Policies

[Von Lauenburg]

I think it would be interesting and make policies much more important if we could get some certain event chains (or even disasters) tied to what policies (or what combinations of policies) are currently selected. This can refer to national focus as well. This way, internal politics will be represented somehow better, and policies will be more significant.
Depending on what policies/NIi's are combined together, ruler's stats and any other appropriate criteria these events would give positive or negative (or irrelevant) effect.
It would be also very nice to have more decisions, currently most of them are religious. Any mechanics, that give player additional control on the way the country is developing and what events it gets are appreciated.

 

[BrokenSky]

This sounds really cool, especially national focus events.

 

[alpaca]

While I agree that most policies aren't worth it, there's already too much hidden information in the game. The last thing we need is even more high-value events you need to know by heart to make an informed decision.

 

[BrokenSky]

While I agree that most policies aren't worth it, there's already too much hidden information in the game. The last thing we need is even more high-value events you need to know by heart to make an informed decision.

Idea groups already have such events. Humanism gives you some really awesome ones while religious gives you quite a lot of bad ones, plus one that spawns revolutionary rebels which is great.

Some Idea groups are worth taking just for the events, and not spending any points in, then removing and getting a new one when you actually want to buy ideas in the slot.

 

[alpaca]

Idea groups already have such events. Humanism gives you some really awesome ones while religious gives you quite a lot of bad ones, plus one that spawns revolutionary rebels which is great.

Some Idea groups are worth taking just for the events, and not spending any points in, then removing and getting a new one when you actually want to buy ideas in the slot.

I know they do, but that's not an argument in favor of adding more. That's like saying a drowning man needs more water

 

[BrokenSky]

I know they do, but that's not an argument in favor of adding more. That's like saying a drowning man needs more water

Fair point.

I tend to use the wiki for events and such, and don't think it's so much the problem but ~

It doesn't need to be that high value anyway...

 

[alpaca]

Fair point.

I tend to use the wiki for events and such, and don't think it's so much the problem but ~

It doesn't need to be that high value anyway...

Just to explain my reasoning a little: The problem for me is that you need to be aware of at least high-value events or you can't play the game properly. That is, strong events are hidden game rules. This creates a need to look to out-of-game resources like the wiki or the game files, in order to be able to properly play the game. You also first need to be aware that there is an event at all that might be applicable, so you need at least a rough knowledge of all important events.

Say, I play Timurids. There is an event that is almost guaranteed to fire in 1450 where you can choose to either spawn rebels everywhere or lose a lot of money and get a lot of inflation. If you don't prepare for this event (like the AI), it can absolutely be a killer. To play Timmy reasonably well, you have to be aware of this event, so what I do is, before starting a game, check the game files for any relevant flavor events, missions and decisions so that I can make educated decisions.

There is also very little decision-making involved in events if you don't check external resources and "just play the game". In that case, they simply feel like random stuff that hurts or helps you for no good reason, which is ok if it's relatively small things like up to 1 stab, but not if it can completely skew the game. There's no way for you to predict that certain events can happen because there's no warning about it, like there is for disasters, which are a much better mechanic. The Burgundian inheritance, Iberian Wedding, War of the Roses, Sejm, etc. are all, in my opinion, terrible gameplay if you don't know about them. Even when they do something positive for you.

I'm fine with low-value events for flavor, but then they wouldn't matter much when you evaluate whether to take the policy or not. Events just aren't a good way to modify the power of a game decision, because they either create annoying hidden game rules, or are too irrelevant. There's no middle ground.

 

[BrokenSky]

Just to explain my reasoning a little: The problem for me is that you need to be aware of at least high-value events or you can't play the game properly. That is, strong events are hidden game rules. This creates a need to look to out-of-game resources like the wiki or the game files, in order to be able to properly play the game. You also first need to be aware that there is an event at all that might be applicable, so you need at least a rough knowledge of all important events.

Say, I play Timurids. There is an event that is almost guaranteed to fire in 1450 where you can choose to either spawn rebels everywhere or lose a lot of money and get a lot of inflation. If you don't prepare for this event (like the AI), it can absolutely be a killer. To play Timmy reasonably well, you have to be aware of this event, so what I do is, before starting a game, check the game files for any relevant flavor events, missions and decisions so that I can make educated decisions.

There is also very little decision-making involved in events if you don't check external resources and "just play the game". In that case, they simply feel like random stuff that hurts or helps you for no good reason, which is ok if it's relatively small things like up to 1 stab, but not if it can completely skew the game. There's no way for you to predict that certain events can happen because there's no warning about it, like there is for disasters, which are a much better mechanic. The Burgundian inheritance, Iberian Wedding, War of the Roses, Sejm, etc. are all, in my opinion, terrible gameplay if you don't know about them. Even when they do something positive for you.

I'm fine with low-value events for flavor, but then they wouldn't matter much when you evaluate whether to take the policy or not. Events just aren't a good way to modify the power of a game decision, because they either create annoying hidden game rules, or are too irrelevant. There's no middle ground.

I'd imagine them being mostly positive and mostly related to the two idea groups fluff and the fluff of the policy itself.

I get the problem with scripted flavor events for certain nations; game-play wise it can hurt to be blindsided like that, but for idea groups, which don't change that much, I don't think so.

When I say they don't change, what I mean is that most of the time you're going to be picking ones you've picked before, and you should have some idea of the events that go with them. I imagine policy events would work similarly.

 

[Von Lauenburg]

That is why I d prefer adding more decisions and missions rather than events.
And those decisions and missions would have some policies to be active (for a long time) to become valid.

 

[alpaca]

That is why I d prefer adding more decisions and missions rather than events.
And those decisions and missions would have some policies to be active (for a long time) to become valid.

Decisions, I could get behind, because they can be displayed before you fulfill all requirements and you can actually see their requirements. Missions are pretty much as bad as events, though, because you also can't see their requirements except for the success requirements.