![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
Players asks for a lot of silly things. Next thing we know CK2 needs to be included in Vicky 2.
Please give us console codes for land swaps!!
- Thread starter unmerged(75409)
- 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.
Land deals as decisions works for certain historical sales, but it utterly fails in a sandbox-esque scenario that the new game engine gives us. What about a powerful Canada making a good offer to Russia? What about Canada offering to buy Greenland? What about Sardinia attempting to buy Corsica? What if the US wants to buy Cuba? Are you going to include decisions for every possible land sale? If not, then provide an option for these to be made.
Sure it does. What about Krupp selling "steel breechloaders" to a country whose highest level of development is "brass muzzleloaders?" How does that country acquire modern up-to-date artillery? Krupp certainly sold cannon to countries not capable of manufacturing them themselves. As did Maxim and Gatling.
What about British war subsidies? What about Lend-Lease? What about the Oregon Compromise? What about the Mexican Cession?
It is not possible to carry all of these events into the game using decisions or events, unless one is prepared to code literally thousands of iterations! Adding a negotiations option does!
You know what would be fine? Make it available only to the player, or make the AI programmed to reject all deals unless using the "neville" command. Editing the save file works, sure, but it's a pain in the butt! It's up to the player if they want to game the system or cheat or whatever. If it's fun, let it go!
I'd like to add to this and say that removing a useful feature because it could be exploited isn't a very good idea. If this were applied to many of the features of EUIII, then many of the game play aspects wouldn't have made it in there.
People exploit and even outright cheat all the time. Features incredibly important to game play can often be exploited and will be found to be exploited.
Besides, all paradox games have cheats AND exploitable parts of the game. A weird AI issue or an exploitable mechanic in game (such as owning all sulfur production and refusing to sell any of it) is bound to exist. There is no way around it.
It's better to find an agreeable means to implement something useful rather than take it away for no other reason than it might get exploited. Anything might get exploited.
This is off-topic, but I see it often enough for it to bug me a bit. The game engine has nothing to do with the sandbox nature of the game. CK used the old engine and was totally sandbox, arguably more so than EUIII. It's simply a design decision, nothing more.
I'll add my voice to the fray.
I have to say, one of the most fun games I played in Vicky was just a few months ago, as Prussia => Germany. After unification and achieving my own personal conquest goals, I decided to use my armies and unify the Balkans under one flag. I chose Greece as my puppet.
Long story short, my satellite Eastern Roman Empire reborn would not have been possible without the negotiation option. I fail to see a compelling reason to remove such a game feature.
As several others have already said, I want to have fun playing a game. Recreating Byzantine was fun. If another player wants to exploit to perform a world conquest in single player, god bless him; he's probably having fun too. Why limit game functionality?
Come on! Let's all have fun together!
I have to say, one of the most fun games I played in Vicky was just a few months ago, as Prussia => Germany. After unification and achieving my own personal conquest goals, I decided to use my armies and unify the Balkans under one flag. I chose Greece as my puppet.
Long story short, my satellite Eastern Roman Empire reborn would not have been possible without the negotiation option. I fail to see a compelling reason to remove such a game feature.
As several others have already said, I want to have fun playing a game. Recreating Byzantine was fun. If another player wants to exploit to perform a world conquest in single player, god bless him; he's probably having fun too. Why limit game functionality?
Come on! Let's all have fun together!
The worst part iof it is that so far it was the case for Paradox to not change anything if they already done it - as, for instance clergy issue, UCSA name etc.
So, I'm afraid if they already have made the decision they will stick to it. What brings me to the conclusion that I may not buy sequel of my favourite game up to patch 1.xx - when pissed off players will make them to implement features which were in Vic1 and should be in Vic2 from a start.
So, I'm afraid if they already have made the decision they will stick to it. What brings me to the conclusion that I may not buy sequel of my favourite game up to patch 1.xx - when pissed off players will make them to implement features which were in Vic1 and should be in Vic2 from a start.
I don't think there are any specific techs that you need - the requirements are simply in terms of prestige, military power, and economic power. To achieve those, it's useful to have specific techs (like the ones that let you build different kinds of factories), but they aren't a hard requirement.
I'm a bit disappointed, too. Whenever Paradox decides to "do away" with a game feature, it tends to f*ck up parts of the game. Think about how they announced that they would not include a negotiated peace option in HoI3, and what a pain in the ass the forced-peace events have become. It's easily the most annoying feature in HoI3, even after four patches.
Paradox, you hear me? You are making a wrong decision!!! And I will go and say, "I told you so." :wacko:
that is a Kingly burn if ever I saw one...
hear hear to that. Personally I stick by the Paradox games just for the thrill of the quest for improved AI.
I'll add my voice to the fray.
I have to say, one of the most fun games I played in Vicky was just a few months ago, as Prussia => Germany. After unification and achieving my own personal conquest goals, I decided to use my armies and unify the Balkans under one flag. I chose Greece as my puppet.
Long story short, my satellite Eastern Roman Empire reborn would not have been possible without the negotiation option. I fail to see a compelling reason to remove such a game feature.
As several others have already said, I want to have fun playing a game. Recreating Byzantine was fun. If another player wants to exploit to perform a world conquest in single player, god bless him; he's probably having fun too. Why limit game functionality?
Come on! Let's all have fun together!
+1
I agree that the AI could not negotiate very well in the first game. Truth be told when I wanted something I generally just used the neville cheat. Sometimes I just wanted a province (or more often wanted a different country to have a province) and I had fun playing that way. If Paradox cannot make the AI work well enough just yet for the feature to work very well then so what, it can still be a very useful feature in making the game fun.
Something sounds wrong in here
On one side, we had the flamewar between historical event-led gaming and a more "arcade" style, in which developpers definitely sided against the first option. After the alleged success of EU3+addons, one can only understand that choice.
And here the same developper seem to argue against land deals in peace negociations. Strange. I would have thought the ojbective in Vicky2 would be to allow greater freedom in player's choices, as to step away from the historical path. Now provinces are to vicky (and all paradox titles) what cards are to pocker: the squeletton of the game. So, if I may ask, how are you at PI going to achieve the new developments goal if you crack down on the most basic game flexibility, like quickly exchanging lands ?
Just a thought, and I may have it all wrong; but my poor experience tends to show me that design contradiction never work out very well. One has to stand on the path he has chosen.
On one side, we had the flamewar between historical event-led gaming and a more "arcade" style, in which developpers definitely sided against the first option. After the alleged success of EU3+addons, one can only understand that choice.
And here the same developper seem to argue against land deals in peace negociations. Strange. I would have thought the ojbective in Vicky2 would be to allow greater freedom in player's choices, as to step away from the historical path. Now provinces are to vicky (and all paradox titles) what cards are to pocker: the squeletton of the game. So, if I may ask, how are you at PI going to achieve the new developments goal if you crack down on the most basic game flexibility, like quickly exchanging lands ?
Just a thought, and I may have it all wrong; but my poor experience tends to show me that design contradiction never work out very well. One has to stand on the path he has chosen.
To Trading Land issue:
Selling Land for Tech between Civilized powers shouldn't be allowed.
I don't know it but I guess it never happend in the period. Exchanging
Land for Land or Land for Money isn't unrealistic imho. UK wouldn't care
to loose some african provinces for example if they get previously annexed Wales back. For me as uncivilized power (for example China) it could be worth it to offer one of my 10.000 harbours to that european power in exchange for most up-to-date tech. So that should be allowed, too.
You 'just' have to tell the AI that it shouldn't make Land-Deals every 2 weeks and that it only accepts deals that are clearly in their favour untill AI can handle the complex deals correctly.
Peace Deals (This topic is closely connected to Land swaps):
There should be some AI that prefers Provinces Bordering Provinces
they allready control in peace deals, prefering national culture provs,
prefering Provs on the same Continent or colonial ones (Africa, Asia).
Maybe there can also be added a 'historical sphere of action' that makes
eating Balkan/Black sea/Caucasus Provinces at a %-value more attractive to demand than Finnland for Osmans for example...
Releasing / Puppeting (also same topic):
I often try to reorganise the balcans after Austrohungary and Turkey are beaten. That was sometimes annoying. For example when I wanted to Annex Austria including the hungarian province of Sophron (or how it was named) I had nearly no chance to do so because if I released Hungary they got the province I wanted (... and a lot of others not).
Suggestion: Define a minimum Provinces that a Country needs to actually get formed (for example for Austria the vienna region). If anyone wants to release austria as standard these provs are given to austria. Then the cursor changes somehow and you have to place the capital inside these minimum regions. Then you can simply click on the map to release other provs to austria (maybe excluding tyrol or what you like but tyrol will still be their core region). You end it by pressing enter, a button or whatever and a Popup apears asking you if you made all correct and you can press "release as vassal" or "release as independent nation" or "abort" (undo changes).
That way you release the nations as YOU want (without making nonsense like Hungarys capital is London) and this point doesn't need land trading.
Selling Land for Tech between Civilized powers shouldn't be allowed.
I don't know it but I guess it never happend in the period. Exchanging
Land for Land or Land for Money isn't unrealistic imho. UK wouldn't care
to loose some african provinces for example if they get previously annexed Wales back. For me as uncivilized power (for example China) it could be worth it to offer one of my 10.000 harbours to that european power in exchange for most up-to-date tech. So that should be allowed, too.
You 'just' have to tell the AI that it shouldn't make Land-Deals every 2 weeks and that it only accepts deals that are clearly in their favour untill AI can handle the complex deals correctly.
Peace Deals (This topic is closely connected to Land swaps):
There should be some AI that prefers Provinces Bordering Provinces
they allready control in peace deals, prefering national culture provs,
prefering Provs on the same Continent or colonial ones (Africa, Asia).
Maybe there can also be added a 'historical sphere of action' that makes
eating Balkan/Black sea/Caucasus Provinces at a %-value more attractive to demand than Finnland for Osmans for example...
Releasing / Puppeting (also same topic):
I often try to reorganise the balcans after Austrohungary and Turkey are beaten. That was sometimes annoying. For example when I wanted to Annex Austria including the hungarian province of Sophron (or how it was named) I had nearly no chance to do so because if I released Hungary they got the province I wanted (... and a lot of others not).
Suggestion: Define a minimum Provinces that a Country needs to actually get formed (for example for Austria the vienna region). If anyone wants to release austria as standard these provs are given to austria. Then the cursor changes somehow and you have to place the capital inside these minimum regions. Then you can simply click on the map to release other provs to austria (maybe excluding tyrol or what you like but tyrol will still be their core region). You end it by pressing enter, a button or whatever and a Popup apears asking you if you made all correct and you can press "release as vassal" or "release as independent nation" or "abort" (undo changes).
That way you release the nations as YOU want (without making nonsense like Hungarys capital is London) and this point doesn't need land trading.
Last edited:
It's wonderful how the negotiation option isn't included because it "breaks immersion", but the proposed alternative is quitting the game, opening a text file, and editing the entire thing manually. As if somehow that breaks immersion LESS than having a flawed in-game option.
Really, you guys are too funny sometimes.
Really, you guys are too funny sometimes.
Land Deals were in the first game and there is no reason to take them out, if you personally dont like them then you have the option of not using them, and im fairly sure from experience mucking around with the EU3 menus itd be easy enough to remove them by hand if you dont. But most people do want them in and as they were in the first to take them out would be a step backwards and the whole point of an expansion is PROGRESS, which as the game is set in the century where everything was about progress it seems apt to keep it in.
With swap cheats topic, could one of the map filters show the province ID number?
and vaguely related, will Revolt #### from EU3 be included?
With swap cheats topic, could one of the map filters show the province ID number?
and vaguely related, will Revolt #### from EU3 be included?
They didn't say they were changing peace negotiations. They were talking about the Negotiate button in regular diplomacy, which only takes place between countries at peace.
And get the AI to stop trying to initiate deals.
"I want province X, and I'll give you £1500 and the techs Steamers, Steamers, Steamers, Steamers and Steamers. What do you say, huh, do we have a deal?"
But apart from that, I don't see much wrong in the negotiations. Yes, it can be exploited mercilessly. But it can also be used sensibly, and it mirrors something that happened occasionally in the time period, trading land for cash (more so than trading land for land). And it not only happened in the period, there were also instances when the option was on the table and ultimately decided against.
So, by all means, limit the feature (say, one trade every 5 years), make the AI more reluctant to accept deals, create peace negotiations that don't create land borders that then need to be tweaked... But don't take the feature away altogether (negotiations, that is. Couldn't care less for swapping land through the console. If you're using that, you might as well go and edit the save).
Meh, one gets the feeling that King is trying to save his hair.
However, reasons have been stated: it's a little funny how events have been removed because they railway-ed the game, and railways get to be the only way to get a reasonable event for the timeframe. I could say, as others already have, to make it a lot more difficult but possible. No Alaskan purchase for Canada, seeing as USA chickened out? Seriously? Without talking about colonies, heh.
However, reasons have been stated: it's a little funny how events have been removed because they railway-ed the game, and railways get to be the only way to get a reasonable event for the timeframe. I could say, as others already have, to make it a lot more difficult but possible. No Alaskan purchase for Canada, seeing as USA chickened out? Seriously? Without talking about colonies, heh.
I'm all for being able to trade land as in V1. Face it, the AI will always suck to some extent. I used neville + land exchange to fix bad borders and to enhance the roleplaying feel. Sometimes the AI didn't do what made sense, so I helped it. It was a very important part of my enjoyment of the game, the roleplaying element that got so much better with this little feature. I'm sad that this will not be possible anymore. It sure will be a missed feature.