-
Crusader Kings III Available Now!
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
After reading through this, I kinda wish for the "oppressed" empires to have an ability to create their own Community (with purges and slavery).
Guess, those estimates still don't take temples into account? (and, probably, some other minor stuff)
Thank you for answering my question. I not sure I understand the answer though, maybe you could help me and elaborate a bit? I quoting my simple example from the question thread.
In this example, the two friends would have to pull 10 favors each. You said that costs for this behaviour would be astronomical. How much does pulling one favor cost then? If pulling 10 favors is already prohibitively expensive, how many favors would be a reasonable amount to pull for any one empire?
It occurs to me that the Galactic Community is fairly slow-paced - resolutions can be passed or repealed once every seven years, terms on the Galactic Council last twenty years, you have to wait twenty years before rejoining the community, etc. That seems fine using default game settings, which have the game lasting for ~300 years, but it seems to me that in more fast-paced games these times might be too slow. I rarely play more than 125 years or so, for example. Would it be possible to make the speed at which the Galactic Community does things scale with the end game date? That would allow shorter games to have the same amount of Community activity as longer ones.
You mentioned that a certain resolution will ban Colossi, but with current opinion penalties they are impossible to use without becoming the most hated force in the galaxy. Has the opinion penalty for Colossi been changed to scale with the amount of pops killed? Is there a higher rate of decay for the opinion penalty?
I can see why it was implemented this way. Duplicating all the mechanics for federations wouldn't necessarily be good design either.Wow, looks like the GC is more powerful and has higher impact on internal politics than mere federation.
A little bit counterintuitive.
But it is true that the Space UN is more appropriate for sanctioning war crimes, while economic and social policies for example would be fit far better at the federation level.
It would defeat the purpose of the GC though. the GC isn't supposed to be setup to try and efficiently pass as many aligned resolutions as possible - hell I suspect most of the extreme resolutions aren't even net positive.
the Community is the arena for diplomatic warfare, and resolutions are the weapons. The central theme seems to be to use resolutions to hinder your foes more than yourself, and use them to give you and advantage.
They have no effect if your foes aren't participating in the same arena.
If the design intention is more that the federations are like the free trade zones or NATO (but not WP), it fits.Wow, looks like the GC is more powerful and has higher impact on internal politics than mere federation.
A little bit counterintuitive.
Could be the way round they did it is easier to maintain/develop. But what do I know.
Edit: Basically, RL EU is both Federation and Galactic Community at once. You can contest if the division makes sense to you personally, but I don't think that is is objectionable.
And that explains why the Federation stuff was rather...bare. Doing it double for both GalacticComm and Feds would have been a waste of time at best.
It wouldn't even make sense for Federations. Federations seem to be about buffs you share with a close group of allies.
GC and Resolutions are about indirect offensives done against your enemies. In order for resolutions and sanctions to punish your foes, they need to be involved.
Will these factors be dependent based on what you do within and outside your Empire? I imagine Egalitarian's would likely have a wide array of factions regardless, but I'd like if it was also dependent on things like the policies you enact, Empires you deal with, and even how you develop your economy (what buildings/districts you focus on, what living standards you have, etc.)
This could go a long way towards internal politics, where the make up of your Empire naturally changes over time based on what you do, rather than purely RNG factors.
Things that could be expanded with this are protests, social movements, and support rallies on your worlds.
I have a couple of questions.
It seams that GC proposals are pretty one sided. You can ban Stratified Economy living standard, but can you enforce it?
And WHY are you giving diplomatic weight bonuses to xenophiles? Why not pacifists? Do pacifists get any buffs?
It seams that GC proposals are pretty one sided. You can ban Stratified Economy living standard, but can you enforce it?
And WHY are you giving diplomatic weight bonuses to xenophiles? Why not pacifists? Do pacifists get any buffs?
I think thats where the disconnect comes from.
The developers at some point decided (for whatever reason) that the end game for Federations wasn't superstate-unification. Some members of the community held onto that belief. Thus, they were rather disappointed that Federations have no means to make a "ever closer union". Basically, Federations are more MERCOSUR (?) than EU.
And I think you have the right angle on the Galactic Community.
Edit: You can use the Galactic Community to push ethics onto your federation members. By whatever means.
Edit edit: @Eladrin just so I get this right, you can
- Form Federation
- Use Federation to push through laws/items which favor "your" set of ethics
- Homogenize/expand Federation
Last edited:
The whole "be sure you can support with enough consumer goods before pushing that button" thing got me thinking about a big QoL improvement the game could benefit from. Anything in the game that has to do with changing resources, so any of the living standards options, or what % goes to consumer goods vs minerals, changing robotic laws, etc. all just say X% to this and Y% to that. So if you're sitting there looking at your screen and see you have an excess of 400 consumer goods a month, what does that number actually become if you change a living standard, for instance? You either have to guess or you have to do a lot of math on your own. The game already knows all of these numbers, it should just tell you what the resulting change will do to your monthly output.
.png){kind=avatar}
pops are one of the main issues with performance, so are we to conclude you are NOT going to be doing anything for performance with this DLC, as you previously claimed, with that statement then?
Hi there,
First wanted to say that this dev diary's probably the most substantial one to come out in recent months, really really impressed with the level of detail on this one, and hoping that it continues ^^
Question though: could you list some of the reasons why you'd want to stay in the galactic community in the first place? Like I see/hear a lot of ways to indirectly mess with opposing empires, but not a lot in the way of beneficial resolutions (etc). I ask because my general playstyle is similar to the Bararians from Mass Effect (even in my xenophile games) where no trust is placed in the decision making of anything xeno (/the AI in general), and I'm a little concerned that staying out of the GC will consistently prove more beneficial than using up influence trying to make it work.
Additionally, will there be any additional ways to gain influence added in with this update/expansion? I'm seeing a lot of new features that chew up influence, but not a lot in the ways of increasing it/offsetting the additional costs.
First wanted to say that this dev diary's probably the most substantial one to come out in recent months, really really impressed with the level of detail on this one, and hoping that it continues ^^
Question though: could you list some of the reasons why you'd want to stay in the galactic community in the first place? Like I see/hear a lot of ways to indirectly mess with opposing empires, but not a lot in the way of beneficial resolutions (etc). I ask because my general playstyle is similar to the Bararians from Mass Effect (even in my xenophile games) where no trust is placed in the decision making of anything xeno (/the AI in general), and I'm a little concerned that staying out of the GC will consistently prove more beneficial than using up influence trying to make it work.
Additionally, will there be any additional ways to gain influence added in with this update/expansion? I'm seeing a lot of new features that chew up influence, but not a lot in the ways of increasing it/offsetting the additional costs.
I appreciate the blunt and concise answers. I liked a lot of what I read more than I expected.
The lack of a physical presence for the Senate and the lack of communal galactic map object projects is disappointing
I wouldn't say significantly disappointing, just something that would have been really cool if it was part of the expansion.
I really liked their explanations on Resolutions. I was nodding my head at a lot of the answers.
I think this is ABSOLUTELY something to be excited about as the resolution mechanic appears to be the prime mechanic behind the galactic community interaction in the game. I'm definitely excited about this element.
I like that the sanctions seem to have teeth
Empire modifiers to naval capacity, economy, and research are legit deterrents.
I'm worried that if militarist gain control of the galactic community it could disrupt the game balance
Basically it seems really easy to wipe out genocial societies and potentially crisis. On the flip side I would expect the galactic community to rally in response to systemic threats to its survival so even if it does disrupt the balance somewhat it seems like an legitimate price to pay for its existence.
Reduce council members to one? Sick.
This is a sandbox game. I want the power to do almost anything.
What opportunities are there for empires to focus on improving diplomatic weight and specialize in a diplomatic approach, given that a non-diplomatic focus will improve diplomatic weight through the base values (fleet, pops, economy, technology)?
Loved the answer to this. Sounds like some ethics and civics and buildings are being made that synergize with the new mechanic. That's essential to me. These mechanics should be interacting together not just sitting out on their own separate tree limbs.
Lasting impression
Frankly I am much happier about this Q&A than the Federations/Hegemony one. Outside of a few factors this is a basically a lot of what I wanted to hear.
The hype is real.
The lack of a physical presence for the Senate and the lack of communal galactic map object projects is disappointing
I wouldn't say significantly disappointing, just something that would have been really cool if it was part of the expansion.
I really liked their explanations on Resolutions. I was nodding my head at a lot of the answers.
I think this is ABSOLUTELY something to be excited about as the resolution mechanic appears to be the prime mechanic behind the galactic community interaction in the game. I'm definitely excited about this element.
I like that the sanctions seem to have teeth
Empire modifiers to naval capacity, economy, and research are legit deterrents.
I'm worried that if militarist gain control of the galactic community it could disrupt the game balance
Basically it seems really easy to wipe out genocial societies and potentially crisis. On the flip side I would expect the galactic community to rally in response to systemic threats to its survival so even if it does disrupt the balance somewhat it seems like an legitimate price to pay for its existence.
Reduce council members to one? Sick.
This is a sandbox game. I want the power to do almost anything.
What opportunities are there for empires to focus on improving diplomatic weight and specialize in a diplomatic approach, given that a non-diplomatic focus will improve diplomatic weight through the base values (fleet, pops, economy, technology)?
Loved the answer to this. Sounds like some ethics and civics and buildings are being made that synergize with the new mechanic. That's essential to me. These mechanics should be interacting together not just sitting out on their own separate tree limbs.
Lasting impression
Frankly I am much happier about this Q&A than the Federations/Hegemony one. Outside of a few factors this is a basically a lot of what I wanted to hear.
The hype is real.
Jumping to conclusions, much? As far as I followed the perf-thread, it was not a issue of pops as an architectural feature, but that their implementation had a few...memory holes.
Not a dev, but here are my thoughts:
Despite being sanctioned, being in the GC could often be better than being out. It would really be a case-by-case situation, but among the worst of them is the resolution for pre-emptive war - if you're not in the GC, you could potentially become the target of a total war by non-genocidal states; and they'll all likely have lower opinion of you than each other.
Plus, you don't get access to the market, and in general have shitty diplomacy with any members.
Playing outside the GC wouldn't be a death sentence, mind you, but it would be a hell of a lot riskier - you lose a major tool in shaping the galaxy to your advantage. Even if you don't have a lot of diplomatic weight, there are still some resolutions where you could flex leverage to your advantage - if you leave, you loose that.
STOP! COOKIE TIME