Consequences? Too greedy?
Nah, I say let them come, I'm not worried abo... wait what?
So about that AE...
- Thread starter Sensational
- 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.
Consequences? Too greedy?
Nah, I say let them come, I'm not worried abo... wait what?
Something changed with AE from what i've seen that declaring war on infidels and gaining AE reduces AE with neighboring muslim states.
you get AE removal for kicking other nations enemies. So its possible to stay at 0 AE with the people next door by switching between stealing land from their friends and their enemies.
It's like back in the days, when the United States left WW2 because the Soviets lost territory.
Back in the days, the Soviets was pretty pleased when German invaded France and Scandinavia. So yes, the AE removal is a big step toward realism.
So Germany should have spared Scandinavia for a few more years and use it for an AE reduction after a few hundred miles of conquering in Soviet territory. I guess they didn't understand AE expansion mechanics back then.
No, the German needed to cancel the military access that Scandinavia gave to Great Britain. They understood AE pretty well, yet the German lost to many men in the Eastern front, thus opened the chance for the enemy in the West.
I had the same thing with the Ottomans as France: Kicked the whole HRE and under AE the Ottomans always became a positive opinion... but still hates me.
I started a game with Ottomans myself.
Jesus Christ, nobody cares about me. I can eat Serbia, Wallachia, Bosnia in one war and Hungary dosen't care. I ate Levant in one war, nobody cared... What's the point? why should i play this game in SP if AI ignores me? Not good Paradox, not good at all!
Jesus Christ, nobody cares about me. I can eat Serbia, Wallachia, Bosnia in one war and Hungary dosen't care. I ate Levant in one war, nobody cared... What's the point? why should i play this game in SP if AI ignores me? Not good Paradox, not good at all!
We're on the same page here, but in a minority. Apparently this is realistic, fun and all.
Its the opposite now of what it was, and even though it needs some balancing its more fun that how it used to be.
But thats not important, whats important is that someone is playing Ottoman and expects a challenge. If you want more of a challenge play Norway.
It doesn't matter what nation you play, the only challenge in this game was curbing your own greed. That is no longer much of a factor.
For the challenge, it doesn't really matter which country you play, because the mechanics itself make it easy. Ally a few major powers in the neighborhood, let them win your wars and take 4-5 provinces each war. The only difference to playing Ottomans is that you are behind a few decades, different national ideas and that you cannot attack whoever you want right from the beginning.
I agree that it went too far, but I'm not inpressed when someone is playing one of the strongest factions in the game. The old AE didnt add challengr, it added boredom. Play a weak nation like Norway against the retardedly overpowered Sweden and you have a real challenge AE or not.
I wish I could understand this sentiment. You had to think about where to expand next, you were happy about each province, you stayed small for a longer time (which adds challenge and immersion), you could team up against other warmongers, you had to use diplomacy and vassalization too because of AE, and when it rose too high you focused a bit on colonization etc. Now it's perfectly efficient to fabricate claims and declare wars in all directions swallowing what overextension allows until you wait for the truce to pass, ignoring all other aspects because they won't give you anywhere near the power of being a warmonger. I can understand that some people prefer simple mechanics, but I always thought fans of historic grand strategy games were a different breed.
Yes no true Scotsmen tear.gif
What really buggs me is when people think AE added complexity to the game, it didnt. You think the removal adds more simple mechanics, it doesn't. Artificial barriers were not fun nor does it make the game complex.
Apparently we have to agree to disagree. The fact that people view you as a threat and team up if you conquer everyone around them isn't artificial at all in my point of view. Logical additions like reduced AE for allies and subject nations were already in the game. Global coalitions with strange peacedeals were an artificial barrier but could have been fixed on their own. 1.4 actually added a ton of new artificial barriers, like the cutoff for vassalization/protectorates, the western europe tradenode, hardcap on diploannex and so on.
^^
'Artificial barriers'? The whole game is artificial. What barriers (or as I like to call them, 'rules') could they add that wouldn't be artificial?
Oh shit, I forgot, if the game let's you WC easily enough, it doesn't matter.
'Artificial barriers'? The whole game is artificial. What barriers (or as I like to call them, 'rules') could they add that wouldn't be artificial?
Oh shit, I forgot, if the game let's you WC easily enough, it doesn't matter.