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

[Medicine Man]

Many moons ago there was a good idea on this forum for spreading out the provincial manpower/population break points a little bit.

Currently there is no difference, manpower-wise, between a province of 200,001 and 1 million. Moreover, it is quite strange how many nations in Europe suddenly take a quantum leap forward in manpower when their average provinces begin hitting that 20k mark.

The person who originally proposed this idea had the math all worked out, but I unfortunately cannot find the first thread on this topic -- a pity really. Something like this would probably work however:

Pop 0-999 mpMod 0.00
Pop 1000-5000 mpMod 0.10
Pop 5001-10000 mpMod 0.20
Pop 10001-20000 mpMod 0.25
Pop 20001-100000 mpMod 0.35
Pop 100001-200000 mpMod 0.50
Pop 200001-800000 mpMod 0.65
Pop 800001-999999 mpMod 0.75

This wouldn't give any more manpower to nations than they already have, but would allow a more gradual growth in recruiting capacity over time.

Personally, I'd like to make the last two breakpoints as follows:

Pop 200001-800000 mpMod 0.75
Pop 800001-999999 mpMod 0.90

But it is better to chose your battles, I guess.


There are two other manpower-related changes I'd love to see made.

First, I think that naval nations should get some small amount of manpower from overseas colonies of state culture. It seems only fair and I'm sure there is some historical justification for it. Very small population/manpower mods for colonial cities (as above) would keep this under control.

Second, I think that all manpower bonus/malus due to the land-naval and quality-quantity sliders should be removed. Getting vastly cheaper troops is already a potent enough advantage for land and/or quantity nations. If this is too much, I think that the manpower mod should be at least removed from the land-naval slider -- although I maintain that the quality-quantity slider needs work as well.

Cheers.

 

[Captain Frakas]

Originally posted by Ryan
i have no idea what you are talking about

Sorry for my very bad english
I wanted to say that the narrow-mindedness should limit the maximum tolerance position of non state religions. (Ex. Innovation : 5 = maximum tolerance = 5).

And change religon should end truce with your old religious community.

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

ok, only human player might be forced.

 

[Cagliostro]

I agree with Zander - PE's suggestion of revoltrisk as the religious penalty is both more elegant and more simple than the one proposed here.

 

[unmerged(16501)]

im not familiar with that suggestion

spell it out, please

 

[jdrou]

Originally posted by Slargos
TPs can have forts.

I don't think so. Colonies can but savegame won't load with fort in a TP.
ERROR : (TradingPost : Unexpected field) 'fortress = {'

 

[Zander]

Originally posted by Ryan
im not familiar with that suggestion

spell it out, please

Well, I'm having trouble finding it, given the absence of a search function. The idea was based on the fact that RR (in the latest patches) already gives you reduced income. So, rather than having culture give you a +1/+2 RR mod, and an additional tax penalty, you could have it give you a higher RR mod. +3/+5, for example.

With religion, it's a little trickier, since even a different religion currently can give you -4 RR if your slider is set right. For the same reasons, though, it makes sense to get rid of the flat -30% when you can already get those negatives for having RR. In this way, your tax rate is already based on the tolerance slider.
It would make sense to lower the maximum tolerance for other religions, though. Basing it on Innovativeness is a popular, but disputed, suggestion. Alternatively, just a cap of -2 instead of -4 could increase the chance that you'd actually face religious unrest.

 

[Zander]

Sorry for the double post.

It's been suggested that I add my FAA suggestion to this thread, so here goes:


1) Have FAAs add 8 per month to stability investments, instead of 5. Monarch ratings are doubled when being applied to stability, so it seems like it should be "cheaper" than other investments.
2) When Stability is at +3, have FAAs add 1 per month to the other four investments.

Implementing both of these suggestions would still leave FAAs as the least valuable manufactory, but they would at least be close enough that they might be worth building, especially because they're available earlier.

 

[Woreczko]

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

I don`t like this. I`d rather lock player`s DP sliders in place (so they could be changed only by events), than bless AI with such feature. I already follow this rule in my games and it gives me more historical feeling and outcomes.

 

[unmerged(16501)]

medicine man: i like the manpower thing.

1) Have FAAs add 8 per month to stability investments, instead of 5. Monarch ratings are doubled when being applied to stability, so it seems like it should be "cheaper" than other investments.
2) When Stability is at +3, have FAAs add 1 per month to the other four investments.

1 seems fair but i dont like 2 however. that would simply make faas to versatile.

i see faas as something you build in your capital while waiting for breweries. for that, they work fine.

I don`t like this. I`d rather lock player`s DP sliders in place (so they could be changed only by events), than bless AI with such feature. I already follow this rule in my games and it gives me more historical feeling and outcomes.

well, dont you think that you would be able to beat up the ai even if it centralized?

Well, I'm having trouble finding it, given the absence of a search function. The idea was based on the fact that RR (in the latest patches) already gives you reduced income. So, rather than having culture give you a +1/+2 RR mod, and an additional tax penalty, you could have it give you a higher RR mod. +3/+5, for example.

But RR +3/+5 does not equal a 30% penalty. I am also worried that the AI will not be able to hold its possetions with increased RR.

The whole idea seems jerky compared to just having a 20%-40% penalty.
Maybe we could get Peter himself to give his oppinion on the matter here. he is usually pretty convincing.

 

[unmerged(19926)]

What most troubles me are the diplomatic area of the game.

I want to have the posibility to keep on waging war, even if my allies agrees a peace deal.

Exampel: Me (austria) and Hungary attacks Croatia. Well, hungary attacks, and since Im allied, I join in when asked.

After crushing croatia easily, hungary accepts peace. And Im stuck with 1 territory, when I knew I could have easily gotten two or three in 3-4 month times.
Usually in these situasions I get nothing, nothing.
Its making me go bananas.

 

[unmerged(16501)]

the beta patch ai is actually pretty good at ensuring gains for their allies. on top of that, indetemenies are split between alliance partners.

i dont see the problem here. if you are fighting a war to assist your ally taht war should stop when your ally wants it to. not when you are done ripping the nation apart.

 

[jdrou]

Originally posted by Ryan
i dont see the problem here. if you are fighting a war to assist your ally taht war should stop when your ally wants it to. not when you are done ripping the nation apart.

I tend to agree but maybe you shouldn't be bound by the truce agreement if your ally made the peace.

 

[unmerged(16501)]

i think you should.

otherwise, the winning party will just re-dow and continue crushing the defeated nation.

from a historical point of view, it would also be incorrect to let individual members of an alliance fight on when the leader signed a peace agreement,

 

[Smirfy]

Hi

Sometimes i'm outside the box but i think it would be worth a try to handicap extreme tech races to limit the percentage of your income in that can be invested in each field. This could be governed by infrastructure slider each level giving a increase of flexibility.

level 1 max 25% income each field
level 2 max 30% income each field
level 4 max 35% income each field

and so on (figures open to debate)

The logic being that it would be hard in any society to totaly ignore other fields.

It would certainly, I feel reflect the monarch bounes somewhat better and possibly lead to more wars as dynamic races would not occur. Also it might slow tech down.

 

[Zander]

I'd be against pretty much anything that makes Infrastructure even more important. It's already the most important tech.

Originally posted by Ryan
> 2) When Stability is at +3, have FAAs add 1 per month
> to the other four investments.

1 seems fair but i dont like 2 however. that would simply make faas to versatile.

i see faas as something you build in your capital while waiting for breweries. for that, they work fine.

Unless you have vast amounts of money, or an incredibly long wait for breweries, you're better off just saving and building another refinery. As it is, FAAs are awful in comparison to the other manufactories. I don't see how +1 in 4 categories is "too versatile" when it has been repeatedly stated that you're better off putting all your investment in one category at a time.

 

[Woreczko]

Originally posted by Ryan
well, dont you think that you would be able to beat up the ai even if it centralized?

So what? With this rule (AI gets +1 centralization every 10 years) we will have most AI states running close to 10 centralization most of the time. That`s very unhistorical and it may sleep many events based on centralization. As I said, I`d rather have DP sliders locked, so that they could be moved only via events. Currently AI does not move it`s sliders, so why should we?

 

[unmerged(16421)]

Originally posted by Ryan
i think you should.

otherwise, the winning party will just re-dow and continue crushing the defeated nation.

from a historical point of view, it would also be incorrect to let individual members of an alliance fight on when the leader signed a peace agreement,

i agree completely, but i believe that the allies should in some way consider the interests of they (trusted) allies when starting and ending wars.
expecially in the case of massives occupied territories and completely destroied enemy armies.

i wanted to say just another thing: a lot of people thinks to the patches as a way to have more challenges single player games, and does not feel the need of "historical accuracy", on the point that a player experienced with the game can cause greater disastres to the historical accuracy wirth a world conquest.
i think that a lot of the "exploits" indicated are not so.
if the other countries knew of the maps of the others, they'd have tried to get them, just as they would have tried to discover america if they knew of it.
someone proposed a time limit to re create alliances betrayed. macchiavelli says a lot of things about the allies and the dumbs; this is a game in wich you play the national interests: if it is your national interest to re create an alliance that is just there to scare enemies and does not work when fighting wars, you'd feel disappointed if this is not possible because of the playing system.
that would expecially be tha case of italian and german minors: they would not want to confront a bigger power, but they do need a friend not to get attacked: let'ssay that one of them stayed with you,and the other no: you'll very likely to find out that your friend is still a friend, but that he also preferred to be an austrian ally than an austrian province.

see you.

 

[Cagliostro]

So what? With this rule (AI gets +1 centralization every 10 years) we will have most AI states running close to 10 centralization most of the time.

As long as they don't spend their time annexing other countries and becoming massive empires... oh, wait, every country does that.

 

[Cagliostro]

Another patch suggestion:

As I suggest in this thread, which has so far spawned little disagreement, make the following tech group changes:

Morocco, Fez, Algeria, Tunisia, Tripolitania - from moslem to orthodox
Mexico, Haiti, Colombia, Brasil, La Plata - from latin to orthodox
Nubia - from exotic to moslem

this would have the benefits of greatly improving the orthodox group, thus benefitting Turkey and Russia, who generally suffer severely from the lack of a neighbor bonus - and also the side effect of hurting the Mameluks, who usually are too tough for Turkey to dominate as they did historically. In addition, there are fairly solid reasons for the tech group changes, given the histories of the countries involved.

If you have disagreements with those suggestions, be sure to post them on the linked thread, so that people can debate them there.

 

[unmerged(19926)]

One thing I forgot.

Please tune the rebels down.
They are far better than my own forces. make them atleast not better than my own army, preferbly (and historicly realistic) worse.

If you Johan dont tune them down, please let us hire these ubermensch (or aliens as I call them).