2 units is not the worst, it's 250 mana. Well, it seems like the opportunity to start a war without CB attracts, but not at such a price and + 15% is not the worst.

But again, diplomacy is not my style, I have to somehow do it the old fashioned way. Made a claim - advanced, and so on. Again, religion helps.

 

[dm99]

I opened this thread thinking that I will find some discussions about what is lacking inn the game - because indeed there is much to discuss - and you managed to critic everything that work and every good thing they added and that improve the game, what the heck ?

I feel like you want to play a big blob France or Ottomans with infinite money, manpower, stacking bonuses of 300% Morale and base 250% discipline.

More seriously, i understand that everyone have his own fun and love different things in a game and I will not force you to enjoy the game the same way as everyone, so thank you for your point of view.
I'll however have to respectfully disagree with this point of view.

You got it completely wrong. But you are not alone, just unlike others, you have made your position clear. For which I respect you and thank you very much

 

[fireandplague]

For starters, I usually don't care much about AE impact, except at the very beginning. Then I do capture not the whole world, but only separate parts. Therefore, it is possible to smear AE with a wide, but not large layer. And besides, I don't care at all.

But in my humble experience, -20% AE is a lot and noticeable, i.e. +15% is a lot for the ability to start a war without CB.

A war without CB, in addition to falling towards stability, gives all sorts of unpleasant things, if I'm not mistaken. Immediately +30 AE, +4 war exhaustion, and yet no one wants to participate with you. In my opinion, the drop in stability by 2 units is not the worst, it's 250 mana. Well, it seems like the opportunity to start a war without CB attracts, but not at such a price and + 15% is not the worst.

But again, diplomacy is not my style, I have to somehow do it the old fashioned way. Made a claim - advanced, and so on. Again, religion helps.

Are you misunderstanding how No CB with Diplo Ideas + Machiavellianism works? The instant AE and war exhaustion are tied to stability. No stability loss = also no instant AE or WE. So No CB with this combo is completely free (other than the +15% AE for all war results).

 

[dm99]

Are you misunderstanding how No CB with Diplo Ideas + Machiavellianism works? The instant AE and war exhaustion are tied to stability. No stability loss = also no instant AE or WE. So No CB with this combo is completely free (other than the +15% AE for all war results).

How am I supposed to understand this? Three different things are written in three different places. Their close relationship is absolutely not obvious from the word at all. Both ideas speak only of the loss of stability and nothing more.

The only way to find out is to try, but I've never been interested in that. If you've tried, you've just let me know. Thank you for that.

Upd: But if I remember correctly, it's tier 8. When you get to it, you will have Imperialism in your hands. Easier and more reliable.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Are you misunderstanding how No CB with Diplo Ideas + Machiavellianism works? The instant AE and war exhaustion are tied to stability. No stability loss = also no instant AE or WE. So No CB with this combo is completely free (other than the +15% AE for all war results).

And that whatever you demand will count as an "unjustified demand", with the usual charge for provinces taken, so this doesn't perform much better than conquest CB.

IMO, the utility of that particular reform is not to no-CB using it + diplo. If you have diplomatic ideas, you can probably cough up a claim + cobell etc as necessary to get into the wars you want w/o it killing diplomat time too badly. Where this shines is if you are planning to truce break, which goes down to -2 stability and 2 WE.

That's getting into the neighborhood of tactics like scutage client state feeding as you repeatedly truce break the Ottomans, reduce WE once (maybe), buy 2 stab for 50 admin, and not net out to losing any absolutism. Make sure to mothball whichever forts you don't demand in the deal, and run them down ASAP the next month after you break truce. Don't let them rebuild anything.

Hmm, I haven't tried it in ages, but if you declare on someone where you have military access, that's also typically a -5 hit, which would go to 2 with this combo. Maybe it exiles you these days though. If not, there might be some fun alpha strikes to be had too.

 

[fireandplague]

How am I supposed to understand this? Three different things are written in three different places. Their close relationship is absolutely not obvious from the word at all. Both ideas speak only of the loss of stability and nothing more.

The only way to find out is to try, but I've never been interested in that. If you've tried, you've just let me know. Thank you for that.

Upd: But if I remember correctly, it's tier 8. When you get to it, you will have Imperialism in your hands. Easier and more reliable.

That's what I'm telling you. I've tried it, and that's how it works.

And you should be getting to government reform tier 8 long before 1700, which is the tech par year for tech 23 imperialism. You should have at least 50 years (usually more) of tier 8 before imperialism is available.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ tech 23 is on par in 1680s, not 1700