Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Questions and Announcements

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
N Katsyev said:
I also think the 2 eco per turn regeneration is high. Considering how landmil is now recovered, I really don't think its necessary.

As per my Orthodox question, it was a serious question asked in a not so serious manner. I am playing an Orthodox country and considering there aren't many of us and most of us are tech penalized already, I figured we might get some break, like on Eu2 where we can marry all Christians...

Also, I don't agree with the vassal-liege bonus. I think the bonus should apply in your own core territory only as it does in my opinion represent not only a more intimate knowledge of the land, but also a greater connection to it and desire to protect it. Just because my enslaver's lord has peasants who might have their farms burnt a world away, i'm going to be far more moved to action to defend my best friend's farm just down the road.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on both counts...

For the first, I'd like to know if anyone objects to 1 eco regeneration per turn.

For the second, the defensive bonus is mostly aimed at assisting smaller realms so I think it would be fine to not give overlords that comfort.

(For the one in-between: fair enough. I'm sorry :eek:o)
 
Myselfish self won't like the 1 eco per turn regeneration...:p the other one doesn't really care I think...

As to the defense bonus, good, and for the Orthodox candybar, sure:)
 
Green_alien said:
This would however mean that big nations like mine would fully regenerate only in 5 turns. That's 5 weeks RL. Not good if you ask me.
Click to expand...
To which my preprepared response is: then don't spend it all at once.

And anyway, how long do nations generally spend at peace in this game? Unless you plan on entering successive wars, a slow regen rate should not bother you. All but the most aggressive player are unlikely to enter a war a month after the last one ends. What it does mean is that you have to watch your back, manage your diplomacy so you don't get DoW'd while you are recovering.

But that's my opinion. As I say, majority rules.
 
Personally I would rather see eco regeneration scale with the size of base ECO. This is not an easy thing to implement though, since our numbers are still very small. The difference between those that regenerate 2 ECO and those that only regenerate 1 ECO would therefore be huge in such a system. At least if ECO is still regenerated once per turn.
 
are the recovery abilities of a field and village greater in larger kingdom? why should large kingdoms regenerat faster? ccc is absolutely right, if you want to wage war, you should plan ahead. think CK, the regeneration of your armies there is a serious problem!

besides, there are always loans than can augment you spending habits :p so dont despair, you can still wage your war ;)
 
I think you're mistaken. Cities in small lands with little eco apparently regenerate much faster than in bigger ones. With 1 eco regen smaller nations will recover much sooner.
 
Ladislav said:
are the recovery abilities of a field and village greater in larger kingdom? why should large kingdoms regenerat faster? ccc is absolutely right, if you want to wage war, you should plan ahead. think CK, the regeneration of your armies there is a serious problem!

besides, there are always loans than can augment you spending habits :p so dont despair, you can still wage your war ;)
Click to expand...

nope, but a large kingdom has much more fields and villages that can recover. Why should a minor recover in 2 turns and a major in perhaps 7? In CK this also applies, 10 provinces will recover just as quickly as one, as they all recover seperately.

ECO is just a pool of resources too, and the resources of a major just happens to be greater, its income greater etc etc
 
I say 1 eco a week like it used to be, small realms are more centralised/effective wheras bigger are less. like 3c said, one should plan his diplomacy ahead and possibly not spend all his eco during war if one is afraid that he might be stabbed after the war ends.

I can't think of anything more reasonable
 
Green_alien said:
I think we're encouraging players to split their kingdoms in vassals then. Vassal armies get +1 morale, regenerate their eco faster...
Click to expand...

who said the vassal will arrive to help his overlod in the time of need? besides, every abuse can be traced and the abuser panelised :)

but we want a good clean sportsmanshim, don't we?
 
Well, if the larger realms can't really spend their eco during war it creates a bit of a problem. With the siege rules we now need a minimum amount of forces to besiege a province. Which means that one way or another, you need to be able to field at least that number to actually hurt the enemy. This is especially pronounced with capitals since the garrison is doubled.

So to get enough forces to do the job you either need to spend those eco, or: allies. Is an increase in coalition wars what the game needs? Some realms even have to spend all their eco and take up loans/get allies to hurt the enemy. An example of this is the OE that allready needs to get allies or take heavy loans to even have a chance of capturing Constantinople (garrison: 10). Just how vulnerable should a failed war make them (would take 5 turns for them to recover since they have 5 eco).

Bear in mind that the forces needed to besiege is after you most likely have taken casualties in battle.

But change it to what pleases you, I shall not comment on this any further.
 
Green_alien said:
I think we're encouraging players to split their kingdoms in vassals then. Vassal armies get +1 morale, regenerate their eco faster...
Click to expand...

Well, I would like to see somebody splitting his kingdom in vassals. *opening can of beer*
 
Icarus said:
Well, if the larger realms can't really spend their eco during war it creates a bit of a problem. With the siege rules we now need a minimum amount of forces to besiege a province. Which means that one way or another, you need to be able to field at least that number to actually hurt the enemy. This is especially pronounced with capitals since the garrison is doubled.

So to get enough forces to do the job you either need to spend those eco, or: allies. Is an increase in coalition wars what the game needs? Some realms even have to spend all their eco and take up loans/get allies to hurt the enemy. An example of this is the OE that allready needs to get allies or take heavy loans to even have a chance of capturing Constantinople (garrison: 10). Just how vulnerable should a failed war make them (would take 5 turns for them to recover since they have 5 eco).

Bear in mind that the forces needed to besiege is after you most likely have taken casualties in battle.

But change it to what pleases you, I shall not comment on this any further.
Click to expand...

You do not need to equal the garrison size to siege, you need to equal the province value. If the garrison is doubled, it just means it will take years to capture, eg, Constantinople (which is 6, not 5). Didn't it take decades IRL? Hell, IIRC it took years just to take Thessalonika.

And the larger realms are quite welcome to spend all their eco. They did in the last game, and this time around they don't need to purchase LM to regen. So if anything, it will still be quicker to recover from total resource-stripping war than it was in the previous game.

I recognise that small realms might have trouble capturing provinces, so we can look at reducing the siege minimum. BUT the whole point of the minimum is, as you might well recognise, to stop a large army dropping off single LM all over the place to capture a country quickly. Time will tell, but I think wars will be determined by battles, not by capturing provinces.

Beherovek said:
Well, I would like to see somebody splitting his kingdom in vassals. *opening can of beer*
Click to expand...
No, you would like to READ ALL THE GOLD TEXT on the previous page.
 
Thesslonica had about 10,000 defenders, and took an Ottoman army of somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 months to capture. At Constantinople, there were something like 4,000 defenders against 100,000+ Turks, and it took around a month. Even then, Mehmed II was about to withdraw.. the attack that took Constantinople was supposed to be his last.

In 1383, if Constantinople had been besieged 4,000 to 100,000, it would have taken far longer to capture, especially if the Venetians had sent food like they had promised. The Turk didn't have all these huge cannons knocking down the walls in 1383. ;)

Sorry if this is spam. :eek:o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back