It was a gigantic pain in the ass, lent itself to neverending gameyness*, and real diplomacy doesn't work that way anyway.
*We all have saved and reloaded countless times until we got to annex that "Very Unlikely" vassal. Don't try to deny it.
Europa Universalis IV: Developer diary 43 - Artificially Improved
- Thread starter Wizzington
- 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.
It was a gigantic pain in the ass, lent itself to neverending gameyness*, and real diplomacy doesn't work that way anyway.
*We all have saved and reloaded countless times until we got to annex that "Very Unlikely" vassal. Don't try to deny it.
I'd like to thank you Wiz for having so many options for the AI. Having a separate Difficulty/Handicap is very important for me. Its actually one of the things that has bugged me about the AI in total war games in the past. Normal difficulty gave me a slight boost and the next step up (hard) gave the AI a slight boost. There was no "balanced" setting.
Now I'm at work so I haven't had time to read through all the posts so I apologize if this has been asked before.
Are the AI settings exposed to modders? For example, could I either create or modify a difficulty setting increasing aggression or the handicaps further?
Thanks,
Jec
Now I'm at work so I haven't had time to read through all the posts so I apologize if this has been asked before.
Are the AI settings exposed to modders? For example, could I either create or modify a difficulty setting increasing aggression or the handicaps further?
Thanks,
Jec
The one that really bugged me was when I was very likely to diplo-annex a vassal and failed 5 times in a row...
Now at least I have a named diplomat I can chew out. Now I just need a face to go along with that name. <Inserts Trollface>
great DD wiz!
I look forward to seeing these 'hunter killer' armies, which are exactly what human players do.
I look forward to seeing these 'hunter killer' armies, which are exactly what human players do.
That's what the ironman mode is for
The problem isn't that people were tempted to cheat, it was that you didn't know if the vassal would accept...
You roughly know the probability he would accept ("Very Unlikely"). There is no way to know for sure what will happen, there is an element of chance just as in real life.
However, even after 10 to 20 years it'd move to Very Unlikely to Maybe.
Even if it was Very Likely; there'd be a distinct chance that many times there'd be a "Sorry. We like you, alot, but I dunno."
Even if it was Very Likely; there'd be a distinct chance that many times there'd be a "Sorry. We like you, alot, but I dunno."
Sure, but it was frustrating. It's not always the best choice to do the most historically accurate thing.
Best DD yet! Hope the improved AI will make prettier maps. In CK2, Scandinavia and Russia after 867 start is an abomination, with Denmark and Sweden partitioning Finland and other wackiness.
Hmm. Battles are still based on dice rolls, aren't they? It's mighty frustrating to get a 0 roll vs. 9 in the first round and lose to an army twice weaker than yours
hmy: Should we also give the player exact knowledge of future battle outcome? If not, then why give him the knowledge of future diplomatic battle outcome?
Don't throw us all into the same boat as you, i have never done this.
In fact, I think the current system is a bit more "historically accurate". A state diplo-annexing another is a negotiation process, not a "Hey, by the way do you want to be annexed? No? Ok, I'll ask again later" dice roll.
As for the annexations, you could be right - it's really a gradual process of one country losing independence bit by bit, rather than a sudden decision.
As for the other diplomatic actions - I'm not so sure. An alliance offer, a royal marriage offer, a call to arms may succeed or fail depending on totally subjective factors i.e. luck.
