If you play multiplayer with Shattered Balance, is there an option that gives both players the lucky bonus? Or is there just for one?
Project Balance
- Thread starter Meneth
- 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.
Do you have the ambition? If not you can only ever do a single subjugation.I'm unable to subjugate fellow pagansCooldown is done and capital is within same kingdom, Game says I have no CB D:
Thanks, will be fixed.
Really, the only issue I see is that the caps in general are that high. You with eight counties having almost as high a cap as France with two makes perfect sense.
Are you using VIET? If so, it changes some of the requirements without updating the decisions.
If not, could you send me the save so I can look into it?
It might just be bad luck. The event is more common when you're young though, so if you often live long you won't get it that often.
Make sure you've got the latest versions of both PB and SWMH.
Make sure you've got PB, PB+SWMH, and SWMH all enabled in the launcher.
I've seen the Russians blob aplenty.
Currently the game will pick one player at random to get all the events. As a result only this player can get the lucky bonus.
I think that's actually a good point, Meneth. Hard capping retinues at a more reasonable amount would probably be a good thing for gameplay.
I've committed a 20% reduction in retinues to the beta branch now.
Could I make you release a version today before 19.00hrs ? We will start a new MP-game today, and would like any last minute changes before we start.
In my game, name of Kingdom of Scotland changed into Kingdom of Alba. Is this PB thing or is it something from Vanilla ?
Probably too complex, but wouldn't ideally a Sigmoid Curve (an S shaped curve) be a good way to represent this. There growth is smallest at the beginning and the end. An example of this are logistic functions, which are used to model population growth, a learning curve etc.
Like I wrote probably to complex, but a system where counts initially only has a slow increase in retinues and powerful kings and emperors eventually face a limit IMHO is ia good system, IMHO certainly better than a linear one. So maybe adding a retinue cap could be an idea?
Have everyone download the beta branch when you start and you'll get as up to date version as possible.
Just make sure to link to a specific commit and it'll ensure that everyone has the same version.
Vanilla. If an Irish person for example controls it, it becomes Alba.
Yeah, not really sure that's doable.
That's what I thought initially for my previous rulers, but my current character is ambitious, zealous, and brave - and doesn't have content, slothful, or craven, so I don't think it's a trait thing.
Yeah, i'm using VIET. Didn't realize it changes the decision. I'll look into what's the issue. Thanks.
How do i form Empire of Francia with a Frankish lord ? I have enough piety, gold, 2 kingdoms and more than 70 percent of de jure territories. Do i need to have 4 king tier titles, there is something like that in the conditions but i couldn't figure out if it is in OR condition or a seperate condition.
Would it be possible to have characters with the Brave trait and any fighting trait NEVER run from battle? It's getting quite annoying playing Harald Godwinson and having William d'Normandie run from every single duel that is initiated.
Having them never run from battle would be overdoing it I think. But currently it makes them something like 20 times less likely to run.
I have newest PB + VIET 1.3.4 (full) and have problem with Hungarians. They reconquering Pechengs lands 5-10 after start the game (event was ok). After that they becoming Big East Blob. Was ok in erlier version. I wrote about this in VIET thread and cybrxkhan answered:
"I just ran a test game, and yes it does appear the Hungarians lose their territories a week or two or three after the initial push into Hungary, but they still have claims on some of the lands in the Ukraine. Since this event is something from PB, I think you should make a suggestion to Meneth for the event to also remove the Hungarians' claims on whatever previous lands they held. I believe some of the changes in the recent patch might have messed around with the way PB's event works."
"I just ran a test game, and yes it does appear the Hungarians lose their territories a week or two or three after the initial push into Hungary, but they still have claims on some of the lands in the Ukraine. Since this event is something from PB, I think you should make a suggestion to Meneth for the event to also remove the Hungarians' claims on whatever previous lands they held. I believe some of the changes in the recent patch might have messed around with the way PB's event works."
Just to anyone that might be interested, the current version of the excellent Clear Combat mod increases the Retinue Cap and decreases the Retinue Cap Usage of Units when using it together with Project Balance but doesn't do it when used only with Vanilla. Below are the relevant quotes:
As a side note, Clear Combat is a simple and elegant solution to those of us who would rather want that high value martial skills be relevant in combat.
I can confirm this.
With Project Balance+Clear Combat, my values are:
Retinue Cap: From Realm: 1074 Holdings: 179 Cap Per Holding: 6 From Buildings: 925 From Technology: +300% Total: 7996 Cataphract: Cost to Create: 64 Retinue Usage: 800 Projected Monthly Cost: 0.80
With Project Balance only, my values are:
Retinue Cap: From Realm: 895 Holdings: 179 Cap Per Holding: 5 From Buildings: 1175 From Technology: +65% Total: 3415 Cataphract: Cost to Create: 30 Retinue Usage: 1500 Projected Monthly Cost: 0.75
What is interesting is that whether using Vanilla or Vanilla+Clear Combat, my values remain the same:
Retinue Cap: From Realm: 1074 Holdings: 179 Cap Per Holding: 6 From Buildings: 20 From Technology: +300% Total: 4376 Cataphract: Cost to Create: 128 Retinue Usage: 1600 Projected Monthly Cost: 1.60
In regards to defines.lua, using the old Eyeball Mark V, I compared all three from Vanilla, Project Balance and Clear Combat and the only changes that I could see are:
Vanilla and Project Balance
opinion_when_marshal_instead_of_self = 25
opinion_when_no_leader = 0
Clear Combat
opinion_when_marshal_instead_of_self = 0
opinion_when_no_leader = -100
I cannot imagine why these values would make such a radical difference in increasing the Retinue Cap and decreasing the Retinue Cap Usage of Units so I would think that it is something else. The changes that Clear Combat makes to static_modifiers.txt is also minimal. Just a few values here and there to terrain and river combat modifiers so I don't think that's it either. Maybe it's something inside the combat_tactics file but I didn't compared that one. Too big to do with the old Eyeball Mark V.
Having said that, I absolute love Clear Combat and I love Project Balance too. I think the biggest requested change in the Project Balance thread is making high martial values relevant in combat, something that Meneth will not do because it would give large realms an advantage since larger realms would end up with a bigger pool of available high martial value generals than smaller realms. I disagree but it is his mod and his reasons are understandable not capricious. So Clear Combat nicely solves that issue. Add to that all the other benefits that Clear Combat brings and I am willing to ignore the higher retinues values since the A.I. gets them too and if you really have an issue with them just don't go above the value that Project Balance sets.
As a side note, Clear Combat is a simple and elegant solution to those of us who would rather want that high value martial skills be relevant in combat.
Last edited:
Rurik manages to blob well during the 867 scenarios? Because I've never seen it. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but I've played probably 20 playthroughs for at least 100 years or so and never have I seen the Rurikovich dynasty come anywhere near their historic level of success.