Are you seriously arguing that bad gameplay should take precedence over bad history? If so then fundamentally we could never agree.
- 4
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.
Why not, you're arguing that "good" gameplay results in ridiculously bad history in a history-based game. 1500s WC okay? Give me a break.
And that, of course, is completely ignoring the whole "bad" gameplay is a subjective thing.
- 7
- 3
Eh, to be fair, you can always develop land. Mil is a great thing to dump into development. Find a handful of provinces with good manpower bonuses, assign them to nobles, and make them MIL sinks to increase your manpower pool.
Those represent Sid Meier's views on design philosophy and absolutely no one else is beholden to them.
Actually, slower play, while not inherently more challenging, allows for developments that can create more challenge.
- 1
Only if you give Paradox your shekels. Remember that developing your land with your monarch points is locked behind a paywall.
- 3
That he has set views is a stark contrast to this game's development, however. I assert EU IV has no criteria of its own, and cite the inconsistency of mechanic implementation in-game as overwhelming evidence.
While pdox has no reason to beholden to other people's criteria (and it would be dull if they were), having any at all would be useful!
Yes, but there are ways to increase challenge that don't reduce gameplay to allow it to (maybe) appear.
- 2
Of course there are. But that is still a perfectly valid approach. Not to mention that it doesn't really reduce gameplay.
You can either expand in large jumps with relatively long periods of time to allow your country to stabilize, or expand in smaller jumps with far smaller periods of peace in between. Or a mix of both.
This also adds in further strategy to the game, because it means you now have to consider when you want to make deals that are 100% OE worth of annexation, or take smaller peace deals. So, for example, you can't really go crippling rival after rival in successive wars and taking tons of land without any real consequence anymore. This means that your rivals can not only stick around longer and blob to match you more easily, but because you are growing slower they can also maintain relative parity with you much more easily.
So, sure, maybe it is worth it to take a bunch of French land and neuter France. You'll just have to wait a while to expand some more. Or would you instead prefer to keep your realm stable and keep yourself able to expand elsewhere while simultaneously leaving France in a position it can recover more easily from.
- 1
Yes, with the end goal of "person that got outplayed is closer than before".
In Europe maybe. In ROTW, you just pay a tax for playing the game at all.
- 2
The AI sucks at blobbing though. Paradox has specifically made sure of that because of the 'but muh historical immersionnnnn' crowd throws fits every time the AI does smart expansion because it looks ugly. I could literally expand at a pace of two provinces every 10 years and still outpace the AI in an overwhelming number of starts, honestly; especially in the current patch.
- 5
It's because many of those arguing Yay! for corruption and states/regions are instead arguing for more penalties in blobbing fast (which could be done by tweaking numerous current game mechanics) instead of listening to you and others saying their new mechanics are the issue, not tweaks to penalties for non-core, non-culture, or things to affect the economic system as an improvement the game instead. They're equating your, and my, strong disagreement with new mechanics being instead Pro WC by 1500 or some other strawman.
- 1
I don't get what you mean here.
I don't disagree. The system needs rebalancing. But the concept is good.
I think payments to buy down corruption need to be rebalanced so that they can be high at high corruption, but low when you have low corruption. I think that mana cost need to scale less ridiculously with it to. It needs to account for ROTW not being Europe. And so on, and so on.
But the basic idea is still good.
The AI does not suck at blobbing. It's not as good as a human player, though, and it will never be. At least not without giving it even more skewed bonuses than it already has or so much work put into AI that you won't be seeing the next patch for another decade.
Given what's happening with the AI in my observer games I suspect corruption will go the wayof border forts, free for the AI, just something the player has to deal with.
- 2
It is also happening to non-blobbing AI nations so its not just the corruption mechanic but it is the new state/territory "tax" which is ruining early game economies instead of tweaking their economic model.
The state/territory system has less to do with the economic model, and more to do with the overseas and ridiculously large empires getting way too powerful across the board.
- 2
Another player only thing then. It would be nice if the AI could deal with and not take over the world. That's the thing about Paradox's AI, I don't want them actually creating something that wants to take over the world you know.
I am arguing against the method, not the result. You are arguing for the method because of the result.
Which is better: An arbitrary heavy handed system which reduces early game economies across the board for no reason, places artificial limits on expansion or that makes you make more clicks OR
Modifications to autonomy/economy based upon # of provinces. Modifications to provinces far away (distance) in economy and autonomy. Both of those could be mitigated some by technology - Administration/diplomacy levels giving the player a direct way to combat a given inefficiency.
- 1
A player who plays worse than another player 'is outplayed' won't see that difference fully expressed in the game because the better player is severely handicapped.
In any case your arguments are pointless, all corruption does in practice as a mechanic that exists in a strategic video game and not a simulator or real life is make the player sit around and do basically nothing, make no progress for large portions of the game, particularly and specifically outside Europe where you can expect to spend an inordinate amount of time on speed 5 and you are punished merely for existing. Any reform to mechanic such as the one already proposed by Johan will merely change the amount of time you have to do nothing, it will do nothing to provide alternative activities or make the game more fun.
- 3
- 1
It's hardly arbitrary or heavy handed. It represents that you can only administrate so much at a time. It also represents that administration has costs associated with it.
Other than that power balloons significantly as you expand without any real cost except for the initial investment and the initial rebellion cost. In reality, part of the problem of maintaining large empires have been that those things are expensive as hell to administrate.
It does no such thing. It simply makes you get diminishing returns if you expand beyond what you can adequately administrate.
I don't mind more clicks, especially since it's not something I'll be clicking every five minutes in the game.
Part of the whole reason that the mechanic was introduced in the first place was precisely because of how wonky and hard to balance overseas and long distance territories were. This simplifies the system greatly.
So...exactly the same system that there is now except that you are introducing a far more complex system in place to achieve the same amount of balance? I like the simpler system that is in place now, thank you very much.
Not to mention that that would be significantly more resource intensive while yielding no real benefit.
Except that isn't even remotely true. Nothing is stopping you from taking 100% OE peace deals. It just means that you'll then have to find a way to compensate for the added corruption. It's another strategic factor to consider and which you must make plans around. In an individual war this has virtually no change on the actual game. It only matters in the sense of the greater strategic picture where you must consider factors beyond the war.
The better playing player is by no means handicapped. Also, that wouldn't be a handicap regardless, since it applies equally to both players. The worse player has no advantage over the better player since they are both subject to the exact same conditions and rules.
A strategic simulator based on real life and with many aspects of it shaped by real life. Stop pretending that EUIV is somehow not at all historical. Yes, it's a sandbox, but it's a historical sandbox, which is why stuff like history and historical context and plausibility matters. It might not take primacy, but to state that one can simply dismiss it out of hand is also to completely ignore what the game is.
Except that's just demonstrably false. It doesn't allow you to continuously take high OE peace deals, especially if there are other mitigating factors to consider (e.g. low Religious Unity) in war after war after war.
Absolutely nothing is stopping you from going to war and having war after war after war. You can still take land in war after war after war. You just have to have some self control and not try to grab everything every time or else you face consequences, because actions have consequences. If you go crazy expanding then you'll have to take some time sitting down and consolidating your realm like nations actually had to do in reality. Conversely, if you try to constantly stay at war and take smaller peaces then your realm will be more intrinsically stable and thus having to sit back and let it stabilize won't be as big an issue.
Yes, it's a problem for ROTW. And yes, it needs to be modified for that.
It doesn't need to. The game is plenty fun as is and absolutely nothing has been added to make you have to wait that much longer except for under very specific circumstances.
- 5
- 3
My question would be, if you're not playing multiplayer why is it so important what other players are able to do? I have never seen anyone that could do a WC by 1500 be against any mechanic that would add options to other playstyles. Most of the posts that I've seen against corruption have been of two types. It limits play options or it's a redundant mechanic.
I don't think someone who RP's a nation or tries to play historical is dumb or playing the game wrong, if that's your fun then have your fun. Why then, do so many people seem to want the rapid expansion players to not have fun? I just don't get it, is it that you really feel threatened or somehow wronged that someone can (in their own singleplayer game) complete a WC by 1500 or take a ROTW nation and build up a mighty empire?
I really want to understand how this would affect you so much that you would advocate that playstyle as invalid or wrong.
Finally if it is really about playstyles, then maybe what we need is for PDX to finally tell us "This is how you play" that way we can decide if it's our kind of game and stop having these discussions about the good or bad way to play.
- 5
find me one historical example example of prussia attempting to unite germany during this tame frame.
Find one historical example of ulm becoming a major power.
Find one historical example of Ming not collapsing
Find one historical example of Poland not being partitioned.
According to your logic none of these should be in the game if you can't find a historical example of it.
Also you have managed to completely ignore every argument thrown your way buy just saying it isn't historically accurate, but this is a game, not a history class. It's not good game design adding in a feature that just slows the one interesting gameplay style while not adding any difficulty to that gameplay.
- 3
Your position is inconsistent with your position, you can't support the corruption mechanic within the context of the game state from a historic perspective without necessarily doing so in an arbitrary and self-defeating manner.
- 3