When will you stop thinking they are just random punishments for taking land? Its how the real world works. Its how history works. No empire ever has managed to conquer the whole world or the government of the nation become easier as they get more and more massive. NEVER EVER. Quite the opposite. They all collapse. Anything else is fantasy. What game mechanics do I have in mind? There are plenty already. They just need to stop nerfing them to nonexistent.
Still no self-consistent criteria.
So when are you gonna start reading my posts properly? I already elaborated on that
It is almost 1am here so I'll hit the hay soon. We'll continue tomorrow if needed
I don't see the point, unless your stance on not wanting to play ball in the argumentative sense and make a self-consistent case changes. You plainly stated that you didn't feel that it is necessary, which I consider objectively incorrect. That impasse' won't change most likely.
By increasingly pretending to be a competitive game it has sacrificed immersion and depth. It's also sad to see the vitriolic community responses anytime someone suggests that maybe conquering all of Europe as France by the year 1800 should be a real challenge.
This is a flagrantly disingenuous representation of the arguments made in this thread so far.
Also, immersion still isn't > immersion.
Latecomer to the discussion. Here's just my two cents. If I would give the criteria to what new mechanics should be implemented, my take would be everything historical should be implemented, except for the following:
1. It's not fun. (e.g. the massive depopulation of Americas)
2. It's impossible due to engine restrictions. (e.g. massive overhauls, something that breaks performance)
I promise you, if you truly held to this you'd break the game. Things like war score, coalitions, colonial range, and more are not engine limitations. There was nothing stopping a nation in history from taking swaths of territory >> what war score allows for most of the game, 15 year truces virtually never happened, and the coring threshold is arbitrary. You can change all of these and more with simple define tweaks, and it will break how the game plays soundly.
It is basically impossible to create game incentives inconsistent with historical incentives then turn around and claim the decision-makers should make the same choices under obviously different scenarios/rules. Doing that instantly nose-dives the credibility of historical-based reasoning, because historical leaders made their choices for reasons that now don't exist.
The current rebel mechanic spawns only rebel stacks that are pretty much always inferior to your troops, and is simply too easy to deal with, and also too easy to avoid in the first place.
Try going to 400% OE without 80% CCR or more and tell me the rebels are easy to deal with. Even if you have 5000 development.
Expert players don't do that, and rebels are the dominating reason why they don't.
Because your statement is not true. People still refer to this as a GSG, despite it being right now a 4x in all but name. On some level, we all acknowledge that this is a distortion of what the game should be. If the purpose behind the game was to conquer the world, it would simply be called a historically themed 4x, not unlike a renaissance themed Civ game, and this entire thread would be pointless. But that's not the case.
Lead designer is on record saying WC should be possible to a top % of players, and the mechanics/patch changes 1.0 until now are consistent with it being intentionally possible. Present achievements reflect an approximation of that intent.
The odd part is the arguments that the game is somehow supposed to be something it isn't, and shouldn't be something it is, despite the evidence otherwise.
