Conflicting Idea Groups

[Opus]

This is way too skewed against military idea sets. The player should not be punished for picking multiple military sets. Where is the diplomatic conflict pair? Administrative? The sets already open you up to additional bad events. The player does not need further punishment beyond already suffering from BOTH sets of potential mishaps.

There is not really a cconflict in other ideagroups, except for Innovative/Religious. At the minimum qual/quant combo should be really expensive in upkeep. Current system is just... weird.

And I would agree that a couple of events really needs to be rrethinked. Some events are just pure bad in their design (though not necessarly the events themselfs)

 

[Stategem161803]

There is not really a cconflict in other ideagroups, except for Innovative/Religious. At the minimum qual/quant combo should be really expensive in upkeep. Current system is just... weird.

And I would agree that a couple of events really needs to be rrethinked. Some events are just pure bad in their design (though not necessarly the events themselfs)

Agreed. I think innovative is supposed to cancel the witchcraft act, but in every game I take innovative and religious, embrace the enlightenment, and pass an anti-witch act. It just doesn't make sense.

My favorite one is with aristocratic and plutocracy you can have BOTH serfdom AND abolished serfdom. Lol

 

[Xara]

These specific conflict resolution events should only fire once anyways.

I do NOT want discipline boost for -1 stability. I don't want -stability from anything, ever. If it actually only happened once, fine.

 

[Stategem161803]

I do NOT want discipline boost for -1 stability. I don't want -stability from anything, ever. If it actually only happened once, fine.

So take the -prestige option. I think all -stab events should have an alternative that does not decrease stability. You really should rethink your irrational fear of -stability though. Stability is just a number. Early game, yes, I avoid -stab like the plague, but mid and late game with religious, Econ, and innovative "great man" events combined with stab cost reduction I stop caring about stability.

Trucebreak for the WIN!

 

[British Rage]

Why not create events about the conflicting ideas tied into having a low army tradition?

If you view army tradition as partly being how well your officers follow the principles of your armed forces, then at low army tradition there could be an event discussing how new officers are finding it difficult to combine both offensive/defensive or quality/quantity ideas into their exercises

You could then have to choose one idea over the other, loosing some bonuses associated with the idea you didn't choose for a few years, but gaining army tradition to represent that the officers have less to focus on at once

 

[Stategem161803]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Xara]

There's nothing irrational about it. I can win a war without a discipline boost. I can't generate admin points and tax income out of thin air.

 

[Stategem161803]

There's nothing irrational about it. I can win a war without a discipline boost. I can't generate admin points and tax income out of thin air.

Sure, but you said no -stab for anything ever. This smells of phobia to me. Sometimes -stability is the better choice. As long as you have a choice, it's a good event. I would agree that -stability or -stability is rather silly.

 

[sinkingmist]

The last thing this game needs is even more random events associated with hidden variables you only know about through trawling through the files (or having someone else trawling through the files for you).

I have however thought that the ideas from say, Quality, should have a stronger bonus but also have penalties associated with it (e.g. -manpower, -forcelimits).
If you take only one, then you really have a small high quality army, or a large low quality army.
If you take both, you have an army not quite as large as a full quantity army who fights not quite as well as a full quality army, but is better than your normal army (because you did spend 2 entire idea trees).

 

[Stategem161803]

The last thing this game needs is even more random events associated with hidden variables you only know about through trawling through the files (or having someone else trawling through the files for you).

I have however thought that the ideas from say, Quality, should have a stronger bonus but also have penalties associated with it (e.g. -manpower, -forcelimits).
If you take only one, then you really have a small high quality army, or a large low quality army.
If you take both, you have an army not quite as large as a full quantity army who fights not quite as well as a full quality army, but is better than your normal army (because you did spend 2 entire idea trees).

Fair enough. I just have this incessant need for as many aspects of the game to make sense as possible. If it makes sense, then cool. I don't agree that the events are a bad idea. I do agree that their existence and the consequences of taking different idea groups should be explained and be more transparent.

Random events are how the world works.

Remodeling your house?

"We discovered a crack in your foundations while repairing your air conditioning"
-1 stability, -.1 years of income

What does it say that I think of things like this in my everyday life? Lol.

As long as the game stays fun, random events make it feel real and keep me on my toes. I like this myself.

 

[1alexey]

The last thing this game needs is even more random events associated with hidden variables you only know about through trawling through the files (or having someone else trawling through the files for you).

I have however thought that the ideas from say, Quality, should have a stronger bonus but also have penalties associated with it (e.g. -manpower, -forcelimits).
If you take only one, then you really have a small high quality army, or a large low quality army.
If you take both, you have an army not quite as large as a full quantity army who fights not quite as well as a full quality army, but is better than your normal army (because you did spend 2 entire idea trees).

NIs are not free, you spend important resource, MP to buy them. Each NI line cost 400*7=2800 points, or 280 buildings. Consider that 280 barracks or 280 temples or 47 full building lines. Or 5 tech levels.

Nis should be flat out bonuses, since almost everything else you buy for MPs are bonuses.

 

[lukesilveira]

I agree that some ideas need some kind of bad "synergy" with others, but we don't need more events. Seriously.

Also, as some people said, quali/quanti could perhaps make an army more expensive, defensive/offensive could have a malus in % of their bonuses, but pluto/aristocracy combo shouldn't even be possible. Either you choose the bourgeois or the nobility (or none at all, but pick one at max) as their ideas aren't compatible.

 

[sinkingmist]

NIs are not free, you spend important resource, MP to buy them. Each NI line cost 400*7=2800 points, or 280 buildings. Consider that 280 barracks or 280 temples or 47 full building lines. Or 5 tech levels.

Nis should be flat out bonuses, since almost everything else you buy for MPs are bonuses.

Nobody said keep bonuses as they are and tack penalties on it.
You can increase the bonuses to be even more powerful, and then add some penalties. Net effect, they should be of same value as now, except it just specialises you more than it does now.

 

[1alexey]

Nobody said keep bonuses as they are and tack penalties on it.
You can increase the bonuses to be even more powerful, and then add some penalties. Net effect, they should be of same value as now, except it just specialises you more than it does now.

You may not know, but the game already has real problem of modifier stacking. It is balanced when the difference in modifiers small, almost nothing scales linearly. Especially the troop power modifiers and manpower do not stack the same way.
It is already next to impossible to balance the 100 discipline vs 160 discipline(you will gererally need odds so overwhelming to win, it is not even funny), and increasing the size of modifiers would make it even worse.
It is another balancing nightmare, and for what purpose exactly?

 

[Opus]

280 lvl 1 buildings also costs 14 000 gold. Thats not entierly unimportant when one wish to compare.

 

[Stategem161803]

I seem to be the only one who actually likes events. I don't have a problem with the other balance suggestions above, but what can I say? I like the EU4 events.

What's wrong with more events people? Is it just that you don't like events that offer temporary modifiers for stab hits, -prestige, etc. or do you just not like events in general as a game mechanic?

 

[Keioel]

I don't get the aversion to events either. I also agree that taking defensive and offensive SHOULD create some sort of tension in your military, although I like the idea of attaching it to your army and navy tradition.

 

[brifbates]

I don't get the aversion to events either. I also agree that taking defensive and offensive SHOULD create some sort of tension in your military, although I like the idea of attaching it to your army and navy tradition.

To be honest, IMO there really are only two conflicting groups other than the cheesing of aristo/pluto to get both (which should get heavily hammered IMO). Offensive/defensive and religious/innovative are actually heavily contradictory to the extent I could see some negatives from having both although I would lean towards permanent modifiers rather than more events. For example, taking offensive could reduce the defensiveness bonus for defensive by half or something like that. Not necessarily huge penalties, but enough to demonstrate that there is some tension or loss due to trying to pull in opposite directions at the same time.

 

[Talq]

As others have said, you are merely asserting certain idea groups are conflicting, in part through overlaying the EU3 sliders on the idea groups. They don't necessarily conflict. Certainly both France and Prussia would be the end of the period have military establishments that were both comparatively large (compared to population) and well equipped.

Remember taking an idea group isn't simply emphasizing one military idea over another, its emphasizing one set of military ideas over everything else.