"If I keep my army up to date, my economy catches fire unless I sit twiddling my thumbs an awful lot" is not actually an interesting tradeoff.
- 3
Please dont nerf corruption, Add the option to turn it off
- Thread starter vipic
- Start date
-
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.
But as I said before, there are alot more options than that. Yes if you expand rapidly, and have the best miltiary, and fall behind in tech, your economy is going to catch fire. Thats the whole point, you're not supposed to be able to do everything at once, you are going to have to make a sacrafice somewhere, whether its lower military tech, less expansion or less diploannexing whatever.
- 6
- 2
The "less expansion" and "less diploannex / less ambitious peace deal" things are potentially interesting tradeoffs.
"Keeping my army up to date magically sets my economy on fire" isn't, because I have NO GOOD USE WHATSOEVER FOR MY SURPLUS MIL POINTS EXCEPT BUYING MY TECH AHEAD OF TIME JESUS CHRIST IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND OR SOMETHING?
- 5
- 2
Once again keep in mind that with the territory and states addition, you can essentially keep huge territory gains at 50% cost as well, this drastically lowers the admin power needed to expand untill you are ready to dump more admin power in areas to make them states.
- 2
- 1
yes, the tradeoff is ultimately called "afk speed 5" while you wait out truces so you can extort your neighbors again for more corruption cash.
sounds like fun
sounds like fun
- 4
- 4
I know you don't balance for MP, but if you're talking about advantages and positioning, ROTW is at a large disadvantage to Europe unless you give them less player density, even without corruption. Neglecting admin is already punitive; do that for any length of time and you're behind in ideas, including military ideas, and get NIs later in the game. That is not a scenario whereby you field competitive armies to 2-3 group policy stacked MP nations, and its relative disadvantage is already large.
If the ROTW was intentional, one has to wonder what the design goal of doing that is. The end result is being constrained in a manner that forces you to do less of something...not due to a strong opponent, but be cause you have 1 choice that's decent and it involves waiting to equalize in technology...or making your monarch point sink thousands more than it already is.
- 5
You dont have to speand your mil points, as I said just dont speand them or throw them at generals, I dont know why you seem to think you HAVE to spend them on something useful. Your burning them so your admin can fall more behind. Or just give in and buy common sense like the rest of us.
- 5
- 2
iirc the last dev multiplayer some guy in India won, though in large part that was because of being able to play singleplayer in the east due to getting hazed out of Europe early.
I'm going to be charitable and assume that's completely not related to why it was deemed that ROTW power level was too high.
- 2
Because I want to spend my points effectively.
At least before 1.12 I could spend them on army buildings (and before Autonomy I could spend them on the old Harsh Treatment that was broadly rather than narrowly useful), but then Paradox decided that I shouldn't be able to spend points on my provinces unless I pay them twenty dollars for the privilege.
- 3
Look im going to repost this cause this is what the thread was originally for, not to debate the merits of corruption.
Look to bring this thread back around to its intended purpose with a new proposition,
We are not going to completely be able to "Fix" corruption. As you can see by this thread there are widely varying ideas with regards to whats wrong with it. Some hate the tech imbalance corruption, some like all the aspects but the religious unity corruption, some hate corruption in all regards, some think corruption is fine but it needs to apply different penalties.
Solution:
Make a tiered approach to the corruption mechanic. On easy corruption is only gained through overextending and has less in the way of penalties. On normal corruption comes about from religious unity and tech imbalance, but to a lesser extent, so you can still be pretty imbalanced on tech and only have minor corruption you're dealing with. On hard corruption remains as is.
As was said in my first post I like corruption. It does not make you expand slowly, it just makes you force more of your expansion into vassals and only taking territories instead of full blown states to cut the cost of coring in half while you recover admin power. You also are forced to fall behind in mil tech a bit if your expanding rapidly so you take on less corruption. It can be dealt with and does not equal slow expansion, it just means you have to be more careful about rapid expansion and fall behind in mil tech for a bit.
Look to bring this thread back around to its intended purpose with a new proposition,
We are not going to completely be able to "Fix" corruption. As you can see by this thread there are widely varying ideas with regards to whats wrong with it. Some hate the tech imbalance corruption, some like all the aspects but the religious unity corruption, some hate corruption in all regards, some think corruption is fine but it needs to apply different penalties.
Solution:
Make a tiered approach to the corruption mechanic. On easy corruption is only gained through overextending and has less in the way of penalties. On normal corruption comes about from religious unity and tech imbalance, but to a lesser extent, so you can still be pretty imbalanced on tech and only have minor corruption you're dealing with. On hard corruption remains as is.
As was said in my first post I like corruption. It does not make you expand slowly, it just makes you force more of your expansion into vassals and only taking territories instead of full blown states to cut the cost of coring in half while you recover admin power. You also are forced to fall behind in mil tech a bit if your expanding rapidly so you take on less corruption. It can be dealt with and does not equal slow expansion, it just means you have to be more careful about rapid expansion and fall behind in mil tech for a bit.
- 3
- 1
Except that enthusiastic expanders already make extensive use of vassal feeding.
- 5
If I gave advice to Castile players to 'just' always buy their tech 12 years ahead of time in order to beat France, you'd probably question whether I had ever actually played the game.
This is sort of the same situation, because your math simply doesn't work.
- 2
After a number of unfinished game I've played one game to 1821 and another will be finished soon (under 1.15) and I've played both of them in the fashion you've described. And I've had lots of fun. It may not be fun for you. But then you can always play a game that is fun.
- 1
Please quote my whole statement as it has to be taken in context,
As was said in my first post I like corruption. It does not make you expand slowly, it just makes you force more of your expansion into vassals and only taking territories instead of full blown states to cut the cost of coring in half while you recover admin power. You also are forced to fall behind in mil tech a bit if your expanding rapidly so you take on less corruption. It can be dealt with and does not equal slow expansion, it just means you have to be more careful about rapid expansion and fall behind in mil tech for a bit.
Whoever is suggesting not teching Mil, doesn't really understand how the combat works and specifically how important Tactics level is.
- 7
You still have inflation because the price increases have already happened. The inflation listed is a stock, not a flow. It's a cumulative total of the price increases in your empire.
The listing of "inflation" is somewhat of a misnomer because we think of inflation as a flow and not a stock. It'd be more accurate to call it "price level" but it's easier to call it inflation.
...especially when combined with morale. Ever tried to fight someone with tech 15 or 16 while you are stuck at tech 14 without any military ideas? it is like fighting tanks with sticks.
- 4
Out of curiosity, how large of a tech spread is required to start adding corruption? I personally haven't encountered it yet, at least not in a significant enough to notice way.
It cost me $5 (or $6) for Common Sense. Surely you could have bought it on sale at some point in the past six months by now. I think you can be so lazy on Steam that you can mark a game as "of interest" and you'll get a message when it's on sale.
- 4
I have all the DLC's, but the design of the overall game always has to be that people don't need them all. Hence some features are made free over time if new features heavily depend on them.
- 3