Give it flavour!

[unmerged(74002)]

Like many others I played EUII and then bought EUIII thinking it would be similar but better. In many ways it is so, but it lacks something and that something is flavour. What I mean is that in EUII choosing a different nation meant choosing a different kind of game. In EUIII all games start out different, but in a couple of decades all Italian minors are similar, as are all German minors (And in the long run Castille/Aragon/Portugal/England/France, etc.). The reason is quite obvious. Without the fixed events of EUII, there isn't much that makes the countries of the world act in different ways. Sure there are the national ideas and the sliders, but they don't do much. What's wrong with the ideas/sliders? In my opinion choosing different national ideas and policy settings shouldn't be like a trip to the candy shop. "Do I want +5% tax or +0.5 morale for armies?" is a question we ask ourselves before making a choice, that is supposedly forging the history of a nation. It shouldn't be like that, in my opinion at least.

What I would like to see is real interaction with the world and the policies you take, let's take the centralized and innovativeness sliders as example. At the moment it is a trade-off between technology and stability. If you are going to have a large heterogenous empire, you need to be narrowminded and centralized. So far, so good. (Thinking of Austria, Spain and the Ottoman Empire). However the game stops there. Ottoman Empire and Spain must lag in tech to have better stability, but is that really their only difference to Tuscany or Venice? Off the top of my head, I can think of the following functions, to give you an example of what I mean:

-Different provincial religion taxation and rebel chance modifiers should be tied to decentralization/innovativeness. (It shouldn't be so much a problem for Mecklemburg to tolerate both protestantism and catholicism in Germany as it is for Austria.)
-Narrowmindedness/Centralization should give a bonus to chance of missionaries and colonists (How many decentralized colonial countries were there?)
-Choosing the idea of "Scientific revolution" shouldn't be an option if a country has innovativeness 2 or less. Likewise if you have the idea, you can't go below 2 innovativeness. (Same with narrowmindedness and Deus Vult, Church attendance duty and divine supremacy.)
-The stability cost of starting a war without casus belli should be tied to Innovativeness (-3 if innovative, -1 if narrowminded, -2 if in between).
-Centralized countries should have cheaper buildings. (-5% to +5% for slider?)
-Centralized countries should have a bonus for trading in other countries, decentralized for trading in own COTs. (Decentralization would mean that local nobles and traders would have more power and money, so they would naturally prefer monopolizing their own trade.)


These are all just half-baked examples, but they should give you a general idea of what I am after. Countries with different slider settings and ideas should be completely different to play. Decentralized and innovative trading empires (Genoa, Venice, Tuscany) should not be able to colonize half of North-America, not because they don't have the the tag POR, but because their policies didn't allow for such an endeavour. There are more changes as well like the decay/gain of land/naval tradition having to do with the land/naval slider, aristocracy/quality affecting the price/quality of leaders and so on. Feel free to post any and all you come up with.

 

[unmerged(6303)]

Most of the random events are based on policy and slider settings. I think they are meant to provide flavour and some of the effects you describe. But since the player can't see the relationship between the settings and the events, they end up feeling rather arbitrary. And of course having a bigger variety of them would help.

 

[unmerged(74002)]

Random events give some flavour, yes, but still they are there just once a decade or so (one every 5 years?). And even with more events, you still would have issues which aren't touched by events at all. (Like the efficiency modifiers for colonizing or trading for instance). The events are good for representing casual events that are caused by the way you rule (Kingdoms have troubles with heirs, republics with corruption, etc.) but they can not be the whole face of your regime.

A good concrete example would, for example, be the price of mercenaries vs the price of regular army. In the game as it is the prices are the same for republics and kingdoms, whereas in terms of history republics should have an easier time recruiting mercenaries. You can, of course, have events that fire up during wars offering cheaper mercenaries for republics, but that's really like climbing through the window, because you can't be bothered to search your pockets for the key to the door.

The main downside of having more to the sliders and national ideas is, as I can see it, having so complex a system that the AI has difficulty mastering it. Yet the AI really has no reason to learn the system, as it doesn't move its sliders. (AFAIK at least). And if this is the case, such a system would ensure that countries play like they should. (Sliders and national ideas cause Portugal and not Genoa to colonize Brazil). So eventually you would be closing in on the authentic history of EUII, without the predefined aftertaste.

 

[The Great Duck]

The thing I hate most in the game is when the Papal states go colonizing...I think that the countries on the Atlantic coast should have some bonuses when colonizing,since onl they did ever have colonies in the EU IIIs time period.

 

[unmerged(50629)]

The thing I hate most in the game is when the Papal states go colonizing...I think that the countries on the Atlantic coast should have some bonuses when colonizing,since onl they did ever have colonies in the EU IIIs time period.

Best way to do that is give -colonist modifiers to theocracies and Papal, or to give QFTNW colonist bonuses.

 

[unmerged(74002)]

Didn't Sweden and Denmark have colonies in the new world? And why should all countries who happen to start next to the Atlantic get some obscure bonus? (ie. Why would Brittany be any better than Savoy at conquering Brazil?) The last thing I want to see is going back to the EUII system with its predefined bonuses for specific countries. As for giving theocracies negative colonist bonus, doesn't seem logical, after all wouldn't they be most likely to "carry the white man's burden" and convert heathens? That is, if they got powerful enough, which they can, provided it is an open ended game.

For me the answer lies in domestic policies and national ideas. The problem is that there are so many different colonial powers, who are seemingly so different. You got the innovative, free trading, centralized naval powers (Holland, England), and the narrowminded, mercantilistic, decentralized land powers (Russia), who both need lots of colonists. The answer is, in my opinion, this: There were two major components defining whether a nation was capable of colonizing new regions or not. Firstly, whether it controlled its own economy and secondly whether it was capable of protecting itself (including future colonies). Now the current game system is something of a trade-off between dozens of different things, which in turn have been introduced from EUII, which in turn isn't EUIII. If we forget the current system altogether and concentrate on forging an ideal system it would, in my opinion, be something in the lines of:

-A nation can only colonize regions where it can trade (The game calculates what would happen to the province COT-wise if it got colonized, so if it comes back to your or other European COT you can colonize Java, even if you haven't discovered Malacca)
-The chance of success is calculated by two factors: 1) Your strength in naval if it is an overseas colony OR your strength in land if it is a land colony (In relation to your capital, so going deeper into Brazil, doesn't require you to change sliders) 2) Your mercantilism rating if the COT belongs to you OR your free trade rating if the COT belongs to someone else.
-The amount of colonists a nation has is indifferent. (The restraining factor is money and chance of success).

However such a change would be too much, I'm afraid, so the plausible answer would be fiddling around with the sliders and their bonuses. What excactly, I don't know, since I don't understand the system as it is. (Why do narrowminded countries gain more colonists? And weren't most of the colonial powers mercantilistic instead of free-trade oriented?)

 

[JanIv]

cumulus, I think you have some very good ideas. It seems that we have here a working compromise between the freedom and loss of flavor of EU III as it is, and the predetermined development of countries in EU II.

Am I right here? What does others think? Will cumulus' suggestions have the intended effects?

If this is so, the next question is: How can they be realized? Does anyone knows: Are cumulus' ideas about links between slider settings, national ideas and other variables amenable to mods, or are they hard coded so they can only be implemented if Paradox would be willing to incorporate them in a subsequent patch?

 

[unmerged(50629)]

The "white man's burden" was a 19th century concept, not really relevant for this time period. So theocracies losing colonists would make sense. Further, the easiest way to handle this is extra colonists for QFTNW. Thus, no matter what sliders you have, a colonist nation can get colonial bonuses from 2 NIs.

 

[unmerged(74002)]

Whether the concept was 19th century or not, it was rooted deep in the middle ages. There is much proof that the church was active on the question of the New World. You've got Treaty of Tordesillas, Inquisition and bullas covering issues such as converting the natives. There is no doubt in my mind that if there was a theocracy strong enough to colonize, it would have done so. I, for example, once saw Utrecht take over all of Holland and colonize parts of the new world. I thought it was justified, after all they had the surplus of people and money and, most likely, the blessing of the pope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roman_Catholic_Church_and_Colonialism

Giving extra colonists for QFTNW may be justified, but I don't think that will solve enough issues related to colonizing. (The chances of England expanding their North-American empire a bit North along the coast are almost identical to those of Bremen making their first step into the new world.) What is needed, in my opinion, is national ideas and sliders affecting (greatly) the chances of success, instead of the amount of trials.

 

[Darkrenown]

(Why do narrowminded countries gain more colonists? And weren't most of the colonial powers mercantilistic instead of free-trade oriented?)

I think the idea is that more people want to emigrate from the narrowminded nations so there's a greater flow of people to the colonies.

I don't know if you've looked into the colonial uprising events, but decentralisation makes them a lot more likely.

The effects of sliders, NIs and the base number and success change of colonists are all modable, so you could always fiddle with them and see if you get the results you desire.

 

[unmerged(70954)]

I think the idea is that more people want to emigrate from the narrowminded nations so there's a greater flow of people to the colonies.

To add to that, i think the narrowminded/innovative slider represents a state leaning toward either religion or science. If it tended toward religion, it led to more religious persecution and more emigration.

 

[unmerged(9604)]

One thing that would add alot of flavour would be to tie your national ideas closer to your domestic policies and choices. Basicly often choosing events that fits ill with your national ideas should give you events offering/encouraging you to change them. For example having humanist tolerance as a national idea while constantly sending out missionaries and choosing the convert option when the event comes up for conquered pagan provinces should give you an event where you get to chose between divine supremacy and humanist tolerance.

 

[The_Carbonater]

I would like at least some of the events from EU2...
Mod anybody?

 

[unmerged(74002)]

One thing that would add alot of flavour would be to tie your national ideas closer to your domestic policies and choices. Basicly often choosing events that fits ill with your national ideas should give you events offering/encouraging you to change them. For example having humanist tolerance as a national idea while constantly sending out missionaries and choosing the convert option when the event comes up for conquered pagan provinces should give you an event where you get to chose between divine supremacy and humanist tolerance.

What flags would you use to indicate whether a nation is sending missionaries or not? A variation of that idea would simply be to ban humanistic tolerant countries from force converting via event (ie. in trigger "National idea NOT humanistic tolerance). And also to give a negative modifier to missionaries. Like I said earlier, I think national ideas like sliders need to be a trade-off. "I want to tolerate all religions" -> "I choose not to enforce my own" instead of "Whoopdidoo, I want +1 tolerance".

Other examples: Shrewd competition practise limits you to some amount of mercantilism (Can't choose the idea if less than 2 mercantilistic and can't go below 2 mercantilistic if you have the idea), church attendance duty rises militancy of non-accepted religions, glorious land battle also increases the decay of prestige if you lose land battles (And is an option between glorious naval battle, so you can either have the one or the other), national conscripts increases war exhaustion, etc, etc...

It is simply outrageous that Ottoman Empire or China chooses the "Bill of Rights" as its national idea, while at the same time enforcing full serfdom and narrowmindedness. It hurts the game as a simulation and also as a strategy game. It makes for a world conquering game of pseudo-historic environment, and I never considered EU-series to be that.

 

[naggy]

What flags would you use to indicate whether a nation is sending missionaries or not? A variation of that idea would simply be to ban humanistic tolerant countries from force converting via event (ie. in trigger "National idea NOT humanistic tolerance). And also to give a negative modifier to missionaries. Like I said earlier, I think national ideas like sliders need to be a trade-off. "I want to tolerate all religions" -> "I choose not to enforce my own" instead of "Whoopdidoo, I want +1 tolerance".

If you required Innovative 1 for Humanistic Tolerance, that would pretty much solve the problem, since if you're innovative, you get no missionaries unless you get Divine Supremacy.

 

[unmerged(9604)]

What flags would you use to indicate whether a nation is sending missionaries or not? A variation of that idea would simply be to ban humanistic tolerant countries from force converting via event (ie. in trigger "National idea NOT humanistic tolerance). And also to give a negative modifier to missionaries. Like I said earlier, I think national ideas like sliders need to be a trade-off. "I want to tolerate all religions" -> "I choose not to enforce my own" instead of "Whoopdidoo, I want +1 tolerance".

I'm currently doing military service so I haven't really looked into the modding of this game and got a very vague idea about what flags there is. It was an example of what I was looking for (but in this case would probably the easiest way be to flag the "convert them" choice when you get the event to convert natives and perhaps some other events). Another example would be that if you decline court paintings and castle buildings would you be encouraging you to loose the "patron of the arts" national idea.

 

[ramadawn]

The thing I hate most in the game is when the Papal states go colonizing...I think that the countries on the Atlantic coast should have some bonuses when colonizing,since onl they did ever have colonies in the EU IIIs time period.

What you really need in is wind. It was global wind currents that led certain nations to colonize and explore as they did. This is missing in the game so nations colonize differently.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

This is the problem with the completely random colonisation you get in EU3; it has no rhyme nor reason. Portugal wanted to find a way round round Africa to India and China; that's why they started their colonies on the coast of Angola and Mozambique - they didn't just go around fighting Africans for fun. Spain sponsored Columbus' expedition to try and cross the Atlantic in order to do the same thing and then were encouraged to continue on the promise of vast amounts of gold and silver from the Aztecs and Incas. It is extremely unlikely that any nation would have started messing around fighting the Iroquois in 1490 because there was so little to be gained from it. Nevertheless, EU3 generally has some European power going berserk and reaching the Mississippi by 1600.

 

[kolmy]

Just input back the old AI files that existed in EU2, that helped a lot making the AI acting differently.