Send some "tourists"(soldiers) to go "sightseeing"(occupying) arround their entire nation. Emphasis on entire.
Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations – Dev diary 6: Improved Diplomacy
- Thread starter Johan
- 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.
Send some "tourists"(soldiers) to go "sightseeing"(occupying) arround their entire nation. Emphasis on entire.
I have to say, that personally it is big surprise how great this expansion is turning out to be. I did not expected much from the expansion itself when announced, but it shaping to be a game changer that all nacions take part on, as for Conquest of Paradise was mostly for western europeans, natives and colonies.
Power projection --> power balance
Perhaps the new system of power projection could be used to create a mechanics for *power balance* along the following lines:
-- If the power projection value of a nation exceeds the corresponding value of its (potential) rivals by a clear margin, i.e. the balance of power is broken, those rivals would start to actively seek returning the balance by forming coalitions and declaring wars against the target nation.
-- If the nation in question has not picked rivals, such that its power projection value doesn't rise despite the success, then one could either use the corresponding (low) values of the nations that are rivaling the target nation as an indicator, or one could use its own "hidden" power projection value that the game is tracking even though it doesn't show up as bonuses.
I think this mechanics could bring much more dynamism in the coalitions, which are currently very static and merely measuring the rate of expansion. It would be particularly relevant for the competition between the great powers, trying to prevent that none of them would rise far beyond the others to a new "domination" class.
Perhaps the new system of power projection could be used to create a mechanics for *power balance* along the following lines:
-- If the power projection value of a nation exceeds the corresponding value of its (potential) rivals by a clear margin, i.e. the balance of power is broken, those rivals would start to actively seek returning the balance by forming coalitions and declaring wars against the target nation.
-- If the nation in question has not picked rivals, such that its power projection value doesn't rise despite the success, then one could either use the corresponding (low) values of the nations that are rivaling the target nation as an indicator, or one could use its own "hidden" power projection value that the game is tracking even though it doesn't show up as bonuses.
I think this mechanics could bring much more dynamism in the coalitions, which are currently very static and merely measuring the rate of expansion. It would be particularly relevant for the competition between the great powers, trying to prevent that none of them would rise far beyond the others to a new "domination" class.
+1 to the changes//improvements//new on this expansion
also +1 to the cardinal thing for free. I hate the cardinal voting!
also +1 to the cardinal thing for free. I hate the cardinal voting!
If you are limiting the players ability to rival ai nations I hope you are also limiting the ai's ability to rival the player.
Wherever I go I seem to elicit the hostile attention of nearly every potential friend, I'm sure my OPM to 4PM rise to "power" isn't that much of a global threat...
Wherever I go I seem to elicit the hostile attention of nearly every potential friend, I'm sure my OPM to 4PM rise to "power" isn't that much of a global threat...
The DD mentions that the AI is already restricted in its rival choice options, and that the player's options will simply mimic what the AI would have considered as legitimate rival targets.
You should be getting less rivals, though, as smaller nations will no longer always pick 3.
Thanks; I was worried about that.
I like the direction it sounds this expansion is going, btw.
WoN sounds great. Will deffo get it near to launch or day one. Odd discussion in this thread earlier on about doing that being crazy - for $20 (where I'm from) it's hardly extravagant to try something out that there's a fair chance you'll like - it's not that much less than a movie ticket. Sure, don't sign up to buy a car day one before you've heard how it runs (or you've got ridiculous amounts of money), but an expansion that costs less than what it would to pay for your food for the day? I think we can breathe easy and take a punt (which, based on my experience with Paradox, which goes back to HoI 1, is a pretty safe one for my tastes, although I know others disagree) 
.
+1 for an expansion like this - it could work quite well with the colonial nations mechanic in terms of creating triggers for independence wars, or for large countries to fall apart (China, for example). One of the great things about CK2 was that it was a constant balancing act to keep your Kingdom together, something which changes in EU IV, and comes back a little in Vicki 2 with ideologies and the like. Not quite sure how it'd be done, and a risk it could not end up being fun gameplay, but if achievable would be great.
.+1 for an expansion like this - it could work quite well with the colonial nations mechanic in terms of creating triggers for independence wars, or for large countries to fall apart (China, for example). One of the great things about CK2 was that it was a constant balancing act to keep your Kingdom together, something which changes in EU IV, and comes back a little in Vicki 2 with ideologies and the like. Not quite sure how it'd be done, and a risk it could not end up being fun gameplay, but if achievable would be great.
Gah!! Fix one thing, break another, eh, Paradox?
I predict the Rival system is going to suck horribly. It sounds nice in the ideal, but with the huge coalition problem already, now you are forcing players to pick rivals, and then you are forcing them to get into conflict with these powers, regardless of the consequences.
That is a) stupid, and b) even more stupid.
Most of the time in the early game, I pick rivals not because I really want to attack said rival, but because it's the only way to get the +20 relations with other countries who have the same rival. And that is usually the difference between getting an alliance and getting left out in the cold.
So now, you are forcing people to choose from a short list of who the game thinks is a rival, not who the player necessarily cares about. And if the player doesn't rise to the bait? Then Paradox is hammering them. Hah hah! You didn't want rivals? Then you suck!
Again, many times I choose rivals to be part of a crowd. If everyone is putting the hate on France, for instance, I want to be part of that crowd. Do I really think my country can truly take on France? No. But I want to be part of the bloc.
Now, though, you might force me to choose a rival of more my own size. Which might have been the only other nation of the same sort of scale that could help me gang up on France.
This takes player choices away, and makes any form of strategizing impossible. I don't like it. At all.
And I predict, combined with the silly coalition stuff, that this will cause the implosion of a lot of nations. Much how we watch AI nations make stupid DoWs, which lead to their implosion.
If you do implement this feature, at least the way it is described right now, please include a big option button where you can turn it OFF, please.
Sad to say, there are a multiple "features" that have been announced for WoN where I really don't like how they've been described. The first was "privateers." And also the East India whatever-it-is. Now "rivalries."
What was the sample size of devs who thought this was a good idea?
Instead, let's reconsider this idea, while there is still time.
I do like the idea of you having to wait to change rivals. Just not forcing players to choose from a list of who the game wants you to. That should be entirely to the player to decide.
Also, a hard cap of 10 years makes no sense at all historically.
If there is a cost, it should be deprecated over time. So, say, changing it immediately might have the greatest diplo point cost. Go ahead if you want. It'll just cost a huge amount (and probably will make you seem mercurial diplomatically). But if you wait, then the cost to switch rivals might be less and less over time, so that after a while it is free.
Five years sounds plenty long.
Also, as another option, a new ruler might allow you to "dump" your rival list and choose a new set for free. So, though you take a stability hit, you at least get the consolation of being able to change course diplomatically.
But, again, FORCING BAD CHOICES ON PLAYERS IS NOT A GOOD THING. Thank you.
I predict the Rival system is going to suck horribly. It sounds nice in the ideal, but with the huge coalition problem already, now you are forcing players to pick rivals, and then you are forcing them to get into conflict with these powers, regardless of the consequences.
That is a) stupid, and b) even more stupid.
Most of the time in the early game, I pick rivals not because I really want to attack said rival, but because it's the only way to get the +20 relations with other countries who have the same rival. And that is usually the difference between getting an alliance and getting left out in the cold.
So now, you are forcing people to choose from a short list of who the game thinks is a rival, not who the player necessarily cares about. And if the player doesn't rise to the bait? Then Paradox is hammering them. Hah hah! You didn't want rivals? Then you suck!
Again, many times I choose rivals to be part of a crowd. If everyone is putting the hate on France, for instance, I want to be part of that crowd. Do I really think my country can truly take on France? No. But I want to be part of the bloc.
Now, though, you might force me to choose a rival of more my own size. Which might have been the only other nation of the same sort of scale that could help me gang up on France.
This takes player choices away, and makes any form of strategizing impossible. I don't like it. At all.
And I predict, combined with the silly coalition stuff, that this will cause the implosion of a lot of nations. Much how we watch AI nations make stupid DoWs, which lead to their implosion.
If you do implement this feature, at least the way it is described right now, please include a big option button where you can turn it OFF, please.
Sad to say, there are a multiple "features" that have been announced for WoN where I really don't like how they've been described. The first was "privateers." And also the East India whatever-it-is. Now "rivalries."
What was the sample size of devs who thought this was a good idea?
Instead, let's reconsider this idea, while there is still time.
I do like the idea of you having to wait to change rivals. Just not forcing players to choose from a list of who the game wants you to. That should be entirely to the player to decide.
Also, a hard cap of 10 years makes no sense at all historically.
If there is a cost, it should be deprecated over time. So, say, changing it immediately might have the greatest diplo point cost. Go ahead if you want. It'll just cost a huge amount (and probably will make you seem mercurial diplomatically). But if you wait, then the cost to switch rivals might be less and less over time, so that after a while it is free.
Five years sounds plenty long.
Also, as another option, a new ruler might allow you to "dump" your rival list and choose a new set for free. So, though you take a stability hit, you at least get the consolation of being able to change course diplomatically.
But, again, FORCING BAD CHOICES ON PLAYERS IS NOT A GOOD THING. Thank you.
The problem I see with it is that it sounds like a "rich get richer" type thing. So if you are already advantaged, you can choose rivals and get a bigger boost. But if you are up against the ropes, the rivals you are forced to pick -- or avoid picking to keep the hate away -- will cause you more maluses.
Me no like.
Thanks Wiz! Makes me feel less leery about the downsides. Still, the feature comes off like someone egging on schoolyard tiffs.
What I would have preferred would be true diplomatic features, such as making bilateral deals -- swapping a province for a province, for example. Or allowing defensive (only) alliances, separate from offensive alliances.
You can already ask for their existing on-hand cash, or their trade power. I presume what you mean is asking for a percentage of their tax and/or production income over time, without reducing them to be a vassal?
I really like what I'm reading regarding this next expansion. It will probably bring me back to the game again.
I'm really looking forward to this and can't wait for it to come out but I have to be honest the new rival system worries me.
The AI is already horrendously coded and patched up when it comes to maintaining alliances and I can't imagine adding a new complicated rival system on top of it will end up helping.
When you can have allies for hundreds of years that are +200 both ways and trust each other utterly and randomly drop alliance and set rival or rival while allies or not rival at all and just drop alliance and then a month later they want alliance back -- something is programmed wrong.
The AI is already horrendously coded and patched up when it comes to maintaining alliances and I can't imagine adding a new complicated rival system on top of it will end up helping.
When you can have allies for hundreds of years that are +200 both ways and trust each other utterly and randomly drop alliance and set rival or rival while allies or not rival at all and just drop alliance and then a month later they want alliance back -- something is programmed wrong.
no i think eu4 has some good AI at times, you can definitely tell paradox have a special AI employee now.