changing great powers

[unmerged(734)]

Hi guys!

I've been reading this board for a while, and a lot of people have been talking about the Great Power status. In history, great power status was not permanent, and might change when curcumstances did. So what if the game were altered so that a country could gain or lose great power status depending on meeting certain criteria (i.e. being in the top ten for victory points, provinces, etc.). If they were already a great power, and after a while didn't meet any criteria, then they would lose Great Power status. Then the most qualified country would be put in the opening and given great power status. This would make it a definite advantage to have Great Power status, and realistically hard to lose/ get, but also flexible, so that we don't have any 1 province great powers hanging around and being a nuisance when they have stopped playing a major role in the game.

Just a thought.

 

[unmerged(281)]

I think this a great idea, but will probably have to wait til EU2.

------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon

 

[Fossa]

Why bother with great powers at all? The only thing that differs between great and minor nations is that you can't annex the great powers capital.

 

[unmerged(658)]

Yeah, it would be nice to have an option for playing all countries in EU2 or a patch for EU. If Paradox makes all nations playable and implements an annexation system something like this one http://www.europa-universalis.com/forums/Forum1/HTML/001211.html then the line between majors and minors will be destroyed.

 

[unmerged(734)]

Fossa: 'The only thing that differs between great and minor nations is that you can't annex the great powers capital.'

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't have the game and have just been reading the forums, but aren't there other advantages to being a great power, like getting missions, special events, and being immune to vassalization? Feedback would be appreciated.

BTW, you're right Gul, this probably would be too complicated to do in a patch, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Looking forward to EU AND EU2,

dboy

 

[Lubricus]

Majors are immune to vassalisation, but when it comes to objectives, any player-controlled country gets them. Then again, I guess you have to give your favourite minor nation major status in order to play it...

 

[unmerged(658)]

yes lubricus, but doesnt the AI for minor nations get missions, else it would fall waaayyy behind in the VP department. From what ive heard so far, missions dont seem that important, i plan to play without them so i test the VP's on my strategy, not on predefined objectives.

 

[Lubricus]

The objective system is a bit flawed. You get a lot of VPs for certain easy goals - like keeping the Venetians out of the Middle East for Turkey - and a lot less for virtually impossible ones. Last I checked, my VP total without the objective rewards was far greater than that of my strongest opponent, so I don't see the objectives as a way to win the game, simply as a sort of motivation and/or excuse to do certain things. Trade and warfare will give you all the VPs you need even without paying attention to the objective list. That is, if you play a strong nation. For less advantageous starting points, I guess earning those extra points might mean the difference between winning and losing the game.

 

[unmerged(703)]

At least in single player games it would be enough to only have the country you are playing as a Great Power. The game would be the same, but you can take any capitol.
And of course you can't be totally defeated ;-)

------------------
bmolsson
*Just passing by*

 

[unmerged(548)]

'The objective system is a bit flawed. You get a lot of VPs for certain easy goals - like keeping the Venetians out of the Middle East for Turkey -'

The objective system is NOT flawed. You simply get more points for stuff that are historically more important to your nation.
Switching VP off in the game means turning the game into a 'win by conquest alone' game.
In that case why not just play Civilization instead ?

'Trade and warfare will give you all the VPs you need even without paying attention to the objective list.'

Is this your experience with patch 1.07 ?
In that case powermongers still have it too easy IMO.

------------------
/ Stefan Huszics

 

[Lubricus]

I'm sorry to contradict you, but the VPs you get from an objective depends on its type (Keep X out of Y, conquer Z etc) rather than on historal accuracy. It just seems like the computer doesn't evaluate the objectives correctly in all cases.
My experieces are from the 1.05b patch, so I might be a bit out of touch.

 

[Mr.Grahn]

Originally posted by bmolsson:
At least in single player games it would be enough to only have the country you are playing as a Great Power. The game would be the same, but you can take any capitol.
And of course you can't be totally defeated ;-)

That was a very godd ide if you ask me and it would make the game much funnier becuase them you relly could conquer the world and get of those annoying thing that happend (I played as Sweden and conquer all of Poland but there is just one little province in the middle of my kingdom that i can´t conquer, The Poland Capitol).

I think that paradox should implant this as soon as possible.



------------------
Peace is just a prelude to war!

 

[unmerged(548)]

I'm sorry to contradict you, but the VPs you get from an objective depends on its type (Keep X out of Y, conquer Z etc) rather than on historal accuracy.

What I mean is that the historical accuaracy comes from 'conquer Z' where Z for France for instance is Artois and not a random province in say Russia.


------------------
/ Stefan Huszics

 

[Lubricus]

Yes, but the province you're asked to conquer becomes less historically accurate the longer you play. In my GC as France, I ended up with objectives like 'conquer Zacatecas' because all the realistic choices had already been made. The game expects you to conquer at first national provinces, and secondly wealthy provinces adjacent to your empire - regardless of what happened in real history.

 

[Johan]

Actually there are a lot of weighted historical missions for the countries.

/Johan

 

[unmerged(628)]

Is there a way to display VP's by source so you could tell which VP's can from conquest, which came from economic means, and which came from Missions? This would allow players to tweak the VP's manually by say doubling the mission VP value for all players to make them of more consequence.

 

[Lubricus]

Yes, Ice Sickle, when you finish a game, the VP info is quite extensive and broken into categories. Much like in Age of Empires.