I didn't saw a thread about the sciencedevelopment. I can't believe everybody is content with that one
-
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.
That subject has come up again and again in several different threads. No one in their right mind can be happy about how it works in EU1.
So,
let's keep the fire burning. I'm in favor of more new options linked to technologie level.
In EU I, I just click on the window if a technologie advance pops up. Perhaps it has some effect somewhere, but I don't know where.
Also research is necessary to do in EU I (you better not get behind the rest), but i don't see any opportunities for building special structures, events, units...
I want to have nice opportunities!!!
let's keep the fire burning. I'm in favor of more new options linked to technologie level.
In EU I, I just click on the window if a technologie advance pops up. Perhaps it has some effect somewhere, but I don't know where.
Also research is necessary to do in EU I (you better not get behind the rest), but i don't see any opportunities for building special structures, events, units...
I want to have nice opportunities!!!
UHM?
Trade 1: Allows sending of merchants to CoTs.
Trade 2: Allows sending of traders to new provinces
Trade 3: Allows monopolizing CoTs...
etc etc etc...
There are also special buildings and events in all of the other tech trees excempting "stability"... so really... if you think something should be done to the tech tree... come up with an idea, instead of whining (that really makes NO sense whatsoever).
Trade 1: Allows sending of merchants to CoTs.
Trade 2: Allows sending of traders to new provinces
Trade 3: Allows monopolizing CoTs...
etc etc etc...
There are also special buildings and events in all of the other tech trees excempting "stability"... so really... if you think something should be done to the tech tree... come up with an idea, instead of whining (that really makes NO sense whatsoever).
and donth forhet national/TAG bonus ore minus fore specific tehnolagy !
examply
artilery samthing. teh level 40 fra+20% ENG+10% PRU+!15 CHI-50% TUR-10% etc etc.....
And perhaps difrend tehnologies fore difrent aspects of..... wepons
cold wepons,gunpuder wepons, sige wepons... ore on alone ore iven in combination with of all this posibiltys infatry teh, calwary teh, artilery teh, trader ship teh, bIG army ship tech(MOW), mediuim ship teh. small fast ship tech, galeys teh .oriental ship tech. Islam ship tech etc..etc..etc...
trader ships
examply
artilery samthing. teh level 40 fra+20% ENG+10% PRU+!15 CHI-50% TUR-10% etc etc.....
And perhaps difrend tehnologies fore difrent aspects of..... wepons
cold wepons,gunpuder wepons, sige wepons... ore on alone ore iven in combination with of all this posibiltys infatry teh, calwary teh, artilery teh, trader ship teh, bIG army ship tech(MOW), mediuim ship teh. small fast ship tech, galeys teh .oriental ship tech. Islam ship tech etc..etc..etc...
trader ships
Hmmm...country related bonuses for various tech. levels-nice idea, since it could improve the differentiation between what feel, even with the leader chrome, like fairly generic nations.
Tech level or time period-which should they be tied to do you think?
Tech level or time period-which should they be tied to do you think?
Re: UHM?
What an upsetting tone of language...
Indeed, in the beginning the tech tree is worked out well, as you say.
But can you tell me what the difference is between military tech levels 41, 42 , 43, 44, 45, ...? Maybe there's ONE fortress upgrade in it and the troops will fight better. IMO not much of an opportunity.
what do you mean with etc etc etc???
Also name me the events that are linked with an upgrade in technologie level?
I was thinking about the person who started this thread, having a good point there! You accuse me of bringing nothing new to this thread. Well tell me what your contribution is here?
Originally posted by Jinxed
Trade 1: Allows sending of merchants to CoTs.
Trade 2: Allows sending of traders to new provinces
Trade 3: Allows monopolizing CoTs...
etc etc etc...
There are also special buildings and events in all of the other tech trees excempting "stability"... so really... if you think something should be done to the tech tree... come up with an idea, instead of whining (that really makes NO sense whatsoever).
What an upsetting tone of language...Indeed, in the beginning the tech tree is worked out well, as you say.
But can you tell me what the difference is between military tech levels 41, 42 , 43, 44, 45, ...? Maybe there's ONE fortress upgrade in it and the troops will fight better. IMO not much of an opportunity.
what do you mean with etc etc etc???
Also name me the events that are linked with an upgrade in technologie level?
I was thinking about the person who started this thread, having a good point there! You accuse me of bringing nothing new to this thread. Well tell me what your contribution is here?
What exactly would you expect to gain from military technology, other than, your troops will be better at fighting, and your fortresses will be more effective? I don't see what else there could be. After all, the eminence grise does not concern himself with exactly what type of graded steel should be used in the making of matchlocks ... he just allocates funding according to whether he prefers to pay people to invest in navies, armies, or building a better economy. And even if he wanted to specify exactly what improvements ought to be invented, it's not actually possible to do so. You just allocate grants to people researching military applications, and hope someone will find something useful.
I agree with Heyesey on this, perhaps even to the point that it can be done in a fashion similar to Imperialism, or even Alpha Centauri. In this I mean that you don't necessarily choose what techs you get, you just throw money at the navy, and they may come up with a better anchor, or they may come up with a breech-loader.
I think everyone's real gripe about EU tech, though, was that the tech tree is completely straight. There's no variation to it. In Impism, you don't affect directly tech at all. Something just becomes available. it's not in any fixed order, though you're gonna get certain developments before others, and some might be more likely to be before others, but there's nothing forcing that to happen.
No, the grey Emminence doesn't care about tensile strength and correcting for the rotation of the Earth, but the game could change a bit if you didn't know exactly what you were going to get next.
Now considering the lack of tangible benefits from higher Techs and the large number of techs that are shown to you, this could all be a moot point. The early techs and their benefits were carefully decided upon, and I suppose it would be wrong to mess with that. Later on, though, there just aren't benefits to go along with tech levels, so having them come out of order confers nothing but a programming headache.
The solution to that would be to make each tech have some sort of tangible benefit, but again, you're talking about a programming and designing headache. How do you come up with all these little benefits without hosing the gameplay and making the techs as easy to remember as they are in MOO2? (Which is to say, not at all.) So I don't think there is a realistic solution to a minor non-problem such as this.
I think everyone's real gripe about EU tech, though, was that the tech tree is completely straight. There's no variation to it. In Impism, you don't affect directly tech at all. Something just becomes available. it's not in any fixed order, though you're gonna get certain developments before others, and some might be more likely to be before others, but there's nothing forcing that to happen.
No, the grey Emminence doesn't care about tensile strength and correcting for the rotation of the Earth, but the game could change a bit if you didn't know exactly what you were going to get next.
Now considering the lack of tangible benefits from higher Techs and the large number of techs that are shown to you, this could all be a moot point. The early techs and their benefits were carefully decided upon, and I suppose it would be wrong to mess with that. Later on, though, there just aren't benefits to go along with tech levels, so having them come out of order confers nothing but a programming headache.
The solution to that would be to make each tech have some sort of tangible benefit, but again, you're talking about a programming and designing headache. How do you come up with all these little benefits without hosing the gameplay and making the techs as easy to remember as they are in MOO2? (Which is to say, not at all.) So I don't think there is a realistic solution to a minor non-problem such as this.
hmmmm perhaps this tech bonus ore minus fore TAG/nation can be conected with that screnshot wee can see from last week
ex:
Hi centralisation can result in some bonuses going up ore down ....
yust an idea....
ex:
Hi centralisation can result in some bonuses going up ore down ....
yust an idea....
I do not know if everyone else is happy with the border tech bonus. For example, Navarra sitting between France and Spain increases its armies absurditily (sp?), so all monthly income is used for maintenance, nevertheless, it progresses in technology quite nice due to border bonuses from Spain and France. The higher the difference in technology will be the higher bonus is added monthly to Navarra's research spending.
On the other hand Spain's and France's research is penalised because they are too ahead.
I think the border bonus should be limited to a max number (let's say only 5 points max, even if the defference in tech levels is higher).
Btw, regarding the tech advances, it should be better that together with the name of land advance in the window should be somehow described that this advance will bring better fighting techniques to infantry, or cavalry, etc. Development of new naval advances should be followed with information that this advance with increase sailing speed, or cannons accuracy, or hand-to-hand combat during abordages (sp?), etc.
On the other hand Spain's and France's research is penalised because they are too ahead.
I think the border bonus should be limited to a max number (let's say only 5 points max, even if the defference in tech levels is higher).
Btw, regarding the tech advances, it should be better that together with the name of land advance in the window should be somehow described that this advance will bring better fighting techniques to infantry, or cavalry, etc. Development of new naval advances should be followed with information that this advance with increase sailing speed, or cannons accuracy, or hand-to-hand combat during abordages (sp?), etc.
I don't mind if Navarra get a huge tech boost, as long as its tech level is not > France or Spain. If it sticks to French and Spanish tech level, even if Navarra spend 0 in tech, that's ok : smuglers from Navarra simply go to France and Spain to buy weapons!
But it is not only about weapons, but also about drilling techniques and warfare strategies. This kind of staff could not be simply bought by smuglers and then sold to the neighbouring country?!
Just imagine that you bought a new type of musket, what this will help you if you don't know how to fire with it?
Just imagine that you bought a new type of musket, what this will help you if you don't know how to fire with it?
Originally posted by Cornelius
But it is not only about weapons, but also about drilling techniques and warfare strategies. This kind of staff could not be simply bought by smuglers and then sold to the neighbouring country?!
Just imagine that you bought a new type of musket, what this will help you if you don't know how to fire with it?
French deserter / disbanded soldier after a war, who like the climate of the most beautiful Navarre country?
Or the Navarran officers could take a tour of France... Countries were not as secretive then. A popular part of young noblemens education were to take a tour of europe and learn new things. In the case of Swedeish noblemen these trips could include both Austria and the Ottoman Empire.
Not forgetting mercenary service-many of the Royalist and Parliamentary generals and officer corps had learned their trade while serving with the various armies of the Thirty Years War in Germany. Very few items of military equipment were subject to purposeful efforts at secrecy, and any such veil was normally broken fairly quickly by rivals (foundry methods for cannons are the only real example I can think of.)
The major problem with the Tech tree in EUII isn't that it's straight; it's that it is driven by monetary investment. The inflation model of EU strongly encourages high investments in technology; it's common for nations to invest 80/90% of their income into technology.
But was crown investment what spurred technology advance in the Early Modern period? Absolutely not! Could you imagine Henry VIII of England investing 80% of his crown revenues into "Trade Tech 3 - Monopoly"? He spent more on wedding rings than he did on research, for goodness sake!
Technology advance in the era was rarely linked to crown sponsorship. In land combat, it was linked to reforms by outstanding leaders (Gustavus Adolphus for firepower, Vauban for fortification, Gonzalo de Cordova for combined arms, etc.) Naval advances were linked to volume of merchant shipping, as new ships and sailing techniques were tried out first on civilian ships and then adopted by admiralties. Infrastructure was linked to reforming monarchs, willing to take on their hide-bound aristocrats and other vested interests. Trade advances were pioneered by daring merchants (such as Marco Polo) or organized companies (British East India Co, etc).
Paradox should do some of its own "research" and discover what really did cause technology to advance. Perhaps there could be a "Modernization" slider; higher levels result in more research, but cost a nation in terms of stability and revolt risk as more entrenched interests are threatened by change and resist further reforms. Reforms can also risk army mutiny, merchant loss, decline of infrastructure, etc. if they fail.
Regardless, if there was one thing that didn't drive "research" in this era it's money. Paradox adopted the "Civilization" model without giving the matter a lot of thought; I hope they can do better in EU2.
For a similar thread see:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=187950#post187950
But was crown investment what spurred technology advance in the Early Modern period? Absolutely not! Could you imagine Henry VIII of England investing 80% of his crown revenues into "Trade Tech 3 - Monopoly"? He spent more on wedding rings than he did on research, for goodness sake!
Technology advance in the era was rarely linked to crown sponsorship. In land combat, it was linked to reforms by outstanding leaders (Gustavus Adolphus for firepower, Vauban for fortification, Gonzalo de Cordova for combined arms, etc.) Naval advances were linked to volume of merchant shipping, as new ships and sailing techniques were tried out first on civilian ships and then adopted by admiralties. Infrastructure was linked to reforming monarchs, willing to take on their hide-bound aristocrats and other vested interests. Trade advances were pioneered by daring merchants (such as Marco Polo) or organized companies (British East India Co, etc).
Paradox should do some of its own "research" and discover what really did cause technology to advance. Perhaps there could be a "Modernization" slider; higher levels result in more research, but cost a nation in terms of stability and revolt risk as more entrenched interests are threatened by change and resist further reforms. Reforms can also risk army mutiny, merchant loss, decline of infrastructure, etc. if they fail.
Regardless, if there was one thing that didn't drive "research" in this era it's money. Paradox adopted the "Civilization" model without giving the matter a lot of thought; I hope they can do better in EU2.
For a similar thread see:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=187950#post187950
Last edited:
I think a more ideal solution is an even tek. Lets work with Europe. All the adavcnes in the tek tree should occur at the same time- every gets access to the musket at the same time. There is not an implmentation cost since the cost will be reflected in a higher maintenance cost- a cost that can rise rather more dramtically. The advanatges:
1. More historically accurate. There were not gov't funded R&D shops and there was almost nothing that could be properly called secrecy. Especially with the international character of armies men from one army flitted back and forth to different armies all the time. Tek did in fact spread very quickly.
2. My making it a function of maintenance cost you hurt the ability of a minor to field a force. As the cost of armies accelerated during the 17th and especially 18thc smaller states ceased being able to field an army of any power.
3. You eliminate the "land rush" or "naval rush" tactics that can unbalance the game for the humans and really hurt the AI (the AI, for example, does not appear to ignore nav tek if they are a landlocked state) like the human player does.
4. More historical development. You can code muskets to not appear until 1680. This means you don't have folks maxxing out landtek in 1700 or getting muskets by 1600 whihc is about par for the course in my games. This will not only affect ganmeplay in Europe (fewer super forts since they won't arrive unitl later) but also the balance of power for Europe vs the world. The hyper-accerlation of firearms and higher tek weapons makes it much easier for the Europeans to conquer the RoTW when the tek edges for the Euros didn't become eveident in terms of effecitiveness (as opposed the the psycological edge) until the 1650's.
It is, no doubt, way too late for this idea but it is my though on the issue.
1. More historically accurate. There were not gov't funded R&D shops and there was almost nothing that could be properly called secrecy. Especially with the international character of armies men from one army flitted back and forth to different armies all the time. Tek did in fact spread very quickly.
2. My making it a function of maintenance cost you hurt the ability of a minor to field a force. As the cost of armies accelerated during the 17th and especially 18thc smaller states ceased being able to field an army of any power.
3. You eliminate the "land rush" or "naval rush" tactics that can unbalance the game for the humans and really hurt the AI (the AI, for example, does not appear to ignore nav tek if they are a landlocked state) like the human player does.
4. More historical development. You can code muskets to not appear until 1680. This means you don't have folks maxxing out landtek in 1700 or getting muskets by 1600 whihc is about par for the course in my games. This will not only affect ganmeplay in Europe (fewer super forts since they won't arrive unitl later) but also the balance of power for Europe vs the world. The hyper-accerlation of firearms and higher tek weapons makes it much easier for the Europeans to conquer the RoTW when the tek edges for the Euros didn't become eveident in terms of effecitiveness (as opposed the the psycological edge) until the 1650's.
It is, no doubt, way too late for this idea but it is my though on the issue.
But what's the alternative? If you don't force a player to invest more of his money to get a tech advantage, you're taking away one of the decisions - troops now or better troops later - and we can just merrily spend everything we have. At least this system is good for gameplay - the more money you invest into a certain area, the quicker you advance in that area. Ignore the investment, you fall behind. No player is going to invest anything in anything if he can just pick it up from other people.
Sidney, if it works the way you suggested, then a country has no advantage to try to advance tech. You put 0 in tech and keep all your treasury to build army.
The board game had an interesting feature : once the first country had reached the step where it discover something interesting, the required level for this tech becomes the level of the next most advance country +1.
For instance, musket can be get at tech level 30. France has a tech level of 29, Spain 25 and England 15. France advances a level, and get musket. Now musket can be "discovered" at tech 26 (Spain+1). Spain gains a level and discover musket, now musket can be discovered at tech 16 (England +1).
This way, a country still has the advantage of a new technology, but not for to long, the spread is quite fast, but not automatic
The board game had an interesting feature : once the first country had reached the step where it discover something interesting, the required level for this tech becomes the level of the next most advance country +1.
For instance, musket can be get at tech level 30. France has a tech level of 29, Spain 25 and England 15. France advances a level, and get musket. Now musket can be "discovered" at tech 26 (Spain+1). Spain gains a level and discover musket, now musket can be discovered at tech 16 (England +1).
This way, a country still has the advantage of a new technology, but not for to long, the spread is quite fast, but not automatic