Previously Debated Next [Beta] Patch Issues - Discussion Thread.

[unmerged(16501)]

Previously Debated Issues for the Next [Beta] Patch. Discussion Thread.

Thread for discussing the this summery

A max level trading post should have a micro (small than minimal) fort and a port if coastal

This has been discussed over and over and each time people agree that this is a good idea.

All AI nations should increase their centralization by +1 every ten years to keep up with the reforms that any human player worth his salt institutes

Centralization was chosen because it is almost universally good whereas the other sliders tend to be relative to your position as a country.

Sibir should have pagan as its state religion. This may or may not be unhistorical but it is the only solution for making Russia expand eastwards at hand.

Ebbesens pragmatic suggestion certainly seems the easy way around this problem. Another possible route would be some AI only events for Russia, helping them beat up the Khans.

The province modification penalty for religious difference should be tied to the religious tolerance slider and range from 10% to 30%

I cant recall the excact arguments, but all in all this looks like a good idea. And intuitive too.

 

[kucing]

Re: Previously Debated Issues for the Next [Beta] Patch. Discussion Thread.

Trading post
Yes, I think it is a good idea but adding "micro" fort probably mean changing the game mechanism. If it can be done easily, please add it.

Sibir
It doesn't matter if human is playing Russia. Also, usually Russian AI is stuck with Golden Horden anyway .

Religion
It will make world conquest even easier, so I'll say no.

 

[unmerged(18316)]

Re: Re: Previously Debated Issues for the Next [Beta] Patch. Discussion Thread.

Originally posted by kucing
Religion
It will make world conquest even easier, so I'll say no.

Then place the penalty at 20-40 %...

 

[PJL]

There's a thread where I proposed that the shipyard and frontier bonus be altered according to the land/naval slider (basically, shipyard bonus is bigger for naval, frontier bonus is bigger for land, and vice versa).

 

[saskganesh]

happy with port for tp at level 6, not sure about free microfort. how about player pay (very cheaply) for one.

like the sibir mod: in my games russia does go east but has a typically hard time during time of troubles and never goes east after that.

i'd give the other mods a whirl.

now any chance for random leader event ( like conquistador but without conquistador ability for european minors and the european leaderless)

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Historically, though, the Khanate of Sibir was a pushover - it was defeated by 7000 cossacks paid for by the Stroganov family (one of whom appears in the game as a Conquistador). Making Sibir pagan would mean that at least it could be swallowed up - the only thing that could throw a spanner in the proverbial works here would be someone defeating Sibir and insisting that they change religion...
I'd favour Sibir starting as pagan, then turning muslim mid 16th century when the Uzbek khans took over (iirc), coupled with another event which would allow Russia to inherit Sibir.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

The Centralization suggestion is great. Since, Centralization is so important (its the only slider that has like no downsides). Good for the AI.

Turning Sibir pagan might be ok, if it turns them off from alliances with the rest of the Khanates. (Allowing Russia to pick them off in singularly.) It could potentially solve a bunch of problems.

 

[Steel Beagle]

New Topic

Sorry to raise a new request, but would it be possible in the next beta to change the tooltip commentaries and other in-game directions to match the beta? The current beta seems pretty stable and acceptable to most.

 

[C.N.]

Does computer players get random events to decrease centralization or will most AI nations have max centralization in 1520 if the suggested changes take effect?

 

[BiB]

It's alerady too easy to tolerate too many religions and doesn't have too many drawbacks, no need to make it even easier.

 

[unmerged(16501)]

[regarding centralization] Every ten years?! That's as fast as any human player can slide the slider on anything - and it means that a country which starts the game as a loose confederacy of squabbling nobles would by 1519 have as strong a central government as that of Louis XIV...!
and sometimes players "worth their salt" choose instead to go naval or aristocratic or something else instead if they want/need colonists/diplomacy/whatever. why should an ai country only want centralization when a human doesn't?

like kwangtiger said, centralization has virtually no downsides and there it is almost universally beneficial. this serves to make the AI more challenging.
and yes - the ai does get centralization reducing random events but even if all countries have maxed centralization they will still be beatable. I want the ai to be as powerful as possible!

[regarding linking religious penaly with the tolerance slider]

- Small countries like Schweitzerland and others on the border of France/Germany will have a marginally bigger chance of surviving
- Spain will be able to perform much more stable and historically acurate
- Same goes for Ottomans
- Might encourage human players to conquer native states normally left alone.
- Russia will become stronger, and hopefully able to move further as far west (and possibly east) as it did historically.

In terms of realism this is certainly reasonalbe: A people who already feel culturally or religiously alienated by their rulers is likely to feel even more so if discriminated against for both reasons. But as soon as a group of people (ie province population) are aware of their minority status a second reason is not going to double that feeling of alienation. It is spires on a tower already built so to speak.

 

[Castellon]

Some comments that were made in error into the summary thread, copied here.

Originally posted by The Impaler
Every ten years?! That's as fast as any human player can slide the slider on anything - and it means that a country which starts the game as a loose confederacy of squabbling nobles would by 1519 have as strong a central government as that of Louis XIV...!

Originally posted by TheLoneTaco
and sometimes players "worth their salt" choose instead to go naval or aristocratic or something else instead if they want/need colonists/diplomacy/whatever. why should an ai country only want centralization when a human doesn't?

-Matt

Originally posted by Captain Frakas
# RELIGIONS

_ limit the sliders tolerance towards the other religions according to the domestic policy "Obscurantism - innovation".
_ change religion should cancel trêves with the countries of the old religion.


# DIPLOMACY

_ the vassal ones should follow their suzerain in the economic embargoes. (e.g. Continental Blockade of Napoleon).
_ Possibility of inviting the vassal one of an ally in its alliance
_ take the capital of a country would only reveal all core provinces and all provinces with has landconnection to the capital and the capital itself.
_ at -3 of stability, a country should not be able to refuse a peace proposal which makes lose stability
_ In peace resolution, if possible, be able to ask the Release of a country
_ Change the option "no forced annexation" in "limited forced annexion". So that one can annex only the different countries of religion of eétat or those whose capital is one of our national provinces.

# HRE
_ Dauphiné and Provence ground of Empire
_ Eliminate the "Habsbourg" bonus from Spain ( A) Spain is not all the timeplay Habsbourg. b) Historically, electors didn't want to renew the experiment "Charles Quint" of a Spanish emperor never present in Germany).
_ Permanent Casus Belli for the Emperor against those in war counters princes of Empire.
_ Permanent Casus Belli for the elector against those in war against the Emperor
_ Permanent Casus Belli for the Emperor against the countries having withdrawn Imperials provinces from the Empire (e.g. France, Moslems etc having annexed an imperial province).
_ If possible, replace the "Habsbourg" bonus of Austria by an AI which improves its relations with electors (by gifts, RM).

# EVENTS
_ a command to force peace and to impose truces (example: type = peace which = XXX been worth = y) where y is the number of year of truce. This order would function even if the country is in peace
_ trigger to know the percentage of victory of a country in a war
_ a command causing a civil war
_ a command causing a fall of government
_ To be able to change the status of imperial elector by event
_ That the order sleepleader kills already a leader in play
_ a command to break alliances of a country.

# ALLIANCES
_ can't invite during 1 year a country which betray our military alliance to avoid a war
_ military alliances should be prolonged only if they end at the time of a war and only until the end of the war (in order to fight eternal alliances).

 

[Jayavarman]

Diploannexation Rules Proposal
1. Nations can diploannex another nation seperated by water if national waters are shared.
2. Increase time required for diploannexation perhaps to 30 or more years.
3. Make AI less inclined to force-annex.

Lord-Vassal Relationship Proposal
1. Lord and vassal are in alliance that last forever, ie no exiry date. (this excludes those in alliance who are not part of lord-vassal relationship)
2. If lord dishonors defensive war call of vassal, then that means lord breaks vassalship.
3. If vassal does not heed any war call of lord, vassalship is broken.
4. Vassals cannot declare war
5. If vassal is annexed, lord get a +1 BB hit as it shows that power of lord is not so great anymore or is bad from breaking promises of defense.
6. Increase AI priority of defending vassals

"No Land Connection Penalty" Proposal
1. Penalty for having no land connection is determined by multiplier that is factored by distance (of sea provinces?)

 

[Szordrin]

It's all good so far from my point of view!

One sugestion:
Once and for all, please, do not make sugestions or combat ideas on the premise that such a modification will make world conquering harder or easier! Someone's stile of play should have to bearing on how the mechanics of a game works. Historical acuracy, or for a better word - the closest thing to a simulation of the actual efect should be used instead! From the game perspecive (i asume), a bad boy war can't be won while still keeping the purpose of the game! So to make modification that will make it harder to win such a war AND at the same time damaging other nations is not a nice thing! By all means, make winning a BB war imposible, but do it with stile!

Chears!

 

[unmerged(16501)]

okay... its nice that you post your suggestions.

some of them might be a bit too visionary to implement in the next patch but here we go:

_ limit the sliders tolerance towards the other religions according to the domestic policy "Obscurantism - innovation".
_ change religion should cancel trêves with the countries of the old religion.

i have no idea what you are talking about

_ the vassal ones should follow their suzerain in the economic embargoes. (e.g. Continental Blockade of Napoleon).

yes. good idea.

_ Possibility of inviting the vassal one of an ally in its alliance

yes. this would help more consistant coalitions form.

_ take the capital of a country would only reveal all core provinces and all provinces with has landconnection to the capital and the capital itself. '

well... the map stealing exploit should be closed. i dont see why you would not be albe to view the defeated nations colonies and tps though.

_ at -3 of stability, a country should not be able to refuse a peace proposal which makes lose stability

no. this would simply be used as an exploit. besides... the ai tends to be overly generous when offering provinces.

_ In peace resolution, if possible, be able to ask the Release of a country

like you said, might not be possible to implement in eu2.

_ Change the option "no forced annexation" in "limited forced annexion". So that one can annex only the different countries of religion of eétat or those whose capital is one of our national provinces.

might be okay for those of you plaing w/o forced annexation.

_ Dauphiné and Provence ground of Empire

if this is historically correct i see no reason not to.

_ Eliminate the "Habsbourg" bonus from Spain ( A) Spain is not all the timeplay Habsbourg. b) Historically, electors didn't want to renew the experiment "Charles Quint" of a Spanish emperor never present in Germany).

dunno...

_ Permanent Casus Belli for the Emperor against those in war counters princes of Empire.

good idea. if this can be done-

_ Permanent Casus Belli for the elector against those in war against the Emperor

likewise.

_ Permanent Casus Belli for the Emperor against the countries having withdrawn Imperials provinces from the Empire (e.g. France, Moslems etc having annexed an imperial province).

i dont know... this would make austria even more powerful as it would be able to time the franco-german wars at its leisure.

_ If possible, replace the "Habsbourg" bonus of Austria by an AI which improves its relations with electors (by gifts, RM).

nah. let them keep the bonus they need it.

i am not sure that new event commands are implementable without MAJOR work from the programmers.

_ can't invite during 1 year a country which betray our military alliance to avoid a war

yes. this is a exploit and should be closed.

_ military alliances should be prolonged only if they end at the time of a war and only until the end of the war (in order to fight eternal alliances).

not sure this is a good idea. with the new expansionistic AI the coalitions which form benefit from being long-lived.

Nations can diploannex another nation seperated by water if national waters are shared.

i dont see any reason for this. diplo-annexation is already too powerful.

Increase time required for diploannexation perhaps to 30 or more years.

sure.

Make AI less inclined to force-annex.

i actually like the new expansionistic ai. i enjoy the challenge of fighting a france which controls northern italy and swings huge armies at you.

Lord-Vassal Relationship Proposal
1. Lord and vassal are in alliance that last forever, ie no exiry date. (this excludes those in alliance who are not part of lord-vassal relationship)
2. If lord dishonors defensive war call of vassal, then that means lord breaks vassalship.
3. If vassal does not heed any war call of lord, vassalship is broken.
4. Vassals cannot declare war
5. If vassal is annexed, lord get a +1 BB hit as it shows that power of lord is not so great anymore or is bad from breaking promises of defense.
6. Increase AI priority of defending vassals

i think 1 (and this 2, 3) is a bad idea. the current system is more refined, more airy

not much fun in 4

not much point to 5

dunno about 6

 

[Inostra]

"_ Permanent Casus Belli for the Emperor against those in war counters princes of Empire.
_ Permanent Casus Belli for the elector against those in war against the Emperor
_ Permanent Casus Belli for the Emperor against the countries having withdrawn Imperials provinces from the Empire (e.g. France, Moslems etc having annexed an imperial province). "


Isn’t this to put too much into the Emperor title? Are there a historical background to this or do this somehow balance the game better?

 

[AndrewT]

Can someone try adding a fort to a TP by editing the save file, and see what happens?

 

[Cagliostro]

1) A vassal should automatically invite its lord to a defensive war. If the lord rejects this call it should count as breaking the vassalship.

2) If not possible, then the CB for someone at war with your vassal should be extended to a "permanent" CB (that is, a CB for as long as the war lasts, like the CB Catholics get on people warring with the Pope). That would be less elegant, but at least would give someone a CB against someone gobbling their vassal.

I endorse the religion suggestion, because I don't like the double dip of RR and religious penalties, and it just weakens Russia and the Turks, who do not prosper that much as it is. However, maybe it could be changed to, say, 10-50% instead.

 

[Zander]

Re: Previously Debated Issues for the Next [Beta] Patch. Discussion Thread.

Originally posted by Ryan
The province modification penalty for religious difference should be tied to the religious tolerance slider and range from 10% to 30%

I much prefer PE's suggestion that the religion and culture tax penalties be replaced with RR modifiers (now that RR affects income). That way the two systems would actually be unified... and this would also have the effect of making the tax penalty dependent on your religious slider.

 

[Slargos]

Originally posted by AndrewT
Can someone try adding a fort to a TP by editing the save file, and see what happens?

TPs can have forts.