• 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.
could be better with some malus for low stats like in CK2. Having a 0 martial ruler in CK2 is a disaster for exemple and you become extremely weak. It could be an opportunity to invade a stronger ennemy as scheming to place a weak ruler
 
A high oratory skill with silver-tongue trait would give one option (lower stability-impact on law-changes, shorter time diplo-annexing, etc.), a low oratory skill with corruption-trait another (less improve opinion maximum, buildings and troops cost more etc.). This way different rulers will give different modifiers on different areas, and it doesn't always have to be positive ones. Is this more in the line of engaging to you? It sure would be for me.

That would indeed be better. There needs to be more traits that have a farily strong impact on a country if the character becomes its ruler. Player needs to care who rules the country. Game needs to keep player interested in the outcome of a succession process while giving him some tools to affect it. Simple stat modifiers don't really achieve that IMO. I think it would be ideal if rulers stats and traits actually dictated which direction you take the country during their rulership. For instance, your tactical genius of a king dies and you go 'Daaamn, I can't start this war now! This noob kid has no idea about warfare!' Right now it would be like 'oh no, my morale gonna be 6% lower... *yaaaawn, DoW*. I think that now I would care less who rules my republic than with mana D: Oh, well, some not so positive modifiers. He's gonna go in a few years anyway, why bother influencing the election.

While thinking about all this I also recalled the Stellaris' 'agenda' mechanic. Every ruler candidate had an agenda, a promise that player could fulfill when that person gets elected. Now, the reward in Stellaris is not all that impressive - some Influence. Imagine how amazing it could work here! Especially in republics: a person, let's say from Military Faction, happened to get an agenda to increase trade, their promise is to create 3 new trade routes. Now, this wouldn't make the entirety of Mercantile Faction immediately decide to vote for them, they have their own candidate. But maybe it would increase attraction to Mil Faction from Merch's (OMG they care about trade! D: ). And if that person won the election and then fulfilled their promise that attraction would increase even more (and sligthly from other parties) while also significantly increasing Loyalty of the 2 parties! Which would in turn make members of the parties who are in the government perform better. Failing to fulfill the agenda would result in higher popularity of the Populist Faction, perhaps lower loyalty from Mercantile government members. And maybe even some negative trait(s)? That would give a player a way to 9influence a development of a character, which AFAIK is not too common in the game (you won this election cuz I couldn't stop it, but you're not getting anything done and will never get elected again!).

Mechanic could work for other government types but I don't have enough experience with them to speculate. Also this post is way too long already. Sorry, my mind is kinda fever driven rn ^^'
 
Would the different stats for Generals and Governors have different effects as well?

Id love to have something like Governor's Zeal benifit conversion and their oratory benifit assimilation and the like for Generals as well. That way there is real decision making in picking leaders.


And wouldnt simply redound to picking the guy with the guy with the highest of x trait.
 
Id love to have something like Governor's Zeal benifit conversion and their oratory benifit assimilation and the like for Generals as well. That way there is real decision making in picking leaders

Yes it does. But I think it would be too much micro if you had to check what stat affects what given that there are so many provinces in a region and the policiy you may want for some wont work for other provinces within the same region
 
I hope not. If its part of the fun and the experience to see how a good ruler influences possitively on your country, it is also a fun part to have to deal with the struggle of a bad one. Imagine how shit CK2 would be if you could manage all your heirs being good by removing the bad ones, always having super rulers.

The fun of the game is to reap the rewards of a good ruler and to learn to deal with the limitations of a bad one, there lies the challenge and the fun.

Actually I find a lot of the fun of CK2 is in arranging to have great heirs as often as possible.

Not saying we should be able to just button-press away the bad ones, but it should be possible to influence these things. Actually one of the things I enjoy with republics in I:R is managing characters to try to ensure that only the best people become Consul.
 
I think bad stats should add negative effect, if you have less than 5 points you lose something and if you a have more than 5 you have bonuses. Currently you can choose a character with only one really good stats and all the others very bad but you'll never have malus.
 
I support the idea of malus for bad stats.

As a player I "feel" strongly when I get penalties; I feel them more than my bonus. This "in-game frustration", totally legitimate and logical, is a good way to feel immersed and involved.

In other words, a "bad ruler" would mean something concrete, not just being "absence of a good ruler". Mad, poor etc. kings are such a trope...

If not permanent malus, then random events like "local populace provoked" / "capital set to fire for aesthetic impulse" / "senate outraged by immorale conduct"...
 
just need some same formula like martial levies modifier of CK2 :

Levy size modifiers is the sum of modifiers from:
  • Martial skill: 5% * (martial skill - 10). This significantly affects the levy size, e.g., -50% at 0 skill and +50% at 20 skill.

It could easily be applied to manpower or moral in imperator
 
For malus i wasn't thinking of just a negative version of the bonus, but more like something completly different, bad military skills can increase the price of troops or the speed of armies to simulate the bad gestion.
 
That is great.

I know that numbers are probably not final, but I feel that the martial could use some tweaks.
Manpower recovery speed modifier should be larger, perhaps 2 or 2.5% per martial to become more meaningful.

Morale recovery speed is nice and all, but not really something you'd consider crucial outside of some very specific situations.
On the other hand, manpower recovery is a very significant number, but the fact that a god ruler-general only increases it by 10% is quite underwhelming.
So as I see it, the bonuses are for one significant stat boosted in a negligible way and for one negligible stat boosted in a significant way.
Doesn't feel very impactful imo.
 
All these changes are going to impact the speed of your action and I'm Ok with that, so I propose to expand the playable timespan and\or give us the possibility to continue after the end, even without being eligible for achievments.
 
Actually I find a lot of the fun of CK2 is in arranging to have great heirs as often as possible.

Not saying we should be able to just button-press away the bad ones, but it should be possible to influence these things. Actually one of the things I enjoy with republics in I:R is managing characters to try to ensure that only the best people become Consul.

Yes thats not the same and I agree with you. One thing is to be able to influence his education and other is to get rid of them a la EU4.

Fun thing about CK2 is that you may give him an education and the result might still be a mere +3, and he might end up being a terrible ruler anyway. The focuses help a bit with it, but if hes a dull ruler with bad traits you're just stuck with that.

As I said, I'd also like an education mechanic for I:R too. For monarchies at least.
 
I support the idea of malus for bad stats.

As a player I "feel" strongly when I get penalties; I feel them more than my bonus. This "in-game frustration", totally legitimate and logical, is a good way to feel immersed and involved.

In other words, a "bad ruler" would mean something concrete, not just being "absence of a good ruler". Mad, poor etc. kings are such a trope...

If not permanent malus, then random events like "local populace provoked" / "capital set to fire for aesthetic impulse" / "senate outraged by immorale conduct"...

Im not such a fan of bad modifiers for lack of skills. But I like a lot more the CK2 approach of actions being locked and bad events as you proposed being triggered. Having low charisma could lower characters loyalty and decrease chances of Senate passing laws or approving wars and diplo actions. Things like that
 
Martial
+1% Manpower Recovery Speed per Martial.
+1% Army Morale Recovery per Martial. (base values decreased some to balance)
Understandable. A leader like Alexander The Great would inspire countrymen to join the army and fight for him.

Charisma
-0.01 Monthly Tyranny per Charisma
+0.2 Monthly Claim Progress per Charisma
A charming ruler is able to hide is tyrannical motives.

Finesse
+2% Commerce Income per Finesse
-2% Build Cost per Finesse
Rulers with finesse understand the art of the deal. Maybe include +1 capital import route for every 5 finesse.

Zeal
+0.01 Monthly Stability Change per Zeal
-0.01 Monthly War Exhaustion per Zeal (base values decreased as well)
A religious ruler with zeal has his nation watched over. Perhaps make it easier to convert provinces as well.
 
Decreasing building costs can be a dangerous thing when stacked.
Also does charisma increase stability?
(Stability might not be the correct term either as civil wars and rebellions could be consider stability perhaps unity would be better.)

Other things can be looked into later I image, like additional trade routes at certain levels. (however the issue with trade routes now is that it costs something to set up when it shouldn't which would make this annoying)
 
Adding on to this 'low stat malus' idea, it could add a small possible bonus and/or further depth and strategic thinking to aristocratic republics: making sure to get a co-consul that can cover the deficiencies of your primary consul.

Perhaps to make it even more interesting it could tie to loyalty as well - if your co-consul is loyal they'll cover the consul's flaws, if they are disloyal they'll drag the consul down.