Any balance issues, concerns please post them. Especially SP playtests which go more than mediocre.
-
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.
TheArchduke said:
I'm concerned that the leaderfiles are made to make countries equal, there should be more vareity in country strenghts, leader files shouldn't be making them equal allways
IE more unbalance, but in a balanced way It isn't a bad thing some country is a bit dominating in some region as long as its not too much of that, nor is it bad if some country has a lot better leaders, as long as the others have a fighting chance too.
RedPhoenix said:I'm concerned that the leaderfiles are made to make countries equal, there should be more vareity in country strenghts, leader files shouldn't be making them equal allways
Agreed. No nation should suck 80% of the time or dominate for even 60% of the time. The only important thing is that every nation we intend to be viable has some legitimate prospects.
Specifically regarding leaders:
Red suggested that we expand the leader debate to include commanders with a 4 in either shock or fire. I second this motion and wish to include all commanders who's four stats (move, fire, shock, seige) total 12 or more.
I think in general we need to be careful about how many awesome generals we put in. I'm going to build a database and run some queries (when I get the time) just to see where we stand at the moment.
Outstanding balance issues:
Genoa and Granada are going to get brought into line in the next couple of days. I know exactly what needs to be done with both and as soon as I get permission on a few things, I intend to get right down to it.
Genoa:
* Mostly the events are going to get fixed. Super good events are going to become pretty good events instead. I'm going to add the bad events I didn't get around to putting in earlier.
Specifically, I'm going to model Genoa's military problems after the rise of 2nd-generation warfare (professional armies, land 26).
Granada:
* No iberian culture in 1419. If they unite Al-Andalus, they will get Iberian culture sometime in the 16th century.
* Events to (possibly) spawn Andalusia as a minor
* I hope to elevate Asturias into a bona-fide minor, with the possibility of claiming the throne of Castile (if the powers-that-be approve)
Things I would like to do (time permitting):
* More work on the Teutonic Order
* Milan, Tuscany, Papal States
* Expand the Condotierri system to include Sicily
* Do some event and leader work on Sicily (additions and retooling, AD permitting -- in truth, Sicily is his baby)
Other balance issues:
* The Kaliphate is a monster. At the very least, I would like to see them get stuffed back into the Muslim tech group. They have all the opportunities and muscle needed (and more) to overcome the disadvantage. Besides, they are the center of the Muslim world.
* Some more early good events for the Byzantium are needed (IMO), in particular things to encourage them to expand into Asia Minor, regardless of cultures.
That's about all I can think of right now. Cheers folks.
Edit: Bwaak! I knew I forgot something... If you have any particular ideas or suggestions regarding Iberian crusaders or crusader states, Red Pheonix, I'd love to hear them. Also could anyone tell me where the heck the Dukedom of Alba is? I'm wondering if using the Duke(s) of Alba is plausible at all in Abe.
Edit Again: When did the cultures get changed in Iberia? Toledo, Andalusia and Muricia should all be Berber culture, not Iberian. I'm going to need to put this back the way it was before, unless someone had a real good reason for this change.
Last edited:
Medicine Man said:
Yep, I wholeheartly agree.
Medicine Man said:
* I am VERY hesitant about that. Without iberian culture, Granada will be a sucker in no time. I didn't say no, but just try out and watch out.
* Fully agree, good idea.
* I agree there, too.
Medicine Man said:
* Always nice to see more work done.
* Be free to go on Sicily, be wary about possible trouble events, especially early as long as Genoa isn't nerfed.
Medicine Man said:
* I couldn't agree more.
* Yep, maybe Byakhiam can help with that or me.
Medicine Man said:
Medicine Man said:
Edit 1: Fun idea.
Edit 2: Kaigon messed BIG time with the incs, i recognized that with some powers, especially byzantine. Whilst his work was great, some things got messed up and ignored by him.
Well, imo Byzantium has all the reason to go east. Just like Ottomans go west, to counter threats from there. If Byzantium won't go east, it will allow for example Kaliphate to either diploannex or just ally the turks and use them as additional strenght if going against Byzantium. Only thing I would think that would be additional interest in going east would be to give a nice event from securing Anatolia.
Byakhiam said:
Exactly right. However, the MP crowd tends to be particularly finicky about taking non-culture, non-religion provinces, so I think that some extra incentive could be in order.
Heck, let me just be really honest about it -- I really want to buff up the Byzantium a bit. They've always been one of my favorite 'what ifs'. Would you be seriously offended if I posted a small handful of event prospects for your consideration, Byakhiam?
Medicine Man said:
True, so maybe some nice event would be in order?
Medicine Man said:
I don't mind, but so far I don't really think Byzantium currently as that weak, mostly due to little MP testing. In french MP Byzantium is doing great, in the MP led by Archduke Byzantium is doing bad, so from test group of two, we have varying results.
Or do you mean just AI boosts to make sure AI can handle Byzantium? I bet nerfing some values in it's AI, especially the values I know nothing about (noted in the file), could help.
Byakhiam said:
Now that I think about it carefully, most of my concerns regarding the Byzantium flow from their really piss-poor performance in SP games. Seeing the AI-Empire get carved up like a turkey (pun not intended) a couple of times can be a bit disheartening.
So perhaps it is mainly AI-events that could be useful -- although I think that a few helpful events in Asia Minor could be in order also. If you give me a few days, I'll put up some ideas in the Byzantium thread for your consideration. I have to take care of business with Granada and Genoa first however.
In brief, here are some of the ideas I am kicking around:
1) Early (1450-55) establishment of a naval base on Rhodes (+1 fort, +1 naval equipment manufactory, 1000 naval investment)
2) Reformation of the Auxilia (1469-85, +1 quality, 1500 land investment)
3) Incorporation of the Turkish Sipahi (1420-1820) if the Empire ownes Angora, Konya and Taurus (-1 stability, +1 aristocracy, +1 offence, +1-2 manpower in Angora, +1 manpower in Konya and Taurus)
4) Baselios Angelucca's Holy Mission -- a benevolent, jesuit-style mission into turkey (1500-1510, conversion in 1-2 provinces such as Angora and Sivas or Konya, +1 tax value in Angora, +500 infra/trade investment)
5) Restoration of the Antioch Patriarch if the Empire ownes Aleppo and Syria (1550-1600, Syria becomes syrian culture, Byzantium gains syrian culture, -2 centralization, +1 aristocracy)
#1 and #2 are definately things I would do to aid the AI, although I don't think they would be imbalancing for the human player either. #3-5 are all events rewarding Imperialism into Turkey. In particular, I think there should be an event like #5 -- Mad King James wrote an excellent Antioch patriarch event for the EEP I believe, one that is quite plausible.
Edit: I'll also look at the AI values for the Byzantium. I'm no expert, but perhaps I'll see something.
All approved par 1)
I would rather see establishment of military bases in Ionia and Rhodes (maybe even Corfu) for some gold (+fortresses, - cash a bit and + tax value and naval investment)
Ok?
I would rather see establishment of military bases in Ionia and Rhodes (maybe even Corfu) for some gold (+fortresses, - cash a bit and + tax value and naval investment)
Ok?
TheArchduke said:All approved par 1)
I would rather see establishment of military bases in Ionia and Rhodes (maybe even Corfu) for some gold (+fortresses, - cash a bit and + tax value and naval investment)
Ok?
Sounds quite reasonable and I can understand the desire to not hand out manufactories that early on.
The final decision on everything belongs to Byakhiam though. I'm just making suggestions. I'll write up the events and hand them off to him for inspection, unless he wants to take a crack at them himself -- or simply dislikes all of them.
1) Well, naval bases are nice. Fort +1 in Rhodes and Ionia, 1000 worth of Naval and tax boost by 1 in both, for a total cost of say 250 ducats?
2) That's nice one, though I think you should write the desc because I have no idea what is Auxilia.
3) This is one I dislike. The Empire currently is heavily Greek Empire and several events show the disdain of greek aristocracy towards different cultures.
4) That's rather neat event, though it could be more generalized, to have random targets for conversions. Most likely it will target Turkey as it's the most likely different religion area held by Byzantium, but having it random player could benefit from it even if he has converted the turks with missionaries earlier.
5) Byzantium has no core in Syria, should it be able to gain a core there with this event too?
2) That's nice one, though I think you should write the desc because I have no idea what is Auxilia.
3) This is one I dislike. The Empire currently is heavily Greek Empire and several events show the disdain of greek aristocracy towards different cultures.
4) That's rather neat event, though it could be more generalized, to have random targets for conversions. Most likely it will target Turkey as it's the most likely different religion area held by Byzantium, but having it random player could benefit from it even if he has converted the turks with missionaries earlier.
5) Byzantium has no core in Syria, should it be able to gain a core there with this event too?
I don't think you should have events that changes the culture of Syria, it's a rather large and popolous province after all. However, the Byzantines might have use of a core on Sivas, as they don't start with it IIRC.
Kaigon said:
Well, maybe just have it need Aleppo as trigger and then add syrian culture? That would solve the core problem of no core in Syria as well.
They can get core on Sivas with Recreation of Armenia if they go Kantakouzenoi route.
Hmm, maybe we make Syria syrian culture from the start.
Why is there a syrian culture in Eu2 anyway?
Sivas with the caucasian route makes sense.
Why is there a syrian culture in Eu2 anyway?
Sivas with the caucasian route makes sense.
If Syria would be syrian, then Syria could have both provs state culture with just syrian and make things more smooth there too.
The main reason for not making more provinces syrian culture is that Aleppo will turn turkish culture if owned by a muslim nation.TheArchduke said:
However, if you really want to make Syria syrian culture, add a trigger that Aleppo has to be syrian culture (no point in reviving a dead culture) and perhaps also either add a sleep command for the Aleppo goes turkish event or add another event that turns Syria back to arabic.
Both Aleppo and Syria are large provinces. Refusing to culture switch one of them on that basis, while culture switching the other heedless of it is a blatant double standard. Someone went to great pains to ensure that the Kaliphate wouldn't have to tolerate even a single non-culture province if they so choose, so we can do the Byzantium a few favors at least.
In fact, there is a lot better arguement to be made for making a large chunk of the Levant syrian than making *any* of it turkish. There is still significant syrian populations in those areas in modern day, despite persistant and ruthless arabization of the entire region.
What I would like to do and what I think would be best for the scenario, would be to make Aleppo, Syria and Lebanon all syrian culture from the outset. Remove all events that change the culture of these provinces and put in events that will give the Kaliphate and Byzantium syrian culture if they manage to own two of these provinces. We should give the local powers some reason to fight over these provinces rather than just dividing them neatly along culture lines. Only my opinion...
Edit: Our aberrated history in the region already supports making these provinces something other than arab anyhow. Perhaps part of the reason that the crusader states survived the middle ages is that they reached an accomodation with the Patriarch of Antioch?
In fact, there is a lot better arguement to be made for making a large chunk of the Levant syrian than making *any* of it turkish. There is still significant syrian populations in those areas in modern day, despite persistant and ruthless arabization of the entire region.
What I would like to do and what I think would be best for the scenario, would be to make Aleppo, Syria and Lebanon all syrian culture from the outset. Remove all events that change the culture of these provinces and put in events that will give the Kaliphate and Byzantium syrian culture if they manage to own two of these provinces. We should give the local powers some reason to fight over these provinces rather than just dividing them neatly along culture lines. Only my opinion...
Edit: Our aberrated history in the region already supports making these provinces something other than arab anyhow. Perhaps part of the reason that the crusader states survived the middle ages is that they reached an accomodation with the Patriarch of Antioch?
Medicine Man said:
Seconded, although Caliphate should have to pay up a notable amount to get syrian, since they already have enough going for them (I'd say they'd have to pay a lot, but since they are being downgraded to moslem tech I can live with less
)
1. Since this is aberration, historical correctness is really far from the best. Just because syrians managed to live there for 1000+ years of arab control doesn't mean they did in Aberration.
2. Making Syria syrian is an increase of syrian provinces by 100%. Making Aleppo turkish is an increase of 1/6 (~16,7%)
3. I've never found the Caliphate to be the behemut you're talking about. But don't let me stop you from changing something I can't see. (Which also means that I don't think they should be dropped to muslim tech).
2. Making Syria syrian is an increase of syrian provinces by 100%. Making Aleppo turkish is an increase of 1/6 (~16,7%)
3. I've never found the Caliphate to be the behemut you're talking about. But don't let me stop you from changing something I can't see. (Which also means that I don't think they should be dropped to muslim tech).
Byakhiam said:
Sounds about like what I was thinking.
Byakhiam said:2) That's nice one, though I think you should write the desc because I have no idea what is Auxilia.
The Auxilia were a unit used by the Western Roman Empire, so I probably screwed up my terminology. I'm not sure what the Eastern Empire equivalent was, or if there event was one. Near the end of the western empire, the auxilia were actually better troops than the legions, being composed of foreign cavalry units. While the legions were used primarly to garrison the frontiers of the empire, the auxilia were used to reinforce hotspots and fill the ranks of expeditionary forces.
I was thinking that the Eastern equivalent of the auxilia may be the Tagma, but I think that the Tagma were closer in function to the Turksh Ghazi.
Byakhiam said:
I didn't explain this one very well, so I can understand why you would dislike it. I wasn't proposing a cultural fushion of Turk and Greek, something that is very well represented in the Manoel Palaelogoi dynasty. Incorporation was a poor choice of words on my part.
What I had in mind was the usage of Turkish Sipahi as mercenary troops. The practice of using foreign soldiers as part of their military was a long standing tradition of the empire: rus, urgic and breton mercenaries filled the Emperor's Varangian Guard, and the Empire's cavalry units were staffed by large numbers of Alan, Khwarazim, and Armenian horsemen. I was thinking along the same lines for the Turks.
Byakhiam said:
Also a good idea. It depends on whether we wish to reward the Byzantium in general, or reward them for expanding eastward. Perhaps a combination of the two? Give them some random conversions if they expand eastward?
Byakhiam said:
Sure, we could give them shields on the area. We could do the same for the Kaliphate, if they don't have the shields already. As I noted above, what I would really like to do is make all of the area syrian from the outset and turn it into a coveted prize for all in the region.