Yes leaders had different ability. What does that have to do with monarch points? It makes no difference whether your king is a 6 or a 0 in military, what matters is what techs and ideas you took before had.
I don't understand the attitude of this forum
- Thread starter IdiotsOpposite
- 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.
- Status
this thread must have the most dev responses in the shortest timeframe ever in a single thread
If I may say one argument against 'people have already done WC therefore conquest isn't radically slowed down' statement:
some/a lot/most of those wc players used the exploit to make a nation a vassal of a vassal, and fed them for 0 AE.
Then again, 1.13 (where this exploit will get fixed) will have WC reports too.
Regarding this thread and the reaction of dev to it: It may be me, but the reaction of dev to some players who speak up can be read as hostile, blocking off further discussion with said players. It might look as 'we are right, you are wrong, now shut it'.
It may also be sarcasm, but sarcasm can be misinterpreted in text form.
I hope the devs will rummage across the 'hostile' reactions to common sense, find the real usefull feedback, and improve the game even further.
- 9
- 1
I actually don't think I've literally ever seen a WC done without exploits
- 1
Wiz, it almost sounds like you're honestly offended by the "mana" nickname for Monarch Points. Are you? Because you need not to
I'm not offended by tired memes, they're just tired memes.
- 16
- 2
I think the mana meme is funny enough tbh, I had a good laugh the first time it was used for HOI4
(And I'm not opposed to monarch points at all btw)
On the OP - from my pov the game is in an excellent state - I enjoy almost all of the new stuff.
But that doesn't keep me from bitching about it. Indeed I think people wouldn't complain so much if they didn't love the game.
(And I'm not opposed to monarch points at all btw)
On the OP - from my pov the game is in an excellent state - I enjoy almost all of the new stuff.
But that doesn't keep me from bitching about it. Indeed I think people wouldn't complain so much if they didn't love the game.
- 1
Despite being a meme, it's hard not to notice why it's popular - it's because it's rather true.
What I mean is the following. Paradox as a developer created such games as Victoria 2 and CK2. Let's, for instance, look at the first one. I can literally find only one questionable pool about Vic2: diplomacy points which are tied to your technology level. However, technology itself is tied to country-wide education. Makes sense, right? And education is tied to the percentage of educators. Once again, makes sense. Leadership pool, from which you create generals is tied to percentage of military officers. And again, it makes simple, almost common sense to have these rules.
CK2 as a game about mostly relations is also pretty sensical. There are three pools, all of which have direct and reasonable assignment: things tied to buying anything of material value are tied to gold, things related to one's standing are tied to prestige, and everything religious is tied to piety.
And that's where we get to EU4. Besides the fact that you have very limited ways to affect your points income (due to monarchs being random, unlike, say, changing your population dynamics in Vic2, or educating characters in CK2), sometimes their assignment to various activities also seems quite arbitrary. The first to come to mind is war-exhaustion - why is it tied to diplo points exactly? When, at the same time, harsh treatment is military... We could also talk about why monetary aspects, like war taxes and inflation, have anything to do with monarch points. Then, development comes in with its own weird rules.
The risk you run with EU4 is turning it into a kind of Civ game. Nothing wrong with them (in fact, they are pretty good) but the level of abstraction is really unfitting to the kind of product you advertise and used to create. And the more new features you tie to monarch points, the deeper you get into this marsh of arbitrariness and abstraction.
- 20
- 1
It would certainly be interesting if monarchs had a more direct influence instead of the current indirect influence. I think it's a bit lacklustre that nothing really changes over night when you go from a MIL 6 to a MIL 0 monarch, other than the loss of some stability and a potenially good general. A MIL 0 monarch should actively mismanage the military and the fighting ability should suffer direct penalties, and tech advances should be harder immediately. If the monarch skill affected the tech cost, a larger part of the MP generation could be moved to a more stable base. If monarchs had some bonuses in high stat areas and maluses in low stat areas, it would make each monarch unique and give good and bad monarchs different playing experiences, and I think it could only enhance the current system.
- 2
While I fully concur, I do feel a bit conflicted when I look at the time I have spent playing the games.
In my eyes Vic 2 was the pinnacle of Grand Strategy and yet it has half the playing time of EU4. Same for CK2 (primarily because of how slow it runs for me).
The reasons for that vary but I suspect as my commitments elsewhere have increased I can no longer dedicate the time to immerse myself in a detailed strategy game.
In EU4, everything is there and easy to obtain, contained in one of four currencies. That means I can play the game on Speed 5 and whizz through months at a time... And still be successful. (This is less likely in Vic or HOI3 or CK2).
I am sure this applies to more gamers than just me, and I imagine is a large part of why EU4 is so successful.
And yet I look at HOI4 and am dismayed by the arbitrariness that seems to be creeping into that game (national focuses?).
What set PIs games apart was the scope involved in managing your territory. That seems to be diminishing and I rue that loss.
But you know what I'll probably spend more time playing the new games, precisely because I feel i have insufficient time to obtain a satisfying play through of the older games.
I do feel the games have moved away from their original panoramic scope, which I feel is a shame. But I bet it will reward PI with better play numbers and better sales.
Last edited:
I have never seen Paradox engage with that question anywhere. It has been asked repeatedly during both EU3 and EU4.
It's tough to say because of sample size issues and the whole "what, you want me to not engage in the primary mode of gameplay for fifteen years what the flaming frag Paradox?" effect whereby I have decided that the whole edifice of EU4 monarchy can justifiably be set on fire, but it certainly feels like I get more regencies as the Ottomans (+100% heir chance because Muslim) than as Christians.
Acceptable level or Republican Tradition is above 40, when you'll get the +20 Trad for -1 stab event and won't go into Republican Dictatorship. You're playing too conservative, Republics are meant to pay a lot of ADM for stab (but they get a lot more anyway with re-elections).
Last edited:
- 3
Atwix strats might be controversial, so I'll throw this one out there. Solid play, and insanely well documented France AAR:
http://imgur.com/a/Ar9F6#0
Pretty sure Kebab one-tag guy did not use this exploit. And honestly fast-revoking is still stronger than vassal of vassal (from a fast WC standpoint), its just that not using revoke+renovatio mechanics for a WC game can be interesting once in a while.this thread must have the most dev responses in the shortest timeframe ever in a single thread
If I may say one argument against 'people have already done WC therefore conquest isn't radically slowed down' statement:
some/a lot/most of those wc players used the exploit to make a nation a vassal of a vassal, and fed them for 0 AE.
Then again, 1.13 (where this exploit will get fixed) will have WC reports too.
Regarding this thread and the reaction of dev to it: It may be me, but the reaction of dev to some players who speak up can be read as hostile, blocking off further discussion with said players. It might look as 'we are right, you are wrong, now shut it'.
It may also be sarcasm, but sarcasm can be misinterpreted in text form.
I hope the devs will rummage across the 'hostile' reactions to common sense, find the real usefull feedback, and improve the game even further.
Republics with short re-elect cycles are really nice with Catholic. Keep in mind that you get papal influence from converting provinces, so every 200~ development you conquer is a free stability, plus you get at least 7 from cardinals+devoutness if you've obliterated the Papal States (so 0% PI modifier). Considering that stab costs can easily hit 200 ADM if you're playing reckless with RT, that's actually a quite nice bonus for playing an aggressively expansionist republic.Acceptable level or Republican Tradition is above 40, when you'll get the +20 Trad for -1 stab event and won't go into Republican Dictatorship. You're playing too conservative, Republics are meant to pay a lot of ADM for stab (but they get a lot more anyway with re-elections).
That free stab also allows some trucebreak play without ridiculously destabilizing your country.
Last edited:
I stopped halfway through this thread to make this comment.
If you are project lead of a game and people complain about your game , stop trying to defend your changes in patronizing replies and actually stop defending it all together.
Calling players posts laughable makes you look like a forum troll , if you think someone is "laughable" dont reply.
If you are project lead of a game and people complain about your game , stop trying to defend your changes in patronizing replies and actually stop defending it all together.
Calling players posts laughable makes you look like a forum troll , if you think someone is "laughable" dont reply.
- 13
- 9
- 1
Would you rather we get some corporate hogwash "We thank you for your feedback and assure you we take your concerns very seriously."?
Personally, I take a human dev over a PR robot any day of the week.
Personally, I take a human dev over a PR robot any day of the week.
- 23
- 2
Thats a nice post about nothing i just wrote, just saying.
I was talking about the tone of replies and the defending of changes. If you made changes im sure you think you did a good job , if you defend it A LOT you come off as not so sure.
And i was saying if you have to be patronizing in your replies dont reply. The other way around is unprofessional .
- 4
- 1
No, it's not just about making the game harder. Heh, that's not what's going on here. Paradox is making the game more and more centered around Monarch Mana, there are a decent amount of people who have problems with this. The game becomes slower, but not any harder.
- 2
I hope I didn't come off as adversarial and I get where you're coming from.
All I'm saying is that we have access to the devs in a pretty direct and unfiltered manner that is afaik kinda extraordinary.
That being so, some humanity (aka lack of professionalism) shining through is to be expected.
Trade-offs. Take the good with 'bad'. But that's just my take, and it might just be my fanboi-bias speaking - so take it for what it's worth
- 4
No, it wouldn't become any easier. Winning the vast majority of wars is a foregone conclusion; increasing the coring cost doesn't make winning the war any harder, it just means you fight less wars, which actually makes the game easier. Less wars fought, more resources available to fight every war. By making expansion slower and more difficult, there is just significantly less to do. By changing coring cost, you didn't change how wars are fought, or the difficulty of them, you changed how frequently they are fought.
That being said, having a coring cost and coring time is perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with those mechanics. But they don't affect difficulty. They affect pacing.
- Status