I feel...a little bit...judged for my impending sixth Swabia playthrough....
- 6
It's time for Paradox to accept that subjects should not take up relations slots for ANY nation.
- Thread starter Pellucid
- 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.
Diplomatic Capacity
This is an elaboration on the ideas laid out by @Dvd Avins, @Canute VII, and @Sidolowka in this thread. They get credit for coming up with the concepts here. Some of my numbers are definately wildly unbalanced so feedback is welcome. Diplomatic...
Why not Diplomatic Capacity, like Governing Capacity? Instead of Relations limit.
It seems wrong to me that, for instance, Guarantee Independence takes up a whole slot, just like an Alliance does. So how about if different kinds of relationships used up different amounts of an available pool of Diplomatic ability (call it...
- 3
- 2
You can use a conquest or reconquest CB on behalf of Colonial Nations, Trade Companies, Tributaries, Daimyos or Protectorates?
With all those missions trees that give perma claims, that makes a difference between subjects on behalf you can DOW and the other ones.
(I haven't played Japan for a long time (since the shogunate became so powerful) so I don't exactly know how Daimyos work - but the ability to form Daimyos should be just geographically (or culturally?) limited).
With all those missions trees that give perma claims, that makes a difference between subjects on behalf you can DOW and the other ones.
(I haven't played Japan for a long time (since the shogunate became so powerful) so I don't exactly know how Daimyos work - but the ability to form Daimyos should be just geographically (or culturally?) limited).
- 1
People play the same nation several times because they have special mechanics/flavour, unique starting position or is distinguished enough in (popular) history that an imaginary can easily be created around playing them.
It does get more repetitive than that: being able to achieve the same outcome as any nation.
Mechanics linked to expanded and dynamic culture and religion would be great though. And also opens up the possibility to achieve ends, which are not likely at the start, without ending up with everything being the same.
- 2
It's time for Paradox and the players to realise that this game's relations limit needs replaced with a system of diplomatic capacity of some sort, where each type of diplomatic action/relation costs a different amount of the capacity. In addition, the cost should be relative, i.e. a great power should spend less capacity for having an alliance with a minor nation, but the said minor nation should spend much more capacity for securing such an alliance.
EDIT: The capacity limit should probably be "soft", i.e. it should be possible to exceed it but for some serious consequences. E.g. instant -50% to improved relations and -1 to diplomatic reputation, to represent a situation when a nation has too many diplomatic relations and thus struggle to maintain them with all other nations at once, neglecting them through overstretched diplomatic institutions.
EDIT: The capacity limit should probably be "soft", i.e. it should be possible to exceed it but for some serious consequences. E.g. instant -50% to improved relations and -1 to diplomatic reputation, to represent a situation when a nation has too many diplomatic relations and thus struggle to maintain them with all other nations at once, neglecting them through overstretched diplomatic institutions.
- 2
If you pay so little attention to your vassals that you end up with unwanted overextension when you integrate them, you probably don't need more of them.
Those being bad mechanics doesn't justify introducing more bad mechanics.
- TC is owned directly
- CN was introduced when "distant overseas" was still a thing so no. CN were brutally nerfed, but I guess that's not useful to mention
- Daimyo are vassals you can annex w/o slots. Any alleged downside practically stops existing after you own Japan.
- Nations are "allowed" to hold that land directly as an alternative in literally every case (though CN takes work). Thus what you're arguing doesn't make sense.
I also don't see how mechanics intended to create flavour depending on tag/geography is an argument in favour of applying mechanics globally. That kind of defeats the point of those mechanics in the forst place...
I can't remember every change that has been made since 1.0. What are those changes? The favor system certainly made it easier, even if the first one for each ally takes more time. More work doesn't necessarily mean it's harder.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
I just find an interesting perespective that by constantly adding and changing new things it become less fun for some people.
We play this game a lot until we used to it hence why we like new variable way to be added in the update.
However some of the new or returning player are intimidated because they unless they have all the dlc they would have to choose which dlc that is essential for the current game update.
And after that you have to constanly re learn the game for each update and dlc. If you play routine this wouldn't be a problem but if you let's say haven't play for a year and watch how the game change and have to learn from beginning again? It can intimidate some people.
- 4
Yes cause EU4 was such a boring game back before mission trees where we got mechanics for everyone like ages, professionalism, etc. If everyone had acess to a special vassal type like the Ottomans or a special trade company like Britain the game would just be ruined cause as we all know less is more. Aragon is now infinitely more fun thanks to this new update since they get nothing. This unique playstyle for historical losers of getting no content adds so much to my gameplay since I think to myself "wow getting no content since Im not one of the 6 countrys getting a mission tree this patch really adds to my experience."
- 5
- 5
- 2
Totally agree! But I am not sure if OP implied he didn't want constant changes via DLC. He wants all features available to all like English daimyo, indian HRE ect. I understand where is he coming from, but I still respectfully disagree.
But sure games generally need to make changes if they want long life time. Just look at games like league of legends and age of empires II they are still getting content. Not all are going to like that I am sure some players want base vanilla game.
- 2
wow have you heard of this new thing called sarcasm? You should try it out! I am sure people will love it.
Yes less can be more. With "less" you are not necessarily limiting your experiences but making each one more special and interesting. Not only when you play as ottomans but even when you are playing against them, you have to take in consideration their special "powers" for example.
Yes I like missions I think it made game even better! Don't get me wrong I get that there are problems that not every new content is good. For missions trees for example it feels incomplete if some tag has only base missions.
- 6
- 1
- 1
I'd love to see next EU like a Nation Constructor: you get a bit of tag-magic in the forms of fixed traditions (2 bonuses you can't change) and picking National Ideas on the gameplay-descicions you make, thus effecting your ending ambition. You can get any government form you want based on your culture and religion. Thus you won't see Protestant Prussia creating elayets or Ottomans wielding WInged Hussars. Plus the diplomatic capacity instead of diplomacy slots.
- 1
What powers? How does Ottomans having a vassal Hungary change how you go against them? Did you forget that the AI doesnt even do its own mission trees where 99% of these new "powers" are locked behind? Britain never even reaches India as a AI but now SUDDENLY they are more interesting to play against cause if they maybe had reached India that game they could have gotten this new trade company vassal.
"With "less" you are not necessarily limiting your experiences but making each one more special and interesting." Okay tell me how much more interesting playing Aragon with no new content is compared to Castille. How many more special decisions can I make knowing this country has nothing to offer besides different national ideas while Spain gets like 8 new things to play with. Is your game suddenly more interesting? Playing a indian minor with generic mission trees doesnt make my decisions suddenly more special cause I know Egypt will most likely be a vassal when I try to fight the Ottomans. It just means Im playing a generic country with no content cause the game hasnt given any content to anyone without a mission tree since 1.31.
- 2
- 1
Ottoman have many many many "special powers" like:
- Like pashas -> you know support rebels is harder
- Dhimmi -> more money and army if you want to release tag you release it from balkans first
- Janissaries -> stronger army again balkan tags first so they get weaker
About Aragon... If you look at my response I said that there are shortcomings with missions trees like when some one doesn't get it. That could be extended to content too. I get it that you could be frustrated that Castile got something new especially if you are from Aragon regions. How can you use Castile new content against Castile? From top of my head I guess is wait for new disaster when they get negative modifiers. You have new pretty reliable window when can you attack. (Ofc if game is balanced on release )
Agree that playing minor with generic missions doesn't feel best, but you can probably form larger nation with missions, events and content.
Are you sure AI doesn't do missions? Don't know if AI manages to finish whole tree... but on other hand it's impossible that every tag finishes it's whole tree. And I don't think 99% of new powers is locked behind missions at least in 1.34 is not.
Last point for 1.31... as I already said lack of content for some is negative.
For me.. I had a lot of fun playing for Burgundian achievements where you had few scripted events that influence your game greatly. Not every body should get that event but when play as country that does it is fun for me at least.
ps.
So if I have options to chose between options:
- A - Missions trees, events and content for all
- B - Missions trees, events and content for some
- C - No missions trees, events and content for all
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
lol
Yep, completely reasonable that a vassal sits on OE for >6y despite several hundred more admin generated than required to core it. Totally the player's fault to cut bait and salvage the AI idiocy ^_^.
Seems over-broad to call all of these bad. They're different from each other too, and therefore must be bad for different reason(s), if they are bad at all.
The problem is internal inconsistency.
But what you are replying to is in context of discussion about whether no-slot vassals would be "overpowered". There was an assertion that would be the case, but numerous data points already available in the game contradict that assertion. Notably, you don't address this assertion or its accuracy either.
Prior to the favor system, there was a window where you had to wait instead. Prior to that, there were no restrictions at all...ally, declare, and bring the ally because they're an ally. Strictly and objectively easier.
- 4
- 1
It is completely the players fault that it did feed the vassal that much OE in the first place, so yes it is entirely the players fault. You can avoid it 100% of the time if you want to.
The colonial nation and TC mechanics certainly are bad.
Why is that a problem? Why does every mechanic have to be the same? Surely a strategy game can benefit from having more than one type of subject mechanic?
Which datapoints?
Colonial nations does have significant limitiations which makes them significantly less overpowered than most "normal" vassals (the terrible naval invasion AI being one of them). They are also fairly limited in number by design, although it is possible to bypass that if you really want to.
TCs are overpowered as it is, and therefore not a good counter argument. TCs are frequently mentioned as a feature people want nerfed.
Daimyos are available to a very limited amount of tags. See the argument in the previous post about flavour.
As for nations being able to hold the land themselves. Well, for some reason people often want to feed their vassal their land instead. I'm sure it has nothing to do with it being a very powerful mechanic...
Fair enough. So since something was easier in 1.0 we should keep making the game easier than it already is?
Go ahead and remove the diplo slot usage for vassals in a DLC if you want to though, then at least those of us who are tired of power creep can opt out of it.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
- You don't know what "that much" OE was, because I didn't define it. I didn't define it because it's irrelevant to the point I was making when pointing out you can annex a subject and get no cores.
- The reason I made the statement was to point out the factual inaccuracy of the previous post, that the "full cores" you gain from annexation are "free". It's a wrong statement, period. They are not "free", they are not necessarily "full cores", and you pay differently depending on whether or not they are full cores. You can get anything from no core to territory core to full core.
Do you know what internal inconsistency means? It does not imply "mechanics have to be the same". Your second quoted question does not follow from the first. It might be useful to clarify what you're going for here. Or maybe not, since the examples given were to argue against a particular thing being "overpowered", itself an ill-defined concept.
The existence of mechanics that are strictly or nearly-strictly better already. Which were already given.
Might want to back this one. The income record uses them, but does not spam them. They are not clearly better than states, let alone half states. Sometimes, they are worse than territories.
I don't see it that frequently. I see silly things like natives being "overpowered" more frequently than TC. Regardless, player misunderstanding of mechanics does not demonstrate they are "overpowered". That word means something, and the presumption reading it is that it's reliably stronger than alternative choices.
Which TCs are not.
Are daimyos "overpowered"? What performance metrics/outcomes do we observe that lead to that conclusion? How much "overpowered" should be tolerated for "flavor"?
What % of land do you believe is cored directly vs fed to vassals, in both typical and most-skilled WC runs?
I suggest there might be a reason players lean the way they do, and that this reason does not suggest subject feeding to even be in the neighborhood of overpowering alternative expansion choices right now.
Where's this straw coming from? I point out that someone is mistaken about assertions in mechanics, and that translates to saying something I didn't somehow?
I'm more in favor of the capacity rework suggested, actually. I argued strongly against the "overpowered" line of argument, because it's a) silly/not based in reality of tradeoffs available in EU 4 b) overused in gaming arguments generally and c) has negatively impacted EU 4, sometimes significantly, through patch changes in the past.
- 4
But OPM vassals give you +1 force limit from their base cost, and often build their own army. Having a vassal swarm of OPM vassals with low LD would be extremely OP
- 1
exponentially? Citation needed.
(I really, really hate people using "exponentially" when they mean "faster than linear".)
- 2
- 1
Not this again.
It's impossible for PDX games to achieve internal consistency, due to the scale each game covers: map spanning Earth and time period, with many, many singular standout events that is too deep (and too much work) to model for others. For example, there's no way they can put enough conditions in for Burgundian Inheritance-style of event to happen to anyone, too much work for little gains.
Please give up tbh.
- 3
- 3