- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.402
- 38.945
I see alot of houserules limiting players to 35BB in MP.
What would be the reaction if I enable true badboy wars in MP?
What would be the reaction if I enable true badboy wars in MP?
-
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.
I think its good as long as its at very hard, you can allways choose not to play very hard.
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.402
- 38.945
ehhmmm what exactly do u meant with enabling "true badboy wars"?? are they disabled at the moment? and what is a "true bb war"?
(feeling kind of dumb not knowing this already...)
in singleplayer if you go over 35 BB all your neighbours start dowing you continously, in MP they won't dow you if your armies are big enough.
hmmm I seriously didnt know that different rules applied to MP and SP....ohh well I guess I dont play enough real MP....
I say definitely go for it, one of the problems I notice in MP, is that it can suddenly becomes AI eating time. Also, I try to keep my BB to an absolute max around the "rather bad" area, so it probably wouldn't effect me anyway, just my BB neighbors.
Great idea, btw.
Great idea, btw.
You have to ask yourself why are people using the 35 BB rule.
Its being used instead of the old 3 province rule that was designed to discourage/ slow down AI bash-a-thons.
( Although I do note that since V1.06 the AI has got considerably better, I dont think that the AI is quite strong enough yet but thats not a problem for me as I dont tend to face AI opponents.)
So if you included a BB rule for MP the effect would be that players would find themselves being repeatedly attacked by the AI which would cause real problems for WE. This would create a incentive to keep BB and thus AI bashind to a minimum.
My only concern is that if you only have Badboy wars at very hard level then its going to be difficult to get the BB down in MP. Why just not have Badboy wars from medium upwards so that we dont have to struggle through continual BB wars.
At the moment we would only lose 1 BB point per 8 years and in MP thats tough.
So my suggestions is that we have it at medium level upwards.
Its being used instead of the old 3 province rule that was designed to discourage/ slow down AI bash-a-thons.
( Although I do note that since V1.06 the AI has got considerably better, I dont think that the AI is quite strong enough yet but thats not a problem for me as I dont tend to face AI opponents.)
So if you included a BB rule for MP the effect would be that players would find themselves being repeatedly attacked by the AI which would cause real problems for WE. This would create a incentive to keep BB and thus AI bashind to a minimum.
My only concern is that if you only have Badboy wars at very hard level then its going to be difficult to get the BB down in MP. Why just not have Badboy wars from medium upwards so that we dont have to struggle through continual BB wars.
At the moment we would only lose 1 BB point per 8 years and in MP thats tough.
So my suggestions is that we have it at medium level upwards.
Last edited by a moderator:
a solution would be to change BB to drop by 1 per for 4 years at very hard,
or perhaps there could be added a trigger in the multiplayer start screen, where say game speed and etc are , that would let you toggle BB wars on and off.
or perhaps there could be added a trigger in the multiplayer start screen, where say game speed and etc are , that would let you toggle BB wars on and off.
Indifference if it was enabled the same way as in SP, since most MP is not played on VH.
And as for this making people choose to play MP on VH, the net effect would merely be to skew the game even more to the colonisers when BB would only decrease one point per eight years, a gift much appreciated by traditional colonisers like Spain, England, and Portugal, but not much liked by those who have to resort to force against non-pagans to advance comparatively. As such, I doubt it would increase the temptation to play MP on VH. Not to mention the significantly increased cost of armies.
One final thing (which may, admittedly not often be the case as games often peter out earlier): If a game advances all the way to revolutionary times, it is a damn shame if nobody dares start sort of Napoleonic war, because they will thus break the 35 BB limit and thus become the target of all the world. (No, Napoleonic France was not attacked by every single nation that bordered a single French trading post
)Soooo. A countersuggestion. A "dishonourable scum" barrier from 1419 - Dec. 1791, and a "worse than dishonourable scum" barrier from 1792 - 1819" on all difficulty levels normal and upwards.
More work and more controversial (what about those who want a slaughterfest every now and then
), but I do not think just enabling them as in SP will have much effect as explained above.A simpler (and not quite as satisfactory) solution would be to just drop BB by one point per four years on normal, hard, and very hard. You could choose to get the BB wars limitation without the BB reduction issue, but would still suffer from the increased armycosts.
...And the one thing we do not want to even consider is the result of one nation's government collapsing while it is being invaded by a player nation. Instant BB wars. Two outcomes: 1) nation trashed unless game is stopped immediately and heavy editing undertaken, 2) since the BB wars have started and all the AIs are targeted on one player, everybody else goes full out conquest mode, skyrocketing far beyond dishonourable scum. The Conquest Hath Begun
An idea I heard Johan mention in IRC was to increase stability cost for badboys. I think this would be a great idea. Also to add a trigger to an existing -1 stability event, such that it only happens when you're a really bad boy, is a good idea too perhaps. As far as stability goes, I think something along the lines of 2% per BB point, added to stab cost, is a worthwhile idea. Let's take a baseline Austria with 20 catholic provinces taken mostly by force. She's got 39 badboy points let's say. That's a 78% increase in stability cost from a baseline of 400, resulting in each stability point costing 712. If four of those provinces are Protestant, then the baseline stability cost of 520 is increased to 926. Ouch.
Last edited:
No, progressive stability cost is an exceedingly silly idea (tm). It would only move the focus even further away from regaining stability by actually investing in it to regaining it by annexation and be yet another boon (in MP) to the colonising vs. the conquering nations. BB reflects the outside worlds view of your nation, stability the internal cohesion.
As for a BB trigger on a stability event, JohnMK, well, now you are talking. I always believed that badboys deserved an extra opportunity to receive the "Political Crisis" event and to be reprimanded by an "Uncooperative Philosopher" in the random event set
if this were to happen all the games would be borked...
Could you picture it?
Austria inherits Hungary and Bohemia and suddenly, all of the Holy Roman Empire dow them?
Jeez, the patches just get worse and worse
Could you picture it?
Austria inherits Hungary and Bohemia and suddenly, all of the Holy Roman Empire dow them?
Jeez, the patches just get worse and worse
Inheriting Hungary & Bohemia merely adds about . . . 13 points to your BB score or so. Unless you've been a really bad boy prior to that, it won't put you over the 35 BB limit, at which point AI nations all declare war on you.
Well, I personally think the addition of stability cost to badboy nations is a great idea. Remember, the Ottoman Empire can expand quite quickly without incurring too many badboy points. It can be done. Other nations too. I just personally haven't done it that way since I discovered how to fight it through much more quickly. And well, you know -- colonizing should in fact be a better approach to expanding your economy than annexing.
And well, you know -- colonizing should in fact be a better approach to expanding your economy than annexing.
although I would like to see TPs made much more profitable in the beginning of the game....its my impression that colonization in the form of real settling didnt really begin in earnest until after 1600....thus IMO TPs should have MUCH GREATER base chance of success than colonies....whereas as infrastructure improves it should even more out....and to give a benefit to TPs for nations which doesnt have a CoT make them gain half their tradevalue in direct income.
Re: Re: Badboy wars and MP
Actually why not keep at 1BB per 4 years, but have BB wars triggered at different levels (eg 61 for normal, 45 for hard and 35, or even 29 or 19, for very hard)
Actually why not keep at 1BB per 4 years, but have BB wars triggered at different levels (eg 61 for normal, 45 for hard and 35, or even 29 or 19, for very hard)
Re: Re: Re: Badboy wars and MP
Or alternatively drop the ai-behaviour modification from aggressiveness settings above "normal"...and instead use this setting to decide how fast BB should decrease eg. 1BB pt/4years on normal, 1bb/yrs on "whats the name of the lvl just above normal" and finally 1bb/8yrs on furious....
this way players could themselves decide how aggressive they want to be able to play....
Or alternatively drop the ai-behaviour modification from aggressiveness settings above "normal"...and instead use this setting to decide how fast BB should decrease eg. 1BB pt/4years on normal, 1bb/yrs on "whats the name of the lvl just above normal" and finally 1bb/8yrs on furious....
this way players could themselves decide how aggressive they want to be able to play....