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

[unmerged(16501)]

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.

erm... rebels are just as good as your own forces. if they appear to be better it is because you are attacking them in a hilly province or crossing a river to attack them.

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

i like these. good work in brining i previously debated issue to the table, Cagliostro

ADDED

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?

i think you are pretty much isolated in your oppinion. if we lock the sliders you are cut off from persuing alternate strategies. and yes - it is unhistorical for nations to have a high centralization. but so is the ever-annexing AI from the betas! as stated by others, +1 centralization serves to provide at greater challenge from the AI which indeed seems called for. right now, most good players can beat up majors and their coalitions playing minors.
and to adress a common fallancy all AI nations WILL NOT BE RUNNING AT 10 CENTRALIZATION as random events and annexations will keep it in check.

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.

they are indeed sub-par. but there is a reason that you get them before the other manufactories.

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.

this is a good idea. dont know if it is more EU3-ish though.
ADDED

productive ideas are still flowing in which is good.

 

[Zander]

Originally posted by Ryan

> 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.

they are indeed sub-par. but there is a reason that you get them before the other manufactories.

They would still be "sub-par" if they were giving 4 (as compared to 5 for other manufactories), and giving it to spread out investments (when focused investment is more effective). Currently, FAAs are not sub-par, they are awful. You should never build them, unless for some reason you expect to go the whole game without hitting Infra 3.

 

[RedPhoenix]

The most severe bug still not addressed is the stab hit for honoring a defensive alliance call under truce.

It causes huge stab hits and the attacker can cause these deliberately to the defender. Makes attacking sooo much more profitable while under truce with all but one alliance member. Attacker takes no stab hit, but defenders do.

 

[unmerged(19926)]

Originally posted by Ryan
erm... rebels are just as good as your own forces. if they appear to be better it is because you are attacking them in a hilly province or crossing a river to attack them.

eh, no.

Exampel, I have a army of 27k. The rebels are 7k. I have to attack 3 times before I can manage to defeat them!

Somehow the rebels got far better morale then my own troops.

 

[unmerged(22108)]

ideas

Hello
Here are some proposals for the next patch(es) :


interface :

- message boxes should avoid the mouse :
for instance, it's quite annoying when you try to move your troops and suddendly a msg pops up. Most of the time, you'll end up with a deselected army and the preference dialog for the message (damn!)...
- new message boxes should come under the old ones :
that way you can safely use the 'enter' key to close message boxes.
- be able to select easily armies in sieges :
well I dunno how you could achieve this but sure it would increase my enjoyment of the game

some minor enhacements :
- cycling trough COTs :
it would be nice to cycle trough the known COTs using the arrow keys.
- Have the ability to center on new independant coutries.
- let the '*' catch countries names too : and make it center on the capital of the country.
- let the '*' key catch incomplete names and cycle trough the eligible provinces or at least center on the first the game finds.

the AI, trade pacts, embargos and wars :
Well, nothing really important here but it adds up !

- when at war the AI tends to embargo even when it has no COTs or has already an active embargo : they waste their diplomats, spam me and may even give a free CB for later.
- I never saw the AI cancel a trade pact. However, the AI can really benefit from this sometimes. Especially when it owns several COTs and is already at war with the player. (cancel pact then embargo the player all for free !)
- the AI almost never calls in allies when DOWing a pagan state ... even when the target is really big or has european allies of it's own ... ooch

various stuff :

- When you extend a loan the rates sky-rocket. If, instead, you take a new loan and pay the old one you still get the small rates. To say the truth I don't see why the rates schould go up when you extend a loan while you have the ability to borrow more.
- chief judges seem a little weak compared to TC and governors. Perhaps you could add a new small benefit to them ? Some ideas :
+ reduce culture and/or religion malus at 25% instead of 30 %
+ give 1% pop bonus.
...

I hope these ideas will help you make this great game an even better one

 

[NeilJT]

Rather than centralisation being increased every 10 years, I thinkwe ought to decide how long it should take to go from 0 to 10 centralisation, and base it on that...

i.e.
(ean time between centralisation events) = (time we want to go 0-10) / 11

or even better...
(mean time between centralisation events) = (time to go 0-10) / 11 - (modifier to encompass negative centralisation events) + (modifier to encompass other postivie centralisation events)

I'd guess negative centralisation events don't occur more often then every decade, so over the course of ~150 - 160 years in the game every nation which recieves +centralisation events will end up close to the maximum.

Speaking of the sliders, how about the chance on the loading screen to switch them off, and automatic reminders when you are able to change them again.

 

[unmerged(19926)]

Re: ideas

Originally posted by pastis
- the AI almost never calls in allies when DOWing a pagan state ... even when the target is really big or has european allies of it's own ... ooch

In my games the AI usually call upon its allies even for the most pitful pagan nation.

Problem is that the AI doesnt prepare sufficent for war.

 

[Smirfy]

The linking of Naval support limits to Building Capacity instead of the number of ports.

Presently this gives too many benefits without any investment to England, France, Spain and OE

 

[Woreczko]

Originally posted by Ryan
i think you are pretty much isolated in your oppinion. if we lock the sliders you are cut off from persuing alternate strategies. and yes - it is unhistorical for nations to have a high centralization. but so is the ever-annexing AI from the betas! as stated by others, +1 centralization serves to provide at greater challenge from the AI which indeed seems called for. right now, most good players can beat up majors and their coalitions playing minors.

If we lock the sliders there will be more differences between governing various countries in various games. As for now, in vanilla GC it`s usually not a problem to set DP however you like in 100-150 years, so that everyone (besides the AI) is running under optimal settings for himself (also taking into account events). That`s boring for me. If your only possibility to change DP settings is via event, then:
1) It`s harder to change DP in your favour => more challenge
2) You are encouraged to follow history.
3) You may still apply different DP strategies, because events usually have more than 1 choice.
4) You will also rely more on random events=> the game will become less predictable, You wouldn`t follow always the same DP path.
5) Finally "nice" events will be more "nice" and bad ones - the opposite. I like this.

And once again - Centralization rule will probably make whole bunch of events worth a piece of shit or unfireable. That`s a very serious problem for me.

If you so much want AI to provide more challenge, than why just don`t give them some marines and tanks - that would be challenge, eh? Seriously, I realize that AI has to cheat but I hate so obvious and visible cheats like this. I can survive extra income and manpower, cheaper tech, but not this. It`s really no fun to play with fully centralized Poland, Turkey or Switzerland.

 

[Cagliostro]

Seriously, I realize that AI has to cheat but I hate so obvious and visible cheats like this.

Note, the suggestion isn't a "cheat" at all. The player is perfectly capable of doing the exact same thing. The event triggers might be a good argument, but cheating isn't at all.

Perhaps the AI could have two options - one of increasing centralization and another of increasing something else generally considered useful - and base which they choose on some sort of nation flag? I do think the idea is relatively good, given that in fact the opposite happens now - since the AI is incapable of adjusting its sliders and occasionally engages in annexation, it's going to end up totally decentralized by the end of the game.

 

[unmerged(19926)]

I disagree Woreczko.

In my game as Austria Im as far as I can centralization, ie my kingdom is totally decentralized, becouse I keep getting those events.
Sometimes I try to get it a bit more centralized.
This is a game, and no fun if you cant change things.

If you want to see pure history, read history books or watch some historical movies

 

[unmerged(6935)]

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

Originally posted by Ryan


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

Counteroffer: Centralization should *stop* being universally good. I can easily think of rl advantages of De-centralization.

 

[unmerged(16501)]

They would still be "sub-par" if they were giving 4 (as compared to 5 for other manufactories), and giving it to spread out investments (when focused investment is more effective). Currently, FAAs are not sub-par, they are awful. You should never build them, unless for some reason you expect to go the whole game without hitting Infra 3.

Hmm... I see the sense in what you are saying but I am still not convinced that this is a good idea. I think 1 in each field is too much. What if it simply added 1 to infra?

The most severe bug still not addressed is the stab hit for honoring a defensive alliance call under truce.

Hmm... If this is true it certainly has to be fixed. Have you tried the bug reporting forum?

Exampel, I have a army of 27k. The rebels are 7k. I have to attack 3 times before I can manage to defeat them!

like i said, are you crossing a river to attack them? are they in a hilly province? early in the game battles are also VERY random and cavalry is much better. there are many factors to take into accuoun here, black on white, rebels are just as good as your troops. not better.

- new message boxes should come under the old ones :

yes! they should. have you posted this in the bug reporting forum? ADDED

- be able to select easily armies in sieges :

or generally just being able to cycle through armies like you can in vicky and hoi.

when at war the AI tends to embargo even when it has no COTs or has already an active embargo : they waste their diplomats, spam me and may even give a free CB for later.

embargoing is good even if you dont have a cot.

I never saw the AI cancel a trade pact. However, the AI can really benefit from this sometimes. Especially when it owns several COTs and is already at war with the player. (cancel pact then embargo the player all for free !)

as the AI cannot make a jugdment call regarding trading and cannot cancel an agreement maybe the AI should simply refuse all trading agreements? or is this too radical?

the AI almost never calls in allies when DOWing a pagan state ... even when the target is really big or has european allies of it's own ... ooch

this was originally instituted to avoid clogging down european alliances in colonial wars.

When you extend a loan the rates sky-rocket. If, instead, you take a new loan and pay the old one you still get the small rates. To say the truth I don't see why the rates schould go up when you extend a loan while you have the ability to borrow more.

good thinking ADDED

chief judges seem a little weak compared to TC and governors. Perhaps you could add a new small benefit to them?

yes... but can any of us think of an idea which is really good?

The linking of Naval support limits to Building Capacity instead of the number of ports. Presently this gives too many benefits without any investment to England, France, Spain and OE

not to mention Sweden. ADDED

ABOUT THE CENTRALIZATION INCREASE PROPOSAL:

hmm... i remember one programmer saying something about a historical strayjacket

as it seems that there are alot of us who think its a good idea and a few of us who dont how about restricting the centralization increase to the 'very hard' setting?

 

[Cagliostro]

As suggested in this otherwise very contentious thread:

At any difficulty level, declarations of war should no longer add stability after you have passed the BB cap.

Though there was a good deal of loud argument about the rest, there seemed to be universal agreement on that point.

 

[doktarr]

Originally posted by Cagliostro
As suggested in this otherwise very contentious thread:

At any difficulty level, declarations of war should no longer add stability after you have passed the BB cap.

Though there was a good deal of loud argument about the rest, there seemed to be universal agreement on that point.

In addition, there was agreement that:
after you pass the BB war threshold, nations with low troop numbers should delay declaring war until they have built their army to (near? beyond?) their support limit.

There was also some lukewarm support for the idea that:
rather than beiong a flat thirty years, nationalism should last longer if you have a high BB value, possibly lasting .3*(100+BB) years.

 

[Woreczko]

Originally posted by Ryan
as it seems that there are alot of us who think its a good idea and a few of us who dont how about restricting the centralization increase to the 'very hard' setting?

That seems a good idea to me

 

[unmerged(2778)]

Re: ideas

Originally posted by pastis

- When you extend a loan the rates sky-rocket. If, instead, you take a new loan and pay the old one you still get the small rates. To say the truth I don't see why the rates schould go up when you extend a loan while you have the ability to borrow more.

Doesn't rates for both new and extended loans depend on stability? High stability = Low rates

 

[Zander]

Originally posted by doktarr
rather than beiong a flat thirty years, nationalism should last longer if you have a high BB value, possibly lasting .3*(100+BB) years.

I'd like to toss out the idea that Nationalism itself should be higher. Now that RR doesn't cause nearly so many revolts (instead mostly meaning minor economic penalties), it seems silly that a province's nationalism disappears entirely in the space of 30 years. Perhaps +6 would be more appropriate? Or perhaps it should go down every 20 years instead of every 10?

 

[unmerged(16501)]

At any difficulty level, declarations of war should no longer add stability after you have passed the BB cap.

nope. it shouldnt. if you cant handle the pressure, stay under the bb cap ADDED

after you pass the BB war threshold, nations with low troop numbers should delay declaring war until they have built their army to (near? beyond?) their support limit.

This is a good idea. But i dont think that its easy to implement by any means.

Doesn't rates for both new and extended loans depend on stability? High stability = Low rates

i dont know. do they? could someone who knows shed some light on this?

I'd like to toss out the idea that Nationalism itself should be higher. Now that RR doesn't cause nearly so many revolts (instead mostly meaning minor economic penalties), it seems silly that a province's nationalism disappears entirely in the space of 30 years. Perhaps +6 would be more appropriate? Or perhaps it should go down every 20 years instead of every 10?

i kind of like nationalism as-is. remember that the idea of nationalism was not thought up until way after the game ends.

but a 50%, one % decrease every 10 years would not be that bad.

 

[Woreczko]

What about adding tax collectors to appropiate provinces of "civilised" nations in all scenarios? This would also include adjusting infrastructure level of several nations, at least eastern european ones. Personally I hate early game tax-rush.