Changes to Ideas Groups in new DLC

[Beagá]

AE for Discovery doesn´t make any difference in this version.

 

[TheDecider]

"Offensive: -10% recruitment time"
Does reduced recruitment time have any hidden actual useful bonus? Like improving reinforcement rate similar to how reduced regiment costs is affecting unit maintenance?

 

[Morgan Wight]

Subject forcelimits boosts the amount of forcelimits you get from your vassals and CNs, not their own forcelimits.

Ah, I see, that's considerably better. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[blackchoas]

But the free cb how is it justifiable to spend 1200 points when you can just make a claim? The stability events I guess are nice

Well unless I'm wrong the Religion CB locks the target as the war leader, I don't know the stats on cost reduction for religion vs conquest but I'm sure they are decent in favor of religion.

Although that is a fair point, that we don't know what events come with the new idea groups which could make them better or worse. I mean if Humanism comes with some pretty bad events like stab hits and random revolt risk due to cultural issues being addressed improperly people might not want to use it so much

 

[CzokletMuss]

"Offensive: -10% recruitment time"
Does reduced recruitment time have any hidden actual useful bonus? Like improving reinforcement rate similar to how reduced regiment costs is affecting unit maintenance?

It's useless - instead of getting your unit in 50 days you get it in 45 days. Yeah, almost as good as bonuses to manpower, core cost, discipline etc. Think about it as "no bonus" or consider the next idea worth not 400 MIL but 800 MIL because that's how it is in practice.

 

[Chimerae]

Looks good! Thank you Paradox!

 

[Chevaresqye]

Subject forcelimits boosts the amount of forcelimits you get from your vassals and CNs, not their own forcelimits.

Could you elaborate "-50% accepted culture threshold". Does it affect both gaining and losing accepted culture threshold, or just one of them?

 

[Wizzington]

Could you elaborate "-50% accepted culture threshold". Does it affect both gaining and losing accepted culture threshold, or just one of them?

Both.

 

[Morgan Wight]

AE for Discovery doesn´t make any difference in this version.

Which version and how so?

 

[Brainblow]

It changes alot, I mean nations now have an actual choice between converting everything and accepting everything. The end result is arguably the same as we have a united nation all the same but their is a clear difference between Spain who drove out Muslims and Berbers from their nations and Ottomans who largely allowed the Greeks and Orthodox people to live in their lands

I think it would be WONDERFUL if AI Ottomans chose Humanism. Greece almost always being converted completely to Islam has always left a bad taste with me, as it is not historically accurate at all. The system the Ottomans had with the Greek Christians was a very interesting historical point.
Then again, India has a similar problem with Hindu provinces being easily converted.

I also think there is a choice in how you go about spending your time and resources now with the option of religious or united.

Both.

So we can in theory have 15 Accepted cultures now then?

 

[HansBaer]

Sounds nice. Gives more choices to the player
No more dip / explo / offensive /adm every damn game
Ok, adm. is still a given, by far the most useful idea group since 1.6. -10% adm tech cost makes it even better

 

[Baalshazar]

I wonder if this will affect anyone else in the world.

 

[Brainblow]

I always thought ADM to be pretty unappealing. Core-Cost reduction aside, I found almost every other perk to be useless with most nations. The -10%ADM tech cost changes that, though. Now it's super appealing for an Italy game(-50% Core cost with reduced ADM costs)
...
Damn, with Humanism and Influence Ideas as well, Italy might be the best nation for conquest in Europe from now on.
Please make The Roman Empire a formable nation!

 

[Mamluke]

10% cheaper adm tech in administrative?!?

OMG, if it was a really fav before, its almost no brainer now. I mean:

cheaper cores 25%; cheaper mercenaries and 10% adm tech?! the other bonus could be non existent and it would still be a great idea!

how can anyone say no to this?

BTW, I didn't really like that one before. I think most people like it bc of cheaper cores and the mercs, (can really come in handy when Manpower is not enough

 

[Ivashanko]

This is something I think Veritas et Fortitudo did wrong, because it really made no sense that taking Quantity's first idea instantly made your troops fight worse, nor did it make sense that taking Quality's first idea instantly made you have a smaller available amount of men to fight.

What? Of course that makes sense. If you are accepting only men who could preform up to a certain standard the amount of men available while go down while the quality of their fighting ability goes up- and vice-versa. And since missionaries in this game signify state-lead conversions only (events probably handle non-state led conversions), the adoption of humanism means that one effective weapon against heresy- compulsion, either led by weaponry or by only allowing those of a certain faith to advance up the economic or social ladder- is weakened considerably. This doesn't mean that conversion is impossible (made evident by the many conversions that took place in areas where such a conversion was detrimental to the person, such as converting to Christianity in Rome or much of the Islamic World today), but it does make missionary action less effective.

 

[V1ribus]

Damn, with Humanism and Influence Ideas as well, Italy might be the best nation for conquest in Europe from now on.

I would have said it already is the best nation to conquer Europe with, Humanism will just augment that ability. ATM you can easily reach -85% coring cost in the late game. The -10% idea cost in Humanism is going to be the killer blow dealt by Italy; just think about what happens if a Protestant Savoy/Milan takes Humanism, -30% idea cost! When your ideas cost so damn little (280 per idea) you can leap ahead in tech with ease; with the amount of spare points/cash you'll have you can go for an 'All roads lead to Rome' game and comfortably build road networks in all provinces.

 

[Freudia]

What? Of course that makes sense. If you are accepting only men who could preform up to a certain standard the amount of men available while go down while the quality of their fighting ability goes up- and vice-versa. And since missionaries in this game signify state-lead conversions only (events probably handle non-state led conversions), the adoption of humanism means that one effective weapon against heresy- compulsion, either led by weaponry or by only allowing those of a certain faith to advance up the economic or social ladder- is weakened considerably. This doesn't mean that conversion is impossible (made evident by the many conversions that took place in areas where such a conversion was detrimental to the person, such as converting to Christianity in Rome or much of the Islamic World today), but it does make missionary action less effective.

The quality of men is derived from the quality of their training. It is assumed that with the quality group they are being trained better (which is why there's all those bonuses to combat abilities and the discipline bonus at the end). Taking quality doesn't suddenly mean you have less men to use, it means that you have the same amount of men but they're being trained better/more efficiently. Conversely, taking quantity means you have more men available that are being trained to the same standard as they were before you took quantity. Taking quantity doesn't suddenly make your men fight worse, it makes them fight on the same ability as before, you just have more of them.

The point about missionaries mainly just shows that it's abstracted poorly, then, as missionaries are tooltipped as spreading the faith, not compulsory conversion and eradication of resistance. I've always read it as missionaries are spreading the faith through tireless preaching, not mass genocide, basically. I'm not sure if that means I read it wrong, though.

 

[Mauer]

"Offensive: -10% recruitment time"
Does reduced recruitment time have any hidden actual useful bonus? Like improving reinforcement rate similar to how reduced regiment costs is affecting unit maintenance?

Recruitment time doesn't seem like a big bonus considering most of the time you try to stay around your forcelimit anyway, and if you get stackwiped good luck trying to train regiments while getting carpet sieged. Might be useful with mercenaries but not much.

 

[Ivashanko]

The quality of men is derived from the quality of their training. It is assumed that with the quality group they are being trained better (which is why there's all those bonuses to combat abilities and the discipline bonus at the end). Taking quality doesn't suddenly mean you have less men to use, it means that you have the same amount of men but they're being trained better/more efficiently. Conversely, taking quantity means you have more men available that are being trained to the same standard as they were before you took quantity. Taking quantity doesn't suddenly make your men fight worse, it makes them fight on the same ability as before, you just have more of them.

The point about missionaries mainly just shows that it's abstracted poorly, then, as missionaries are tooltipped as spreading the faith, not compulsory conversion and eradication of resistance. I've always read it as missionaries are spreading the faith through tireless preaching, not mass genocide, basically. I'm not sure if that means I read it wrong, though.

Now, arguably increasing training on its own would produce a more efficient army without necessarily bringing down the number of troops who could fight (at least in the time period in question)- though in reality it would also mean a substantial increase in the cost per person. But usually increasing an armies quality does not just mean increasing the quality of the training. It also means running quality control on the men themselves, to see if they are up to the task of fighting in a professional or semi-professional army. Since there will be people who can not fight in that style, the number of men available might go down.

That is the only questionable example. Increasing the number of men who can fight will always decrease their overall quality- even today that is true, and it was probably much more true during the time period in question. No only is the government drudging up men who wouldn't normally be available for one reason or another, but the infrastructure of the army would take a while to upgrade itself to properly sort out the increased number of men. If the men received the same training as before (which would take a while to implement) then the total cost of the army should rise and the amount of food produced (or, in the abstract, 'taxes') would go down since there were less men minding the fields.

And no one mentioned anything as 'mass genocide'. Religions typically did not spread on a mass scale through overt violence, contrary to popular memory. More subtle forms of compulsion, however, were commonly used, and adopting humanism would make some of those tools impossible to utilize.

TL;DR version: Quality control of men is a huge part of increasing the quality of training meaning their would be less to use, increasing the number of men who fight would mean that men who weren't formerly available for service for some reason or another were being pressed into action, and taking away forms of missionary actions via humanism means that state-led conversions would be less likely to succeed.

 

[Freudia]

Now, arguably increasing training on its own would produce a more efficient army without necessarily bringing down the number of troops who could fight (at least in the time period in question)- though in reality it would also mean a substantial increase in the cost per person. But usually increasing an armies quality does not just mean increasing the quality of the training. It also means running quality control on the men themselves, to see if they are up to the task of fighting in a professional or semi-professional army. Since there will be people who can not fight in that style, the number of men available might go down.

That is the only questionable example. Increasing the number of men who can fight will always decrease their overall quality- even today that is true, and it was probably much more true during the time period in question. No only is the government drudging up men who wouldn't normally be available for one reason or another, but the infrastructure of the army would take a while to upgrade itself to properly sort out the increased number of men. If the men received the same training as before (which would take a while to implement) then the total cost of the army should rise and the amount of food produced (or, in the abstract, 'taxes') would go down since there were less men minding the fields.

And no one mentioned anything as 'mass genocide'. Religions typically did not spread on a mass scale through overt violence, contrary to popular memory. More subtle forms of compulsion, however, were commonly used, and adopting humanism would make some of those tools impossible to utilize.

TL;DR version: Quality control of men is a huge part of increasing the quality of training meaning their would be less to use, increasing the number of men who fight would mean that men who weren't formerly available for service for some reason or another were being pressed into action, and taking away forms of missionary actions via humanism means that state-led conversions would be less likely to succeed.

I will concede on every point. Suppose though, that penalties for taking quantity (ie your men now fight worse than normal) is implemented. Does it make for good gameplay? I'm still of the opinion that the penalty for taking an idea group should be the opportunity cost of taking something else instead. If you take Humanism, your missionaries should convert worse than someone with religious NOT because Humanism takes away some state-led conversion tools but because religious makes missionaries better to convert. A person who takes quality will have troops that fight better than someone with quantity, but the person with quantity should have more NOT because quality has inbuilt manpower pool penalties but because quantity just gives manpower bonuses.

This method feels a lot less forced to me, which is why I prefer it. Having an inbuilt penalty just for taking an idea group makes me not want to bother with taking it if I can help it, regardless of what it is. Why take Quality and lower my manpower pool to make my guys fight better if I can take Offensive and mostly do the same thing through having better generals without lowering my manpower?