If your stewardship is high enough, it's very much possible that there are no wenches of even equal stewardship rating.
-
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.
Byakhiam said:
As long as they are irrestable and pretty who cares about their stewardship rating. :rofl:
inho it is too expensive. and the second option isn't realy worthwhile, you give allot of money ussually geting nothing (what exactly is the precentage, i guess it should be around 1/3). and the +1 stat doesn't necessary stay in the family if the kid's dies it's just alot of wasted money (which is baaad for counts and smaller dukes) 
Enravota, you have that exact same post on previous page.
And the cost could possibly be tweaked a bit downwards. Currently (in june 3rd beta) it's two year income for A and nine months income for B (the event texts are wrong). That could be tweaked down to say 18 month income for A and 6 month income for B, but below that it becomes too cheap really.
And the cost could possibly be tweaked a bit downwards. Currently (in june 3rd beta) it's two year income for A and nine months income for B (the event texts are wrong). That could be tweaked down to say 18 month income for A and 6 month income for B, but below that it becomes too cheap really.
Byakhiam said:
Would it be possible to get to know the amount of gold that will be deducted from the treasury, like 'offer three years of income (2000 gold)'? I mean could that be coded to appear when hovering the cursor over the event choice?
Lord Prime said:
Unfortunately, no. As the amount of money reduced isn't fixed, the only way to see it would be to actually reduce it from someone and since it's not possible to add ability to kids in an event firing for ruler nor is it possible to reduce gold from anyone else than the person event fires to, it just can't be done.
Lord Prime said:I see, well it was just a thought
Suggestions and ideas are always welcome. I just have unhappy duty to shoot them down, if they won't work.
Byakhiam said:
sorry , my conection to the forum is somewhat troublesome of late
o btw is it possible to scrip the event so it takes the money periodically rather the all at once (i guess not)?
the problem is that nobody really keeps any money, rather than investing them into something (especially in early games). and loosing few improvements ('cause you're bancrupt) for a soon to be dead child or for nothing at all (in option b) is quite frustrating
The event only fires for nine years old or older kids, who are already well past the "infant death" stage, so to be in imminent danger of death, they should be ill and you will know about that.
Option C is there just so that you can choose it when you can't afford it. It can be very likely that in early game you'll be mostly picking C. Later in the game, when the improvements are done, it can seem much more affordable.
Option C is there just so that you can choose it when you can't afford it. It can be very likely that in early game you'll be mostly picking C. Later in the game, when the improvements are done, it can seem much more affordable.
Enravota said:sorry , my conection to the forum is somewhat troublesome of late
btw is it possible to scrip the event so it takes the money periodically rather the all at once (i guess not)?
the problem is that nobody really keeps any money, rather than investing them into something (especially in early games). and loosing few improvements ('cause you're bancrupt) for a soon to be dead child or for nothing at all (in option b) is quite frustrating
Perhaps the punishment for beeing in debt (currently destruction of improvements) could be changed to a set of events generating negative prestige. For example a ruler that is in debt could be hitted by an event (with the same MTTH and triggers as the current events for destruction of improvements) that caused the ruler to loose prestige and perhaps also piety, lets say -50 prestige and -25 piety each time the event fires, that would be somewhat of a punishment allthought not as severe and as irritating as the current destruction of improvements.
Byakhiam said:
It never gets more affordable.
If you're making 100 ducats a year, you'll pay 100-300 ducats.
If you're making 20,000 ducats a year. You'll pay 20,000-60,000 ducats.
Right now, and I believe that the vast majority of the players fall into this category...It is only chosen if it fires for the main heir, whereas the bullet is bitten. For everyone else, it is an automatic C choice.
Perhaps the cost should be tiered based on the current rating.
Damocles said:
But if you make 100 ducats a year and have 150 in treasury it's less affordable than when you make 100 ducats a year and have 2000 ducats in treasury.
Damocles said:
Pretty much, but I'd prefer it fire for any of ruler's children, since sometimes the eldest or current primary heir is not the heir of your choice.
Damocles said:
Different scale used = different event needed. So not very practical thing to do.
It is fairly extravagant, though:Byakhiam said:
A large castle - 1500 ducats.
A child's education - 2000 ducats.
A year of humilitating bankruptcy events - priceless
.I daresay, having proportional costs just doesn't work when you're talking about three years' worth of income. It would be far better if the costs were fixed, and if they weren't so exorbitantly high. It's just crazy that the Emperor of Byzantium has to choose between two castles or his child's education... while a lesser ruler might be able to get his child educated just as well for the price of a mere monastery. It's even worse because when this event pushes you into debt, it's much softer on the smaller countries. I mean, it's so much easier to recover from 250 ducats' of debt than from 2000 - one requires you to sell three improvements or get one loan, while the other requires you to sell twenty improvements or get four or five loans.
I simply don't see what the purpose of this pricing scheme is - to punish the player for having a high income?
Option A should cost 500 (1000 at the very most), option B should cost 250. Anything more than that is just crazy. And yes, this will mean that the event's costs will be insignificant for large kingdoms and insurmountable for poor counties - and that's precisely the way it should be.
Yep. As it is now, or even with the minor proposed change, I'm still going to hit C every time...it's just not worth it at that high of a cost.
As you say, fixed costs make it insignificantly cheap for large kingdoms and impossibly expensive for counties. While it would make sense when you think of it, it would also be bad for gameplay. It would make playing counties even less fun, which is the part where gameplay enjoyment is most lacking. It would make it essentially an auto-choice for big and rich kingdoms and stack things even more into their favour.
So yeah, if you are a powerful and rich king, it can cost you a small fortune to improve your child's abilities and it's up to the player to decide when it's worth it. It's not like that to punish from high income though, just to make it feel like a real sacrifice, since permanent increase to attribute is one of the best things you can get.
So yeah, if you are a powerful and rich king, it can cost you a small fortune to improve your child's abilities and it's up to the player to decide when it's worth it. It's not like that to punish from high income though, just to make it feel like a real sacrifice, since permanent increase to attribute is one of the best things you can get.
I think it's a little strange behavior from the AI when they insist in keeping provinces that is too far away. For example, the king of England kept some egyptian provinces despite the rebellions and penalties. The Seljuk and French kings did the same. That's ruining the whole game I think, it's not fun to conquer Damascus when the province doesn't have a single building.
AI keeps it's provinces as long as it's demesne limit allows them and when it goes over that, it gives provs away, poorest first. So AI will give revolting and poor provinces away, but not before it goes over it's demesne limit. It can seem odd, but there is no clear improvement solution to that.
with the risk to sound very lame becuase im not very sure of that, isnt there a way to use the same check-up that checks how distant are your vassals when the declare independence events fire ? if the demense province is beyound some distance from capital -> automatic title give away :> ?
It's a nice idea, but events are events and AI is AI, they probably function on very different ways. If there would obviously be "distance = X" system in there, then it could work, but since there probably isn't (based on the way how distance has to be scripted in events), it might not be an easy task, unfortunately.