Balor said:
ok, please forgive my ignorance. thanks for this information. It just seemed that there was no limit but i guess I should not have assumed.
Last edited:
The AI doesn't even care about it's forcelimit, it has ridiculously big armies!
- Thread starter Kain3
- 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.
ok, please forgive my ignorance. thanks for this information. It just seemed that there was no limit but i guess I should not have assumed.
Would it be possible to do either of the following:
If you are below 150% of your force limit, you are fine. For every 50% above 150%, you get a -1 stability. After all such vast armies are taking its tool on the population, the economy and reflect badly on you.
Another idea would be to add to your boy boy points. X% over limit gives you a +.X reputation per month.
If you really wanted to be evil, make it do both.
That will soon force players and AI alike to stop building stupid armies.
If you are below 150% of your force limit, you are fine. For every 50% above 150%, you get a -1 stability. After all such vast armies are taking its tool on the population, the economy and reflect badly on you.
Another idea would be to add to your boy boy points. X% over limit gives you a +.X reputation per month.
If you really wanted to be evil, make it do both.
That will soon force players and AI alike to stop building stupid armies.
kierun said:
with my newly humbled opinions:
there is not a trigger that checks for player or AI forcelimit usage (unless, once again I am badly mistaken and forcelimits can be used as a trigger) but there is triggers in NAx that check for percentage of armies and percentage of navies. I have played around with these triggers but I got confused and thought that maybe they did not work as intended. so, in conclusions, im not sure how these two triggers work. these two triggers in theory, could do what you suggested. Along with the two above triggers, you would probably have to have the 'number_of_cities' (spelled right?) trigger so that you have another basis to judge what the army/navy size is.
In the past I had forcelimit reduction on the player, which basicly forced the player to keep less armies and navies due to the increased penalties of having too many armies and navies. This may be a better option.
same as above. assuming the percentage of armies triggers is set up right, badboy could be added to nations above a certain army size.
has anyone tested forcelimit codes as a trigger? I realy hope I am not wrong a second time in such a obvious way....
Last edited:
The strain on the economy is already in via the larger expense of upkeep for being over the force limit, and exceeding the force limit does not mean you are straining your population/manpower (as it is based on the economy). Moreover, retaining an army of the size needed to face your enemies surely reflects well on you, not poorly, and I'm sure your people will feel the safer for it.kierun said:
Why is building armies larger than your force limit stupid? The force limit denotes how large an army you can maintain on the cheap, based on the strength of the economy, before it starts getting expensive. It isn't a "you are doing something wrong or bad if you exceed this" indicator.
The good side of things is that you can still give them -300% morale just to force them play with equal rules
the main problem is that AI doesn't pay maintenance, IIRC. Hence, it has no problem remaining 300% above force limit. I for one keep my armies within the forcelimits... and therefore have difficulties fighting the AI.Peter Ebbesen said:
Anyone has an idea on how to mod to have the AI remain below 150% forcelimits ?
Peter Ebbesen said:
No, but we're losing sight of the other issue that goes hand-in-hand with the "excessively large armies" problem.
Yes, if the human is a mid-sized or larger country he can keep up with his AI neighbours, as long as his manpower holds out. So yeah, anyone can keep 300 per cent over the force limit.
Trouble is it costs too much money, a cost not paid for by the AI, resulting in the huge tech race advantage that the AI has over the human; and of course, inflation making it super expensive to buy more regiments.
Josephus I said:
Exactly, this is why I said that it really narrow downs your winning options. In the past at least I felt that I can play in many different ways to achieve victory, but know I have to play the same way most of time..
I had no idea you could do this. I knew that I could go above my own forcelimit, but I just assumed there were penalties for such things. I didn't know what those penalties are, but I thought that my morale suffered at least. I swear Paradox has the worst game manuals in history.Balor said:
This isn't my biggest goof in playing a strategy game. I kept bankrupting my nations playing Civilization 1 without a manual because I didn't know you were supposed to build roads in every square I could
kierun said:
I would love to see this. If the AI isn't smart enough to keep a lid on it's BB, then we'd have a ton of BB nations that are constantly at war with each other. :rofl:
Of course, most of the AI seems to be smart enough to not wantonly destroy their reputation unless they're Ming or something. At least in the games I've played.
In some sort of fashion I can see why the AI goes why over the limit. If you have an overly aggresive neighbor next to you, that has already invaded you and won the war, wouldn't you want to be prepared for a war and not get owned. This is the one thing that the AI is better than us in, it can forsee when a imminent attack is coming, even if it has to sacrifise its economy as long as it is safe. When the AI cheats economically is when this arguement loses, but even if you have to support an army that is way over the forcelimit, isn't better to be prepared?
There are only penalties in increased maintenance cost; just hold your mouse over the forcelimit when you are over it to see exactly how much. As others noted, the problem is that in patch 2.1 the AI effectively doesn't pay for maintenance so this is no penalty at all for it. Since Johan has revealed that the AI's target force level is 3x the forcelimit, Darken's mod reducing AI forcelimit seems the best thing to do for people who are not powergamers or MPers. People who normally play for world-conquest should probably let the AI have it's big armies to give them a challenge.Zechariaus said:
Well maybe paradox should have incorporated the maximum AI force limits in the difficulty setting as it was obviously something intend to keep the players on their toes.
At the moment it doesn't matter what difficulty u have, the ai is always a nasty cheating bitch and while u can still spank her senseless for being a naughty cheater, it just takes it toll more on u, since she always returns in full vitality, and there's always another one around the corner. It's just frustrating
At the moment it doesn't matter what difficulty u have, the ai is always a nasty cheating bitch
and while u can still spank her senseless for being a naughty cheater, it just takes it toll more on u, since she always returns in full vitality, and there's always another one around the corner. It's just frustrating
Zechariaus said:
It should be easy to do. Just look at the "you have too much cavalry" event in MMG and mod that. Yes, I would do if I were not so lazy.
I play vanilla. I've never gone over my force limit, in any of my games. I don't have inflation and I don't like having inflation. Who are you talking about Johan? The goobers who have 20% inflation after the first 20 years?Balor said:
- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.408
- 38.945
Thinking this through some more. I am not sure limiting the force-size unconditional is right.
300% of the force-limit is very reasonable, and very plausible..... in the late part of the game.
It is impossible to afford (for a player) in the first 100 years, since the production effeciency, and amount of province-buildings are too low. Only when the income/province goes up, does the income/forcelimit reach a level that makes that sort of armies within reach.
So limiting the AI to raise smaller armies will make the AI act much more plausible in the early game, but will at the same time unfairly limit them in the late game.
I wonder if a hack that is based on production and government tech would make sense. It starts at 0.4 forcelimit for AIs, and around level 30 it reaches 1.0.
300% of the force-limit is very reasonable, and very plausible..... in the late part of the game.
It is impossible to afford (for a player) in the first 100 years, since the production effeciency, and amount of province-buildings are too low. Only when the income/province goes up, does the income/forcelimit reach a level that makes that sort of armies within reach.
So limiting the AI to raise smaller armies will make the AI act much more plausible in the early game, but will at the same time unfairly limit them in the late game.
I wonder if a hack that is based on production and government tech would make sense. It starts at 0.4 forcelimit for AIs, and around level 30 it reaches 1.0.
Johan said:
Which, of course, the vast, vast, vast majority of EUIII players don't. Just like the vast, vast, vast majority don't ever play multiplayer. Personally, I think the game should be balanced towards the majority of the community rather then a small group of power gamers, but opinions vary.
Furthermore, given the nature of the game and the community, I think most players want a historically plausible experience more then they want an arena to compete with other humans. Having to maintain massive standing armies in the 15th century while engaging in near total war to gain a single province breaks the illusion of history pretty badly.
I, personally, don't mind the challenge or blatent AI cheats so much, but it seems to me that this is the source of much of the frustration. Perhaps 'Very Hard' should be considered the difficulty for those who like to play 'competetively' and for multiplayer, and normal should be balanced to provide a slightly more casual/fun experience with at least the illusion that the AI isn't playing by a totally different ruleset.
I would like a poll done to see how many people play more SP and how many play more MP.
I have no doubt that the game is a lot more fun on MP. Every computer game is.
But I can't play MP. I think Paradox games are really not meant for MP (though they're programmed with that in mind.) The reason for my opinion on this is that it takes too much time and commitment.
I'd love to play MP, but my life doesn't allow me to commit for a specific period of time. It' s not like, say, Rise of Nations, where all you need is one two-hour sit down. Your really need to commit to a Paradox MP game. And I can't do that.
I have no doubt that the game is a lot more fun on MP. Every computer game is.
But I can't play MP. I think Paradox games are really not meant for MP (though they're programmed with that in mind.) The reason for my opinion on this is that it takes too much time and commitment.
I'd love to play MP, but my life doesn't allow me to commit for a specific period of time. It' s not like, say, Rise of Nations, where all you need is one two-hour sit down. Your really need to commit to a Paradox MP game. And I can't do that.