Should we have an "historical" option at game start?

[lucaluca]

This option would include:

- immediate removal of senseless cores (i.e. France minors after France forms)
- high AE
- coalitions
- high warscore cost for releasing states
- etc.

This would please all of us, by deciding what kind of game we want to play at game start. Do you agree?

 

[jaxpac]

I don't think it would make any sense to arbitrarily label some particular alternate settings as "historical," but you already can change a lot of settings in your own game if you prefer. Removing cores, increasing AE, and increasing warscore I think can be changed. I don't know what you mean by coalitions, but you might already be able to alter the game to your liking.

 

[lucaluca]

I don't think it would make any sense to arbitrarily label some particular alternate settings as "historical," but you already can change a lot of settings in your own game if you prefer. Removing cores, increasing AE, and increasing warscore I think can be changed. I don't know what you mean by coalitions, but you might already be able to alter the game to your liking.

but I want to play ironman with that why altering defines won't let me...

there would be a "historical" and a "normal" mod for those who prefer historical play compared to those who want to paint the map...

 

[grisamentum]

There is no historical play.

 

[lucaluca]

There is no historical play.

call it something else then? it surely is more historical than conquering the world with Ruyku...

 

[Jorlaan]

I don't understand the whole ironman thing. If the whole point is to just not reload, DON'T RELOAD! Or does everyone lack any willpower whatsoever?
Alter the game however you want then play it, don't reload ever and voila, you're playing custom "ironman".
You simply won't get achievements which don't do anything anyways.
I play to have fun, some of the features are no fun so I alter them a little. Now I have more fun playing the game, that was the whole point of playing a GAME after all.

 

[lucaluca]

I don't understand the whole ironman thing. If the whole point is to just not reload, DON'T RELOAD! Or does everyone lack any willpower whatsoever?
Alter the game however you want then play it, don't reload ever and voila, you're playing custom "ironman".
You simply won't get achievements which don't do anything anyways.
I play to have fun, some of the features are no fun so I alter them a little. Now I have more fun playing the game, that was the whole point of playing a GAME after all.

because I like the achievements and I like the cloud saves? many players do

 

[NightKev]

Isn't it possible to have cloud saves without ironman?

 

[AlricWaskir]

I think an option can't hurt! What I would love though are historical dynasties, meaning that the players' heirs and rulers are the historical ones for the specific country for the game.

 

[Thure]

I think an option can't hurt! What I would love though are historical dynasties, meaning that the players' heirs and rulers are the historical ones for the specific country for the game.

It was in EUIII... And it wasn't really good. You start as Aragon? So Ferdinand II of Aragon would rule forever because there aren't own kings of Aragon anymore. You start as Milan? Francesco II Sforza would rule from 1521 to the end of the game. Just because there wasn't an ruler anymore. Or at least this was the problem with many countries.

 

[grommile]

I think an option can't hurt! What I would love though are historical dynasties, meaning that the players' heirs and rulers are the historical ones for the specific country for the game.

Great. I'll turn George III into a general and storm fortresses with him, just to get him off the poxy throne.

 

[AlricWaskir]

It was in EUIII... And it wasn't really good. You start as Aragon? So Ferdinand II of Aragon would rule forever because there aren't own kings of Aragon anymore. You start as Milan? Francesco II Sforza would rule from 1521 to the end of the game. Just because there wasn't an ruler anymore. Or at least this was the problem with many countries.

Ah I didn't know that. That's too bad. However it doesn't mean you can't make it work for EUIV. If there is no ruler anymore it would be nice to switch to the standard succession. I would love to play as Frederick the Great in a 1444 start.

 

[Mr Tex]

If by historical you mean that you are no longer able to declare war till a certain date, make royal marriages with certain nation due to the historically accurate world, have Ming start with roughly 1million soldiers, only be able to fight battles in areas where they historically happened, etc. then sure add it in.
Anything less than this would in fact not be historical

However I think the word/name you are looking for is maybe hardcore? There is no reason to make the game have an option which can easily be modded into the game just so you can play ironman, If anything just play without Ironman, mod the features from which you are asking then go back onto Ironman and continue getting the achievements. There is no need to have the developers develop a mode and option for a minority of players, look at how many people have the achievements that should tell you just how many people actually play in Ironman mode let alone how many people would actually use the mode in which you are requesting.

 

[lucaluca]

If by historical you mean that you are no longer able to declare war till a certain date, make royal marriages with certain nation due to the historically accurate world, have Ming start with roughly 1million soldiers, only be able to fight battles in areas where they historically happened, etc. then sure add it in.
Anything less than this would in fact not be historical

However I think the word/name you are looking for is maybe hardcore? There is no reason to make the game have an option which can easily be modded into the game just so you can play ironman, If anything just play without Ironman, mod the features from which you are asking then go back onto Ironman and continue getting the achievements. There is no need to have the developers develop a mode and option for a minority of players, look at how many people have the achievements that should tell you just how many people actually play in Ironman mode let alone how many people would actually use the mode in which you are requesting.

Minority? many people seem to like the current restrictions to overexpansion...

 

[Beagá]

Yes I do think that two different modes should exist. Too many people disagree on the focus of the game and it´s impossible to please them all. Doing two modes would give more freedom to Paradox.

However, the question is how to make the "sandbox" mode work. Removing coalitions entirely... dunno.

If I were to add a new mode, I would keep the current one and add one that is more, not LESS, forgiving.

 

[BBBD316]

There is healthy debate at the moment and basically since the original game between the WC crowd and the Slowrollers about the expansion within the game.

At the end of the day the devs are stuck in the middle and have to try to find a middle ground between creating a challenge for expansion and allowing late game empires to clash for real results and not making it easy forplayers to simply paint the map. I don't pity them.

I do think the easiest way instead of a wholesale change to AE is to have slider for the AE and allow all play under that slider in ironman.

 

[lucaluca]

Yes I do think that two different modes should exist. Too many people disagree on the focus of the game and it´s impossible to please them all. Doing two modes would give more freedom to Paradox.

However, the question is how to make the "sandbox" mode work. Removing coalitions entirely... dunno.

If I were to add a new mode, I would keep the current one and add one that is more, not LESS, forgiving.

Mmhh but people keep complaining so they should remove coalitions or AE entirely in the normal mod. Especially considering they can't patch 2 different games, they should just have one mod with a feature and another one without that feature, so that changes to that feature in patches can still be made

 

[Anthropoid]

Me personally, if they removed AE and coalitions entirely and I found it impossible or difficult to keep it in its current form, I would be done playing it. However, if other folks would like to play it without those, then yeah, a "sissy" mode might be good

 

[FearTheAmish]

Great. I'll turn George III into a general and storm fortresses with him, just to get him off the poxy throne.

why worry about him Charles II is the one you should be very very afraid of.....

 

[Teije]

There is healthy debate at the moment and basically since the original game between the WC crowd and the Slowrollers about the expansion within the game.

At the end of the day the devs are stuck in the middle and have to try to find a middle ground between creating a challenge for expansion and allowing late game empires to clash for real results and not making it easy forplayers to simply paint the map. I don't pity them.

I do think the easiest way instead of a wholesale change to AE is to have slider for the AE and allow all play under that slider in ironman.

I think we will continue to see Paradox try to find the elusive "happy medium" in 1.4 and future patches. That will of course annoy some and please others, depending on the specific changes they make. But I don't see a wholesale move to increased start-up options happening unfortunately. I would love to see that, as many, if not most, other strategy games gives the player tons of game options at startup. To take two examples at random from different sub-genres - Distant Worlds and Fallen Enchantress. Frankly, the available settings for EUIV (of CKII) are pathetically few.