Paradox Celebrates International Women’s Day With DLC

[Arag]

Is this actually a free DLC available on Steam, or just part of the patch itself?

Looks like part of the patch.

I'm surprised that Bona Sforza, the Italian-born queen of Poland is not on the list, while an unimportant mistress of a Polish king is. Guess establishing the renaissance in a country isn't an achievement.

 

[SolSara]

Looks like part of the patch.

I'm surprised that Bona Sforza, the Italian-born queen of Poland is not on the list, while an unimportant mistress of a Polish king is. Guess establishing the renaissance in a country isn't an achievement.

I found over 300 different women when I did the research for this DLC, but it seems that I missed some of them. I would have loved to have a Bona Sforza event, but I didn't know about her until after this DLC was announced. She's one I want to make an event about, and hopefully I'll get to do that someday.

 

[tom_jones]

So basically with the DLC you have OP monarchs by events, and it turns out they are all women.

No bias here

Right, when a female ruler with good stats is spawned through event from DLC it's "no bias here lolz"
When a male ruler with good stats is spawned through event from the core game it's "nothing to see here, HISTORICAL ACCURACY", I guess?

 

[Orinsul]

In the screenshots posted, it's optional. You get to choose whether they come to power or become an advisor when the event comes up.

And really, were any of you people outraged by this even bothered by the many already existing historical events? A good number of which create characters.

 

[seeds24]

When a male ruler with good stats is spawned through event from the core game it's "nothing to see here, HISTORICAL ACCURACY", I guess?

How many historical male ruler are spawned through events ?

 

[TheChronoMaster]

It's quite obviously a PR move because the return of historically determined monarchs doesn't fit EU4 gameplay. It harms gameplay for the sake of "telling us about strong womynz". I bet that most players that know the mechanics of the game will end up disabling this DLC, even though they may be left wing themselves.

It's not wholly deterministic, closer to DHEs from what I can see. For instance, the Catherine the Great event:

# Queen Catherine II (the Great) (1729-1796)
country_event = {
	id = women_history_events.2
	title = women_history_events.2.t
	desc = women_history_events.2.d
	picture = wihgfx_FEMALE_RULER_eventPicture

	trigger = {
		tag = RUS
		is_year = 1729
		NOT = {
			is_year = 1800
		}
		is_female = no
		has_regency = no
		is_lesser_in_union = no
		NOT = {
			OR = {
				ADM = 3
				DIP = 3
				MIL = 3
			}
		}
		OR = {
			has_heir = no
			has_female_heir = no
		}
		NOT = {
			has_global_flag = wih_catherine_rus_flag
		}
	} 
	
	mean_time_to_happen = {
		months = 200
	}
	
	immediate = {
		hidden_effect = {
			set_global_flag = wih_catherine_rus_flag
		}
	}
	
	option = {
		name = women_history_events.2.a
		define_ruler = {
			name = "Yekaterina"
			dynasty = "Romanov"
			adm = 6
			dip = 6
			mil = 5
			female = yes
		}
	}
	option = {
		name = women_history_events.2.b
		add_adm_power = 100
		add_dip_power = 100
		add_mil_power = 100
		define_advisor = {
			female = yes
			type = statesman #spymaster
			skill = 2
			name = "Yekaterina Romanov"
		}
	}
}

Requires a weak ruler, and no heir.

EDIT: Like, believe me, if it was EU2 style 'on this date you get X ruler/advisor'? I'd turn it off. But it's not like that, from all the events I can see in the files.

 

[Kusanagi]

It's quite obviously a PR move

Previously it was "liberal propaganda", now it's just a "PR move". I'm going to ignore quite how ridiculous you sound and just point out you're desperately shifting the goalposts to justify yourself and your very strange views.

because the return of historically determined monarchs doesn't fit EU4 gameplay.

We already have "historically determined monarchs"... do you even play this game?

It harms gameplay for the sake of "telling us about strong womynz".

:rofl:

I bet that most players that know the mechanics of the game will end up disabling this DLC, even though they may be left wing themselves.

Then you are indeed quite mad, though I know you do not really believe what you are saying. 99% of players will not even notice the new free DLC, and all DLC is enabled by default. With even a cursory understanding of human psychology, one would predict the vast majority of people will leave all DLC enabled, regardless of what it adds. But don't let me stop your loud bleating to try to drown out just how alone you are in your sad views.

 

[tom_jones]

How many historical male ruler are spawned through events ?

There's ~25 events which spawn a history-based male ruler with defined (strong) stats and similar amount for rulers with undetermined stats. I didn't do a search for advisors.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

There's ~25 events which spawn a history-based male ruler with defined stats, and similar amount for rulers with undetermined stats. I didn't do a search for advisors.

Incidentally, are you also counting optional rulers, like Oliver Cromwell, and what's-his-name who replaces a mad king in Russia?

 

[Alerias]

How many historical male ruler are spawned through events ?

A search on file contents for the "flavor***" event files give 41 counts of "define_ruler". That includes figures like Napoleon, US presidents, scripted Inca rulers added with the Inti religion, the first Romanov, etc.

Woman in history has 43 define_ruler .

In both cases the triggers mean you won't always see them.

 

[Tharsonius]

In the screenshots posted, it's optional. You get to choose whether they come to power or become an advisor when the event comes up.

And really, were any of you people outraged by this even bothered by the many already existing historical events? A good number of which create characters.

Most of the old historical events where either flavor without much impact or spawned an adviser. Spawning a good adviser isn't bad for balance, spawning a good ruler is.

 

[Kusanagi]

A search on file contents for the "flavor***" event files give 41 counts of "define_ruler". That includes figures like Napoleon, US presidents, scripted Inca rulers added with the Inti religion, the first Romanov, etc.

Woman in history has 43 define_ruler .

In both cases the triggers mean you won't always see them.

I think you just won the thread.

Also, the DLC isn't showing up in my launcher yet (and is shown as "inactive" ingame), even though my game has updated. What's up? I really want to play.

 

[zharliette]

On the scale of railroading from 1 to 10 some advisor is 1 (general, unless he is god 6/6/6 is 1-2), since you are receiving advisors all the time, and probably do not need this type of advisor anyway (or he is too expensive/too cheap)
Isabel with God stats (and look at the initial Castillian monarch and heir stats) would be overpowering, even before forcing Wedding railroading.

So advisor, general - are mostly flavor. Isabell is BS.

Fascinating.

Correct me if I'm wrong - you've got nothing against the events that make female characters advisors(which most of the WiH events seem to do) but only object to events that also have the option to make them rulers? Or even more generally - historical railroading is bad only if it affects who the current ruler is? That is to say, who cares if advisors or trade goods or Burgundian Inheritance happens, it's the occasional and rare ruler that really is the problem?

 

[Vaximillian]

Also, the DLC isn't showing up in my launcher yet (and is shown as "inactive" ingame), even though my game has updated. What's up? I really want to play.

Same for me. Also it broke my graphics mods installed, and changing supported_version in .mod file only leads to CTDs.

 

[frolix42]

This topic has been broached before. By Scottish reformer John Knox, published in 1558.

How far we have come...

 

[tom_jones]

Incidentally, are you also counting optional rulers, like Oliver Cromwell, and what's-his-name who replaces a mad king in Russia?

I've counted the "define_ruler" entries which had included stat values, and came with recognizable names. Some of them may be optional, but I feel this doesn't really affect the argument as it's the same with the women DLC, by the looks of it. For Cromwell specifically I didn't include him because he doesn't have predefined stats.

 

[Kusanagi]

This topic has been broached before. By Scottish reformer John Knox, published in 1558.

How far we have come...

Yes, those sorts spout their ignorance online from computers now! Their literacy ability appears to have declined though...

 

[seeds24]

Then you are indeed quite mad, though I know you do not really believe what you are saying. 99% of players will not even notice the new free DLC, and all DLC is enabled by default. With even a cursory understanding of human psychology, one would predict the vast majority of people will leave all DLC enabled, regardless of what it adds. But don't let me stop your loud bleating to try to drown out just how alone you are in your sad views.

So according to you, I am "mad, ridiculous, have had bad upringing and education, have no understanting of human psychology, alone in my sad views". That's a bit much for one man, don't you think ? especially after only reading 2-3 post of me on a public forum.

 

[zdlugasz]

Like... any form-able nation? The characters and events we already get? You are so blinded you are ceasing to make any sense.

Depth and merit of your answer overawe me sir, really

 

[albso437]

name = women_history_events.6.a
define_ruler = {
name = "Christina"
dynasty = "Vasa"
female = yes
adm = 2
dip = 3
mil = 3

Christina was horrible. She's a 1/1/1. At tops.