- Oct 16, 2014
Will we be able to delete vassal forts? Or are vassals going to continue to be condemned to spirals of bankruptcy?
I suppose it's part of the price you pay for them having autonomy (to do something stupid). You could pay for the forts yourself through subsidies. I usually do this to incentivise colonies spreading out, which they won't do until they have some spare cash. A few ducats a month can go a long way.Will we be able to delete vassal forts? Or are vassals going to continue to be condemned to spirals of bankruptcy?
The problem is not that vassals proactively build forts (and I can't remember the last time I saw that happen).I suppose it's part of the price you pay for them having autonomy (to do something stupid). You could pay for the forts yourself through subsidies. I usually do this to incentivise colonies spreading out, which they won't do until they have some spare cash. A few ducats a month can go a long way.
I don't agree or disagree. I was just suggesting a way to handle it, which is what I do, with things being as they are. Ideally the autonomy they get as vassals would come with some basic fort planning by the AI. Given that that's not the case either allowing the player to intervene or not would be partially justified.The problem is not that vassals proactively build forts (and I can't remember the last time I saw that happen).
The problem is that a vassal that starts small, but grows via conquest, can suddenly have forts in 1/3+ of its provinces, and/or in completely unstrategic provinces. I'm happy to have a vassal with a capital fort, or forts in key chokepoints. But especially when they absorb OPMs that had capital forts, it gets out of control very quickly and leads to a lot of contiguous forts that offer little strategic value.
Basically if we can delete our own forts we should be able to delete vassal forts. If you disagree, show me how the value of *disallowing* vassal fort deletion exceeds the value of *allowing* vassal fort deletion. I don't see it.
AIs, in general, should demolish excess forts that they can't afford; over-forting is not exclusively a vassal problem.Basically if we can delete our own forts we should be able to delete vassal forts. If you disagree, show me how the value of *disallowing* vassal fort deletion exceeds the value of *allowing* vassal fort deletion. I don't see it.
First of all, there are no Oranges here, you draw a false distinction. If the mechanics of the game are historical, ahistorical results may be possible. However, historically impossible results CANNOT be accomplished through historical mechanics. If the games mechanics concerning logistics, ethnicity, terrain, religion, and authority were even close to realistic, every single country player who managed to get close to controlling the world would watch the country inevitably collapse and fall apart. Of course, these kinds of ahistorical mechanics don't bother you because you enjoy the result.I am excessively annoyed at the denial of the validity of arguments based on historical accuracy, in a game who literally describes itself in the official page as "Rule your nation through the centuries, with unparalleled freedom, depth and historical accuracy"
Then point out the historical innacuracies of those people's views instead of vaguely implying you know better.
ahistorical results are completely different from ahistorical mechanics.
Its different to use realistic and historical mechanics to achieve an ahistorical outcome, compared to outright have ahistorical mechanics.
The difference between Cultural Conversion and Expulsion is that although both can be used for ahistorical outcomes, cultural conversion can be used for historical outcomes, thus its an historical mechanic, while expulsion as it stands is a completely ahistorical action which doesn't represent any historical event whatsoever and it outright cannot be used in an historically accurate way.
But i would still accept it if the A.I would not use it, since although ahistorical it is realistic enough to be included, but the A.I does use it, and often.
No mechanic needs to be exactly realistic, its impossible to make everything exactly realistic, but all mechanics need to have some Historical basis to justify their addition.
Apples to Oranges, World Conquest isn't a mechanic. Its the outcome of an entire playthrough and result of the use of hundreds of mechanics.
There is no "Conquer the world" button.
You need to activately pursue that goal for hundreds of years and its by no means an easy task, which the A.I will never achieve.
You see, i have no problems with the game allowing Bretton to disappear from France and appearing in Cuba, that is if the player actively worked towards this outcome by colonizing cuba with Bretons and then converting Brittany to French.
I do have a problem if the game requires me to necessarily do both, maybe i just want to colonize Cuba with Bretons and not ethnocide Brittany. And i have an even greater problem because the A.I will consistently do it.
With that being said i also believe World Conquest should be much harder than it is.
This feels like projection.
Those who defend one tag are players who defend gameplay and freedom (a bit like you) over realism and accuracy.
Like i said, ahistorical outcome =/= ahistorical mechanics.
I accept ahistorical playthroughs.
I do not accept that the game mechanics are supposed to achieve ahistorical playthroughs.
I am being extremely clear with my reasoning here.
I want to be able to colonize the U.S.A with the Irish and not simultaneously ethnocide Ireland.
There is no obscure hidden agenda behind this. Its extremely straightforward.
You can easily persuade me to accept any mechanic by pointing out an historical event that this aims to achieve.
In the case of minority expulsion, you need to exemplify a country which successfully ethnically replaced another culture by shipping them to one of their colonies.
Who says you need to get it back to the original development?
As i see it, the intended use of this mechanic is to lower the development and thus lower religious and cultural conversation costs.
Except, it CAN be used.
Just because you feel like it isn't worth it doesn't mean it can't be used.
I don't consider exploiting development worth it either, i never pressed any of those buttons (except admin to avoid bankruptcy spirals), but i still theoretically enjoy that mechanic and would not request its removal.