Let's Compile "House Rules"

[Viking]

1) NO dows without CB
2) No force annexations of co-religionists (ie someone I cannot diploannex)
3) No sabotage wars. (ie allied with orleans as france you dow england to get orleans to join you and have england annex orleans so that you can take orleans from england in the peace treaty, or allied with portugal I dow spain to get spain to torch all of portugals tps so that I as holland can replace them with my own)
4) Make first peace agreement offered by enemy if they offer bordering provinces in peace, UNLESS was has specific war aim (defined at start of war, ie torch all tps in canada and replace with my own, or lose gerona to spain, or support poland against russia ect.ect.)
5) Accept all favourable peace offers from enemy that is winning.
6) Never give explorer more ships than their start number.
7) Aim to have all co-religionists (protestants, refomed, sunni ect.ect.) at least at 0 relations. Do not start new "projects" untill at 0.

 

[unmerged(7981)]

In a war there are no rules, just like history. It wil evolve itself.

 

[Alyosha]

4. No merchants in CoTs not in your country's sphere of influence.

This one I find a little unreasonable. When I play a GC, I usually use the autosend merchant command once I can start gaining monopolies. If you're a major trading nation (i.e. more than 5 merchants a year), this rule would be such a pain in the ass (pardon the french) to implement. I'm playing a GC as England right now and I get 12 merchants a year. Using this rule would make me want to quit the game, as every month or so I'd be placing merchants. Trying to maintain merchant values in CoTs becomes so annoying after awhile, and it takes away from the rest of the game. Since there is no way (other than the ai embargoing you, which it does rarely) to stop merchants going to CoTs with autosend, I'd say this rule has to go. If you're all the way at free trade, the ruler shouldn't be controlling the merchants anyway.

As for the rule about recruiting from non-national provinces, I like the idea of only infantry, but I'd say cavalry and artillery can be recruited after it goes to 0% nationalism. First of all the game already restricts your numbers in non-national provinces; secondly, after awhile you'd expect that noble priveledges would be granted to conquered areas, or nobles would simply move there from the core provs. All one needs for artillery is somewhere to manufacture it, and after 30 years there should be some sort of machinery to make artillery.

 

[unmerged(9222)]

Originally posted by Alyosha
As for the rule about recruiting from non-national provinces, I like the idea of only infantry, but I'd say cavalry and artillery can be recruited after it goes to 0% nationalism. First of all the game already restricts your numbers in non-national provinces; secondly, after awhile you'd expect that noble priveledges would be granted to conquered areas, or nobles would simply move there from the core provs. All one needs for artillery is somewhere to manufacture it, and after 30 years there should be some sort of machinery to make artillery.

I agree. You already can only build conscription centers in national provinces. But now someone is probably going to try and say building conscription centers is some kind of cheat and shouldn't be allowed.

 

[unmerged(8698)]

Originally posted by Drakken
Never ever change DP settings by yourself. By events only.

Drakken

Lots of people say this, but if you are the eminence grise then yu should be able to influence the policies of your nation. The game restricts you to one change every ten years, which simulates a realistic gradual shift.

Can anyone honestly say that men like Richelieu wouldn't have tried to change the policies of their country to suit them, and they woulde have made a lot more than one small change every ten years if it had suited them.

 

[unmerged(8576)]

Originally posted by petewass


Lots of people say this, but if you are the eminence grise then yu should be able to influence the policies of your nation. The game restricts you to one change every ten years, which simulates a realistic gradual shift.

Can anyone honestly say that men like Richelieu wouldn't have tried to change the policies of their country to suit them, and they woulde have made a lot more than one small change every ten years if it had suited them.

Beside the point.
The reason most people seem to use house rules is that the AI cannot do a certain thing, so they(and I) don´t want to either.

 

[Kasperus]

Rules...? The only rules I respect are those coded in game (except cheating/reloading/editting of course if I play a serious or not-testing-something-out-game) Why would I not use something that I can do while playing? Sometimes players can exploit something that ai cannot, but doesn`t ai cheat as well in other matters? As long as ai has no naval-attrition, can ask/give whatever province they like and has very unrealistic inflation (following the player) why would i not compromise my disadvantage with for example turbo-annexation? I see the last as annexing a country in EU1 was.
About dp-settings: why wouldn`t i change them? perhaps the ai cannot but I don`t see them suffer from random events which change them as well. On the day that there is a built-in possibility to turn random events off, I will not anymore change my dp.
About religious tolerance: Ai has already an advantage here having more sliders. Perhaps some countries have harcoded intolerance, but most do indeed tolerate most unhistoric religions (Spain always very tolerant to protestants somehow)
War without cb: I play always as much historically as possible, meaning I will always go for provinces the country I play sometime owned. That includes usually that I don`t have a cb on the right moment. I won`t just dully follow the ai-way (declaring most ridiculous wars) so I usually don`t follow that rule.
Stealing sieges: ai does it as well so why wouldn`t i? I can agree however for not doing it in mp.
loans: never use them anyway, don`t get the use of it (as well as wartaxes btw)
Rules as loading capacity, not using colonial ports, not colonizing instantly after discovery are totally ridiculous imo and contradicting my mayor rule totally.

 

[unmerged(10456)]

I basically agree but wartaxes are very useful if you are playing a minor
The loans at 1% are useful when you want to help some country so why not to use them

 

[Kasperus]

Now I think of it: why does no one mention diploannexing through bribing? I might be wrong but the ai cannot bribe its enemies to become their friends so they can vassalize it and later diploannex it - so I cannot conclude differently than that it is an exploit - just as turboannexations. Some of those rules-moralists here should consider it. If you make rules try to be a bit consistent

 

[unmerged(8576)]

How come some people have such a hard time accepting that some one else might like to make the game more challenging?
Seems like they take personal offence..

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Kasperus
Rules...? The only rules I respect are those coded in game (except cheating/reloading/editting of course if I play a serious or not-testing-something-out-game) Why would I not use something that I can do while playing? Sometimes players can exploit something that ai cannot, but doesn`t ai cheat as well in other matters? As long as ai has no naval-attrition, can ask/give whatever province they like and has very unrealistic inflation (following the player) why would i not compromise my disadvantage with for example turbo-annexation? I see the last as annexing a country in EU1 was.
About dp-settings: why wouldn`t i change them? perhaps the ai cannot but I don`t see them suffer from random events which change them as well. On the day that there is a built-in possibility to turn random events off, I will not anymore change my dp.
About religious tolerance: Ai has already an advantage here having more sliders. Perhaps some countries have harcoded intolerance, but most do indeed tolerate most unhistoric religions (Spain always very tolerant to protestants somehow)
War without cb: I play always as much historically as possible, meaning I will always go for provinces the country I play sometime owned. That includes usually that I don`t have a cb on the right moment. I won`t just dully follow the ai-way (declaring most ridiculous wars) so I usually don`t follow that rule.
Stealing sieges: ai does it as well so why wouldn`t i? I can agree however for not doing it in mp.
loans: never use them anyway, don`t get the use of it (as well as wartaxes btw)
Rules as loading capacity, not using colonial ports, not colonizing instantly after discovery are totally ridiculous imo and contradicting my mayor rule totally.

Or in short : "The ai cheats, so I will do so too".

Just don't try to pass it off as not cheating

 

[kurtbrian]

Originally posted by Oleg
How come some people have such a hard time accepting that some one else might like to make the game more challenging?
Seems like they take personal offence..

Just like the people that likes to make the game more challenging have a hard time accepting the people that don't like to make the game more challenging....

It goes both ways in my opinion

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by Oleg
How come some people have such a hard time accepting that some one else might like to make the game more challenging?
Seems like they take personal offence..

I don`t have a problem with that. Where I do have a problem with is that those people start a moralistic crusade against other players trying to convince them to make it as hard as possible as it is not good the way it is. If they think so why they do continue playing? I haven`t play any other game since I bought eu1 in april 2001, and except for a number of ai-stupidities I`m totally satisfied with it as it is. If the programmers did not change it, why would I?

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by BiB


Or in short : "The ai cheats, so I will do so too".

Just don't try to pass it off as not cheating

yep sure... so tell me, didn`t you ever, ever exploited the game? You never done anything the ai cannot? like I mentionned bribing it for diploannexations for example? let the one who has no sin throw the first rock...

And if you did, you`re a cheater according to your own definition. And don`t try try to pass it off as not cheating

 

[BiB]

My point still very much stands.

 

[unmerged(8698)]

Originally posted by Kasperus

I don`t have a problem with that. Where I do have a problem with is that those people start a moralistic crusade against other players trying to convince them to make it as hard as possible as it is not good the way it is. If they think so why they do continue playing? I haven`t play any other game since I bought eu1 in april 2001, and except for a number of ai-stupidities I`m totally satisfied with it as it is. If the programmers did not change it, why would I?

Exactly. as demonstrated by the comment

"Or in short : "The ai cheats, so I will do so too".

Just don't try to pass it off as not cheating "

Cheating is using codes or editing saved games. Don't acuse people of cheating just because they play the game as it comes on the cd.

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by BiB
My point still very much stands.

deleted my first comment.... i do have a rule to try to stick to more contructive posts

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by petewass


Exactly. as demonstrated by the comment

"Or in short : "The ai cheats, so I will do so too".

Just don't try to pass it off as not cheating "

Cheating is using codes or editing saved games. Don't acuse people of cheating just because they play the game as it comes on the cd.

Let's see, the ai doesn't suffer naval attrition. Cheat. Still, it comes like that on the CD. Hmmmmm. Different measures.

 

[unmerged(6777)]

Warspite has begun playing with an entirely novel and extremely challenging house rule and I'm not about 50 years into my own game using it and I haven't been so hard pressed to survive since about a month after I got the game:

Play according to the current monarch's stats.

Check it out this thread to see how it's done and to read how a very experienced player intentionally let himself get crushed by ~100 years of bad-stat monarchs...just for the intense pleasure of it!

(Of course the other usual "thou shalt not" rules are also in play...)

 

[unmerged(8576)]

Now I really have to try this one.