Sliders

[Mowers]

The other question is: what do to with the old money sliders Land/Naval/Stability/Trade/Infrastructure? They were a bit too abstract for my liking.

Me too.

They should be split into unrelated and seperate mechanisms as whilst it was a nice solution the direct relation causes problems in the rest of the model.

Technology - CK style mechanism

Government expenditure/ Budget/ cash - should be broken out completely. This should be a straight application of technological improvements and infrastucture.

Trade - Independant mechanism that the government taxs/ encourages controls or a bit of everything

Stability - Same concept as before but with stability rising by a factor of your relative size (with vassals counting as less damaging) and various socio-technical factors but still effected by the old factors as before:

Rate of technological change
Rate of social change
All the old foriegn policy issues
All the old religious factors
etc etc

 

[unmerged(485)]

Me too.

They should be split into unrelated and seperate mechanisms as whilst it was a nice solution the direct relation causes problems in the rest of the model.

Technology - CK style mechanism

Government expenditure/ Budget/ cash - should be broken out completely. This should be a straight application of technological improvements and infrastucture.

Trade - Independant mechanism that the government taxs/ encourages controls or a bit of everything

Stability - Same concept as before but with stability rising by a factor of your relative size (with vassals counting as less damaging) and various socio-technical factors but still effected by the old factors as before:

Rate of technological change
Rate of social change
All the old foriegn policy issues
All the old religious factors
etc etc

How does the direct relation cause problems?

As for CK mechanism of tech spread - where will it spread? From province to province? You do not want buildings in provinces so no need for those kinds of techs to spread. Military tech spread is only viable if there are discrete military units raised in a province as in CK (not a bad idea really). With CoTs the only economic tech spread would be from CoT to CoT and no other provinces. So really it would just be a tech spread from country to country which is already simulated by the neighbor bonus in EU2. There would need to be an HoI type tech tree for any other type of tech spread mechanism.

There is already a way to encourage trade in EU2 - move the trade slider to the right. If it stays there long enough you get more $$ from trade. Admittedly, the merchant/CoT system as implemented in EU2 is a little cumbersome and could use improvement.

 

[Waldzwerg]

How does the direct relation cause problems?

As for CK mechanism of tech spread - where will it spread? From province to province? You do not want buildings in provinces so no need for those kinds of techs to spread. Military tech spread is only viable if there are discrete military units raised in a province as in CK (not a bad idea really). With CoTs the only economic tech spread would be from CoT to CoT and no other provinces. So really it would just be a tech spread from country to country which is already simulated by the neighbor bonus in EU2. There would need to be an HoI type tech tree for any other type of tech spread mechanism.

There is already a way to encourage trade in EU2 - move the trade slider to the right. If it stays there long enough you get more $$ from trade. Admittedly, the merchant/CoT system as implemented in EU2 is a little cumbersome and could use improvement.

If you are so satisfied with EU2, why an EU3 at all?
Actually i would like too look at improvements in provinces, i just don't think it should be the task of the player to build every one of them, he should appoint the governors who are actually building them and interact with them according to things like how good is the job they are doing, how loyal are they and how powerful are their families. Rather like the system in CK were your vassals are doing most of the administrative tasks, but of course with the good looking map of EU (i think it is still by far the best looking map of all Paradox games so far).
Regarding the slider issue, let's face it: they did their job rather well most of the time, but they were pretty boring. If you weren't at war, most of the time the only thing to do was sending traders into cots and settlers into colonies, a rather tedious task. All the internal policies were abstracted by the sliders. These policies i want to influence and not have to spend my time sending 10 settlers to every little colony or to make sure that every province has a bailiff and a governor.

 

[unmerged(485)]

If you are so satisfied with EU2, why an EU3 at all?

I still play EU2, but it needs improving. Admittedly, I often play the devil's advocate. And sometimes I do not have a solution to offer - as in the case of what would replace sliders. But so far no one has come up with a slider replacement which would, in my opinion, work as well or as free from micromanagement.

Actually i would like too look at improvements in provinces, i just don't think it should be the task of the player to build every one of them, he should appoint the governors who are actually building them and interact with them according to things like how good is the job they are doing, how loyal are they and how powerful are their families. Rather like the system in CK were your vassals are doing most of the administrative tasks, but of course with the good looking map of EU (i think it is still by far the best looking map of all Paradox games so far).

Even in CK players complain that their vassals are not building any improvements or are building the wrong ones.

Regarding the slider issue, let's face it: they did their job rather well most of the time, but they were pretty boring. If you weren't at war, most of the time the only thing to do was sending traders into cots and settlers into colonies, a rather tedious task.

You don't want to spend time seeing if provinces have bailiffs but you want to interact with the governors and check their loyalty and their family status? You must really like the micromanagement in Victoria.

All the internal policies were abstracted by the sliders. These policies i want to influence and not have to spend my time sending 10 settlers to every little colony or to make sure that every province has a bailiff and a governor.

On the surface a good idea and one I would agree with. But how do you envision doing this? How often would you be allowed to influence policies? And what policies would you be influencing? Would it not be just as boring to have to pass the same law over and over to get the equivalent of moving the slider in several notches in one direction?

There are sliders in EU2, HoI1 & 2, Victoria and even in CK. I don't see them going away in EU3. I've been wrong before but if I were to bet I would bet that there will be sliders in EU3.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

Of course, yes. As a ruler you are able to define laws. But in Eu2 was in case of DP sliders one thing that was very unrealistic. You was able to define laws (if you want this name) by the DP sliders, but your style of government could go against this settings. Move DP slider from one end to another is called as making reforms. But which reforms are we speaking about if nothing changes?
For example decentralization-centralization slider. How you explain the situation, that by DP sliders you are taking government into your hands (centralization), but on the other hand you are giving more power to provinces by declaring them as vasals? You say by DP slider that you are centralized, but in fact your goverment is decentralized!
Say me, how it is possible to define your doctrine as offensive, if you only stay behind the walls and only besiege the city. That's defensive doctrine (as Paradox defined it).
You set on slider that you prefer inovation. But you are taking all cash to treasury, reasearch gets nothing from you, provinces aren't getting any improvements,and I must ask, where is the inovation you are prefering? Remain with the same and making no changes is narrow-mind, i think.
I would rather prefer to see direct laws in game instead DP sliders if you want direct control. And I agree with Mowers comment that direct control is needed sometimes. Although Eu is trying to be realistic as much as possible, it is still only GAME.

ah yes of course some of the settings dont really make sense you are right.

I wouldnt mind a more victoria based approach myself having a list or something like that and you pay money to change into different settings, could be spiced up somehow but i dont think its a bad system!

 

[Kelvin]

I'd rather have the sliders unchanged than lose some of the control they offered. Yes, they could use some changes, but not if it means losing too much control over your policies.

Some of the things said here make sense, like the outcome of battles, sieges and wars influencing the quality of your army and navy.

If we lose control over the policies, you might as well go and play CK with a gazillion of vassals.

The other extreme, the type of micromanagement found in Victoria is also a wrong path for EU3 (don't get me wrong, I LOVE Victoria, probably as much as EU2), but some things like implementing policies like in Victoria could be useful at least as a concept for Eu3.

 

[unmerged(485)]

..................................

but some things like implementing policies like in Victoria could be useful at least as a concept for Eu3.

Agree with it as a useful concept but cannot envision the implementation.

How many policies could you change in Victoria? A handful (ok maybe two handsful). That was not too bad over an 85 year period (still there was not really that much to do with regards to managing the actual changes). How many social and economic changes would you need to represent those same types of changes over a period four times as long?