How can you save scum an achievement that has to be in Ironman mode?
Die please die too hard?
- Thread starter anomalacaris
- Start date
-
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.
In CK1, I once had three consecutive "country cousins" all of whom had straight 0's as stats.
Yes. I just got that achievement after allowing a liberty revolution to succeed to get the 3-6-6 ruler, then re-elected him twice to 5-6-6.
It happened almost naturally to me. Here's the revolution and they are pushing for the 3-6-6 ruler. So that revolution makes sense. I allowed it to happen and switched to republic.
Now I get the option to re-elect the demigod ruler. It's definitely a much better option than when you re-elect your 1-1-4 ruler...
You know what I don't like in EU4 achievements?
Many of them are assigned to typical 'boring major power 1444 historical nations': Spain, Portugal, France, England, Muscovy, Ottomans - while I have nothing against Super Difficult Achievements (like FORM PERSIA AS 2 PROVINCE TABARESTAN
) I really don't like tedious achivements and requiring you to spend 30h*6 nations to get 6 achievements - without guarantee you will get them as this is Ironman - is a bit brutal for completionists like me . The same is for Civilization 5 which has 43 nations and there is one achievement for winning as every one of them.
<I also think achievements relying on pure luck are simply pointless and annoying>
Still, in Civ5 I have 77% of achievements because a lot of them encourage diversified gameplay or doing cool stuff + they aren't as restrictive as EU4 ones - I don't think I will have more than 17% in EU4 as unability to get achievements without Ironman makes normal games more fun for me, not to mention mods.
I am not going to play as particular country for 30 hours - without mods, with lucky nations I dislike as they limite unpredictability, without regular fun coming from console 'fog of war and terra incognita off and look what's happening in the world' and my favourit settings - just to get one very particular steam icon.
Personally I would design more:
- achievements which require doing something cool without restriction of one particular nation
- achievements for specific areas of the world, encouraging trying ROTW
- easter egg or pure fun achievements instead of X variations of 'conquer everything on your way as nation Y to get achievement icon Z'
etc.
Many of them are assigned to typical 'boring major power 1444 historical nations': Spain, Portugal, France, England, Muscovy, Ottomans - while I have nothing against Super Difficult Achievements (like FORM PERSIA AS 2 PROVINCE TABARESTAN
) I really don't like tedious achivements and requiring you to spend 30h*6 nations to get 6 achievements - without guarantee you will get them as this is Ironman - is a bit brutal for completionists like me . The same is for Civilization 5 which has 43 nations and there is one achievement for winning as every one of them. <I also think achievements relying on pure luck are simply pointless and annoying>
Still, in Civ5 I have 77% of achievements because a lot of them encourage diversified gameplay or doing cool stuff + they aren't as restrictive as EU4 ones - I don't think I will have more than 17% in EU4 as unability to get achievements without Ironman makes normal games more fun for me, not to mention mods.
I am not going to play as particular country for 30 hours - without mods, with lucky nations I dislike as they limite unpredictability, without regular fun coming from console 'fog of war and terra incognita off and look what's happening in the world' and my favourit settings - just to get one very particular steam icon.
Personally I would design more:
- achievements which require doing something cool without restriction of one particular nation
- achievements for specific areas of the world, encouraging trying ROTW
- easter egg or pure fun achievements instead of X variations of 'conquer everything on your way as nation Y to get achievement icon Z'
etc.
It's all about luck doesn't actually require luck... Just find a small stack with a general that you can overwhelm with a leaderless large stack. Should be even easier in 1.8.
With overwhelming ease to the point of trivializing the credibility of ironman.
You can also get it by using an allied leader. I got mine when I sent a leaderless stack to support a vassal or ally against France.
Listen when you design achievements the largely should be one of three things, challenging, simple or funny
Challenging is something like The Great Khan, Basileus or The Three Mountains, they are tough, you need to go out of your way to do them and the probably take a bit of luck
Simple is something while kinda boring is nice because it rewards the player for doing something even if its rather easy, I would argue most nation forming achievements fall into this, as well as a wide range of nation specific achievements that don't require more than 100 years to complete
and finally Funny achievements are there because they are funny, this sometimes leads to requirements that are difficult to achieve because they are largely if not entirely luck based but that doesn't actually matter because the achievements are meant as jokes, examples of this include Die Please Die, Princess in this Castle, Electable!
I can see how for a completest the last group can be annoying as they seem 100% luck based but frankly I think when you compare the time needed to complete one of those plus the luck needed compared to some of the Challenging achievements, I think the Challenging achievements take both more time and more luck to complete
Challenging is something like The Great Khan, Basileus or The Three Mountains, they are tough, you need to go out of your way to do them and the probably take a bit of luck
Simple is something while kinda boring is nice because it rewards the player for doing something even if its rather easy, I would argue most nation forming achievements fall into this, as well as a wide range of nation specific achievements that don't require more than 100 years to complete
and finally Funny achievements are there because they are funny, this sometimes leads to requirements that are difficult to achieve because they are largely if not entirely luck based but that doesn't actually matter because the achievements are meant as jokes, examples of this include Die Please Die, Princess in this Castle, Electable!
I can see how for a completest the last group can be annoying as they seem 100% luck based but frankly I think when you compare the time needed to complete one of those plus the luck needed compared to some of the Challenging achievements, I think the Challenging achievements take both more time and more luck to complete
You're talking about killing the process right? Does that work on ruler deaths? The game doesn't immediately auto save like on wardecs?
Cyprus starts with a 1-0-0 female heir. If you're very (un)lucky she could live to be 80
You know what I don't like in EU4 achievements?
Many of them are assigned to typical 'boring major power 1444 historical nations': Spain, Portugal, France, England, Muscovy, Ottomans - while I have nothing against Super Difficult Achievements (like FORM PERSIA AS 2 PROVINCE TABARESTAN
<I also think achievements relying on pure luck are simply pointless and annoying>
Still, in Civ5 I have 77% of achievements because a lot of them encourage diversified gameplay or doing cool stuff + they aren't as restrictive as EU4 ones - I don't think I will have more than 17% in EU4 as unability to get achievements without Ironman makes normal games more fun for me, not to mention mods.
I am not going to play as particular country for 30 hours - without mods, with lucky nations I dislike as they limite unpredictability, without regular fun coming from console 'fog of war and terra incognita off and look what's happening in the world' and my favourit settings - just to get one very particular steam icon.
Personally I would design more:
- achievements which require doing something cool without restriction of one particular nation
- achievements for specific areas of the world, encouraging trying ROTW
- easter egg or pure fun achievements instead of X variations of 'conquer everything on your way as nation Y to get achievement icon Z'
etc.
I totally agree. Achievements define your playthrough in most cases. Spend those 30 hours, get 1 achievement.
It doesn't encourage diverse gameplay at all. I'd much prefer simpler, cooler achievements that focus on different parts of the world than doing something kind of op with a major power.
And really, luck achievements based on luck is simply a terrible design that only serves to frustrate players.
It does not.
And even if it did, there's another way too. I'd rather not propagate exact methodology though. Suffice it to say that ironman games posted are no more credible than non-ironman; if it looks possible without console commands, then it's something that is equally scummable either way.
9/90 is not so hugely different from 4/90, so no, not inaccuracy much. Even so, I'd take issue with your classification of several of those as "pure luck" (which the guy I responded to actually said, not, N.B., "an element of luck"). Especially Jihad and Three Mountains—even if you need early luck to get the setup right, it's hardly the case that any unskilled buffoon can take it from there and be successful. And it's a slippery slope; you could group any number of achievements as "luck-based" simply because the game mechanics themselves are so dependent on random elements. It's hard to think of a single mechanic that doesn't involve some RNG either to set it up or to maximize the reward.
Anyway, the important point, not subject to hair-splitting, stands: a token number of luck-based achievements, in particular tongue-in-cheek in-jokes like "Die please die", is totally appropriate. (Arguing from the etymology of "achieve" is rhetorical smoke and mirrors, by the way.)
I was thinking in terms of "you absolutely need at least a little luck to have a reasonable chance of getting this without being killed outright". I don't know about 1.8, but in 1.7 if Mamluks started domineering and the other surrounding states were rival/hostile you had no outs as Najd, you just died.
The vast majority of achievements in the game lack that distinction, as in you're more likely to be hit by a meteor twice in a row than having it become completely impossible to get the achievement on an arbitrary game start due to luck (at least barring the obvious annoyances like ironman breaking).
What purpose do the actual, 100% luck-based achievements serve though? This isn't a matter of pure semantics; typically they're called "achievements" and not "things that happened while playing" for a reason.
Too hard???
1) Choose one of the few existing countries/rulers that match the criteria suggested in this thread.
2) Ally France or someone big (to discourage war declarations against you).
3) Set speed to 5 and walk away.
4) Check back in 30 minutes for achievement.
5) Win? If not go back to (1).
1) Choose one of the few existing countries/rulers that match the criteria suggested in this thread.
2) Ally France or someone big (to discourage war declarations against you).
3) Set speed to 5 and walk away.
4) Check back in 30 minutes for achievement.
5) Win? If not go back to (1).
So that's "necessary but not sufficient". You can't rely on luck to actually get the achievement; it requires a very high level of skill even to set yourself up not to die even with good luck. I think it's pretty clear that 80–85 of the 90 achievements are pretty far on the opposite end of the "is luck a sufficient condition?" spectrum from "Die Please Die".
What I said above applies to this as well. Your point about the meaning of "achievement" is in fact another argument against classing "Three Mountains" and "Die Please Die" together vis-à-vis luck; I hope you wouldn't claim that someone who completed 3M is going to feel like they haven't really achieved anything, whereas someone who got "Die Please Die" very well might.
Whimsy, of course. That may seem flippant, but it is my sincere and cogent response.
Anyway, you can't seriously claim the word "achievment" is not used in the way it is, in fact, used. A huge proportion of steam achievements in games of all genres are, in fact, "things that happened", and this has been the case for years. This always been as contentious as it is in this thread, but it's also firmly established usage by now.
That usage is not universal and neither is it accurate. We have perfectly good terminology for things like that, I don't see why there is insistence on simply using the wrong term over and over again until people see it as the right term when there already exists a term for it.
GH pretender with 6/6/6 did it for me. hordes for the win
on topic - yeah, its a luck based achievement. theres a lot of others as has been pointed out...I think what makes this one annoying is that its a *bad* achievement, as in, you need something to happen that you don't want to happen.
I haven't seen many complaints about the difficulty/randomess of divine ruler or the PU one, and I think thats at least partially because it is something you strive to get anyways during the game, but nobody thinks "omg yeah a 1/0/1 ruler, I hope he lives forever".