i know i said i was done with this thread, but i guess i lied
i was in the shower today and i came up with an idea
i think that the diplomatic sliders are the root of our evil, well atleast they cause a lot of issues.
they were placed in to make the game more detailed and give you a more real feeling about your country, while what they have become is a tool that players manipulate to get what they need to take advantage of the game engine.
therefore, i have come up with two possible fixes, one drastic and one a little more mild.
1.eliminate the ability of human players to move diplomatic sliders.
this would enable the sliders to be only moved by histroical and random events. this would make these events what they should be, major events in the course of history that change the way things were going(in example: that event that is -4 stability +1 centralization may actually become worth it). I dont know if this is a possible fix, or if you would just have to go on players word they are not moving it except by events.
2.change the movement of sliders from once every ten years to once every twenty years (or twenty-five). This would allow 5 or 4 changes in a century, which becomes more realistic for the times. This would still make events a big thing, but not as dependent as in the first option.
These choices should help solve a lot of problems without having to restrict every little thing (I.E.: number of CC's or number of forts)
and in a replay to a replay to my last post
nobody ever came out and said things should be made equal for every nation, but thats what rules do. Is not limiting every nation to ten CC's equal for everyone? is 10 to you not the same as 10 to me? should england have ten CC's and Russia have ten CC's ?? and it works in reverse to...should england be limited to ten max forts while russia is limited to ten max forts?? surely england is known for its defenses while russia is known for its limitless hordes of troops. so basically puting a limit on any one thing is equalizing the competition.
if you need any more examples try this one......dont know how much you pay attention to american sports, but a salary cap is a limit on total salaries one team can have for every man on their roster. the idea behind it is to stop the teams with more money from buying out all the good players and having a hughe team salary, which surely the poorer teams can not afford. This, inefect, equalizes competition for the entire league and creates parady. surely there was no parady in the nations of 16th and 17th century europe.
i was in the shower today and i came up with an idea
i think that the diplomatic sliders are the root of our evil, well atleast they cause a lot of issues.
they were placed in to make the game more detailed and give you a more real feeling about your country, while what they have become is a tool that players manipulate to get what they need to take advantage of the game engine.
therefore, i have come up with two possible fixes, one drastic and one a little more mild.
1.eliminate the ability of human players to move diplomatic sliders.
this would enable the sliders to be only moved by histroical and random events. this would make these events what they should be, major events in the course of history that change the way things were going(in example: that event that is -4 stability +1 centralization may actually become worth it). I dont know if this is a possible fix, or if you would just have to go on players word they are not moving it except by events.
2.change the movement of sliders from once every ten years to once every twenty years (or twenty-five). This would allow 5 or 4 changes in a century, which becomes more realistic for the times. This would still make events a big thing, but not as dependent as in the first option.
These choices should help solve a lot of problems without having to restrict every little thing (I.E.: number of CC's or number of forts)
and in a replay to a replay to my last post
nobody ever came out and said things should be made equal for every nation, but thats what rules do. Is not limiting every nation to ten CC's equal for everyone? is 10 to you not the same as 10 to me? should england have ten CC's and Russia have ten CC's ?? and it works in reverse to...should england be limited to ten max forts while russia is limited to ten max forts?? surely england is known for its defenses while russia is known for its limitless hordes of troops. so basically puting a limit on any one thing is equalizing the competition.
if you need any more examples try this one......dont know how much you pay attention to american sports, but a salary cap is a limit on total salaries one team can have for every man on their roster. the idea behind it is to stop the teams with more money from buying out all the good players and having a hughe team salary, which surely the poorer teams can not afford. This, inefect, equalizes competition for the entire league and creates parady. surely there was no parady in the nations of 16th and 17th century europe.
