Leviathan is just terrible

[st360]

Pillage capital is useless if your capital is more than 5/5/5, as it should be. It was a flat out stupid mechanic from the start, seeing as how the largest metropolises on the planet are represented as 12/12/9 and the game was clearly never designed to have cities over 15/15/15 development.

Curry favors is broken. I start as a 1 province nation, in 6 years I have 10 favors to call both Poland and Hungary in a war against Venice. So as a nation with 4 provinces I can raise 80 000 troops for free, every 6 years for a war.

The final straw happened when I saw Poland had 87 favors on me. WTF I called them to war 3 times in 25 years. As a nation with 1-5 provinces. Never gave them land, never got called by them once. Its 1496 and they had 3 wars conquering land for their 3 province ally and 1 war conquering land for themselves.

Lets be real, pillage capital and favors wont be saved. Especially since pillage capital was already given time by developers and "re balanced". Favors will be heavily nerfed and forgotten, or stay overpowered and people will defend it "you don't have to use it if you don't like it".

So I guess this expansion contributed +10 morale to Catholicism so multiplayer people don't cry how its too weak and new provinces.

 

[yyrkroon]

So I guess this expansion contributed +10 morale to Catholicism so multiplayer people don't cry how its too weak and new provinces.

+10% morale for Catholics. Worth it.

 

[LSF]

But when people say you are not obliged to use favors they are right. The true problem IMHO is not player using it in SP, but the subjects annoyingly asking stuff.

It is ok when they ask 20 ducats. But in my last Majapahit run Ming asking me every other year for 40k manpower was not so funny!

What I disliked in Leviathan is it is too unbalanced. Because of the special casus belli from mission I could vassalize a 3.5 k dev Otto in one war. It should not be possible.

 

[st360]

But when people say you are not obliged to use favors they are right.

"You can ignore parts of the game" is not a argument. The premise was always that player and AI nations are as equal as possible and that only player skill determines your success. Not "you have a exploit but you don't have to use it".

Why was the +100 development bug fixed? Only players could do it. You could just not use it if you didn't like it. Why was strait crossing re balanced for Ottomans? Byzantium players could just pretend they couldn't block straits and let the Ottoman army cross anyway.

 

[iClipse]

I agree that concentrate development as well as pillage capital is now useless past 1450 because you developed the institution in your capital. You can however still get reasonably big capitals when using mandala government reform.

Still, I like:
1) Monuments
2) SEA mission trees
3) Carpet siege (my personal MVP, such a time saver)
4) The regency options
5) Totemism rework

 

[iClipse]

As a sidenote, seperate post because most people don't play with mods:

I liked Anbennar's take on pillage capital a lot more. There most development doesn't go to your capital making going to war a fine option to playing tall, because you can constantly steal dev from your opponents and your lands get decently developed this way. Not just your capital. It still generate quite a bit of AE, so you can't use it willy-nilly.

 

[LSF]

"You can ignore parts of the game" is not a argument. The premise was always that player and AI nations are as equal as possible and that only player skill determines your success. Not "you have a exploit but you don't have to use it".

Why was the +100 development bug fixed? Only players could do it. You could just not use it if you didn't like it. Why was strait crossing re balanced for Ottomans? Byzantium players could just pretend they couldn't block straits and let the Ottoman army cross anyway.

Well, the only-players-can-do mechanics need to be fixed because people dont play just SP games. Many stuff I dont like I either simply ignore or mod myself. I always thought the former merc system too exploitable; so I used to never employ mercs. The problem with only-player-can-do mechanics is MP, because you know, people are playing against other people.

I am objectively right when I say player can ignore a mechanic AI is unable to use. By definition if AI cant use it, the mechanic will never show up in the game unless the player uses it. If there is such a mechanic and the player hates it but still uses it to cheese the game, it seems to me evidence of lack of self-control. I understand why people disagreed with my former post though. And I am ok with people complaining against such mechanics, self-control should not be mandatory for people enjoying the game...

What I pointed out in my previous post is Favors are NOT an example of such mechanics, differently to what TS said when he wrote "people will defend it 'you don't have to use it if you don't like it'."

If people can or cannot ignore such mechanics (wich Favors are not an example of) is a minor point, not important at all. The true question is why devs develop mechanics only players can use.

 

[OllyOllyOxenFree]

"You can ignore parts of the game" is not a argument. The premise was always that player and AI nations are as equal as possible and that only player skill determines your success. Not "you have a exploit but you don't have to use it".

Why was the +100 development bug fixed? Only players could do it. You could just not use it if you didn't like it. Why was strait crossing re balanced for Ottomans? Byzantium players could just pretend they couldn't block straits and let the Ottoman army cross anyway.

You know what? How about we continue this dumb logic?

Why remove HRE forming in 1490? You can just ignore it
Why remove blockading enemy nations for money when at peace? You can just ignore it
Why remove 200% discipline prussia? You can just ignore it
Why remove crap UI elements? You can just ignore it




Why bother criticizing the game? Just ignore it! xD

 

[Victoria 3 finally]

You know what? How about we continue this dumb logic?

Why remove HRE forming in 1490? You can just ignore it
Why remove blockading enemy nations for money when at peace? You can just ignore it
Why remove 200% discipline prussia? You can just ignore it
Why remove crap UI elements? You can just ignore it




Why bother criticizing the game? Just ignore it! xD

Yeah but now tell me why we should remove 200% discipline Prussia

 

[OllyOllyOxenFree]

Yeah but now tell me why we should remove 200% discipline Prussia

You...you're being sarcastic right?

 

[Victoria 3 finally]

Leviathan isnt a very good dlc but its still better then all the dlc we got inbtween CoC and Emperor. We had more features removed from this dlc then all those dlc combined had features TOTAL. I also liked the favor rework since now allies can be used more proactively then having them be afk coalition deniers 30 years into the game. Pillage Capital was also a amazing feature and even is now still.

 

[LSF]

You know what? How about we continue this dumb logic?

Why remove HRE forming in 1490? You can just ignore it
Why remove blockading enemy nations for money when at peace? You can just ignore it
Why remove 200% discipline prussia? You can just ignore it
Why remove crap UI elements? You can just ignore it




Why bother criticizing the game? Just ignore it! xD

You could comment on my second post and point if there is something "dumb" instead of trying to be sarcastic about something is not at discussion at all.

But I understand it is easier to attack strawmen instead.

 

[Pellucid]

Let's not forget the worst part of pillage capitol: it breaks the AI when it comes to them fighting weaker nations and pillaging them repeatedly instead of taking land.

 

[OllyOllyOxenFree]

You could comment on my second post and point if there is something "dumb" instead of trying to be sarcastic about something is not at discussion at all.

But I understand it is easier to attack strawmen instead.

My post is sarcastic to communicate exactly why your line of reasoning (or lack there of) inherently does not work but I guess you couldn't understand that.

What is there to say that hasn't already been said by bst360?

Your reasoning for not fixing a broken/overpowered aspect in the game is redundant when you can apply that reasoning to anything.

And when you can apply that reasnoning to anything it means absolutely nothing.

[BGCOLOR=rgb(30, 40, 62)]" If there is such a mechanic and the player hates it but still uses it to cheese the game, it seems to me evidence of lack of self-control."[/BGCOLOR]

Lack of self control for what exactly? Playing the game as intended? Players almost always pick the path of least resistance and it's important that the challenge is maintained regardless.

If the challenge is not maintained (see my previous post for examples) then that should rightfully be critiqued and changed to make it better.

Instead we're supposed to dismiss it away due to "lack of self-control"? Excuse me?