Why should this event only apply to spain, then?
And really, why should it apply at all, when the economy isn't mismanaged?
And really, why should it apply at all, when the economy isn't mismanaged?
-
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.
well, we can say it about all events and historical leaders. why should spain get early explorers or the aztecs-event? dont understand me wrong, its not wrong to let spain have these events, but neither its wrong to give them 1-2 bad events to let other nations get stronger in comparison.
Each stability cost for Spain in 1596 costed 1321 ducats. Spain lost 3 stability points by event. 1321x3=3963
Each refinery contributes 5d monthly. The bankrupcy fired in 1592. Session ended in 1605. Meaning we played 13 years after you were bankrupt via event. 5x12x13=780x3=2340
Each refinery, if built in the proper province (wine or sugar) will provide the owner with 12 extra ducats yearly. 12x13=156x3=468
Spanish census by 1596 were around 477. At stability 3, they would be 572,4. So, you would be earning an extra 95,4 ducats yearly if you were at full stability.
95,4x13=1240. So, 1240d should be added directly into the treasury. A similar amount of cash should be sent into an area of investment of your choice (after all, stability affects income from tax, and not only census taxes).
In other words, if the event is slept, Spain should get:
5671d invested in an area of choice of Spain
2340d invested into trade tech
1240d put directly into the treasury
Probably an extra 1000 ducats for the troops lost and lost TE.
Well, why should the war of religion fire to France if he already converted every goddamn french to his state religion? Why should Venice have the Veneto-Turkish conflict events giving Venice extra galleys if the OE and Venice are allies? And i could go on like this forever.
It only applies to Spain because Spanish monarchs after Filipe II were pure jackasses. And because no one else had a bankrupcy during this time. Bad events are bad events - everyone got their share of em. But, bad events should be reduced, for multiplayer purposes. That is why i am reducing the pain that the bankrupcies cause for Spain. 15% inflation given off the hat, is absurd. 6% inflation, coupled with the gold inflation Spain gets early, is punishment good enough.
Last edited:
Spanish bankruptcy events will be slept and the standard inflation for gold mine events (as in you getting 1 % inflation for every 100 gold income you have, minimum being 1 % inflation if you have < 100 gold income but > 0) fired around 1630 and again around 1690.
There will be an inflation cap at 6 %, effectively meaning you will never have to endure more than 6 % inflation gain per gold mine event, regardless of how many gold provs you hold.
Naturally, these inflation events will fire for everybody owning gold provs (and not just Spain).
There will be an inflation cap at 6 %, effectively meaning you will never have to endure more than 6 % inflation gain per gold mine event, regardless of how many gold provs you hold.
Naturally, these inflation events will fire for everybody owning gold provs (and not just Spain).
Last edited:
Edited. Regardless, big deal you lost there. All those investments were merely worth 3 years for Spain.
and why limit to only 6% effectvly only helping spain? No other campaign i can remember of had free inflation as reward for getting to gold first. Im supposed to accept 8 inflation for free because that piece of crap of gold provs i own give plus the one mats is editnng to me gimme me some 400~ income? There is no logic in this.
I am quite against this one. It is only benefiting Spain. Infact, the entire rule benefits only Spain. But having a cap is... very bad.
Having inflation events for all owning gold provs is absolute standard and has been for many campaigns.
It´s an all out more fair deal in lieu of the spanish bankruptcy events that only punish Spain and nobody else (who also may have gold mines). Everybody gets punished for indulging in gold fever. Everybody gets the same deal - however, a cap is included (as a precaution) so as to not completely fuck a country over the issue.
If you personally have a problem with getting inflation you can always cede your gold mines to other players or the ai. It´s not as if anybody forced you to grab Mali gold.
Last edited:
Eh?
You posted this yourself...even this evening:
A cap is a good thing as it puts a limit to the pain one nation gets through these events. 6 % is enough punishment per event. Especially so as the event will occur twice. Adding even more pain will only lead to countries becoming unplayable. And that is not something which would be good for this campaign (or, for that matter, any campaign).
Last edited:
if you thought for a second instead of going all out smartass on me, ud conclude from my gold income im accounting for the 1630 and 1690 additions. Also, why those dates? why not even 1 century spaced together? And if spain is getting their bankrucpy removed, tell me again, why are we having the events?
We were speaking of historical events, imposed upon a player not because of his skills or of his actions, but because of how the country said player is playing was ran by its administration in real life. That is a big diference.
Now the income gotten from gold, is caused by no one other than the player. Therefore the player has the chance of: getting skyhigh income early on compared to everyone else, because of the gold, and have extra inflation edited in later on, OR focus on trying to improve his economy without reliance upon gold, so that he does not suffer extra inflation later on.
I dont find any good on granting the OE basically the same inflation as Spain, even if Spain is sucking 2x or more income from gold than the OE. Specially if Spain has been sucking gold inflation since 1500 or so, while the OE has only recently annexed Mali.
I cannot see the fairness behind the rule. Mostly because of the cap.
Well, as for your communication style: The moment you write precise posts you will get precise answers.
As for the dates: The standard rule has the edits occuring in 1575 and 1630 - within an interval of 55 years. Note that in the present case with 1630 and 1690 you actually have an interval of 60 years - 5 years longer than normally.
So no reason to get upset about the timeframe.
And it is exactly because of the spanish problematic that the vanilla spanish brankruptcy events were substituted with better events in the first place: They´re there to replace the spanish events that only punish Spain for owning gold provs with general events that punish *anyone* for owning said provs. It better simulates gold induced inflation and makes things more fair for all parties concerned.
Last edited:
I´ve explained the neccessity of having a cap so as to not have countries coming apart.
I do see your grievance, however, and have therefore modified the rule:
As long as you are below 500 gold income you get 0.75 % inflation. Above 500 it shifts to 1 % with a cap of 6 %.
So in the case of the OE, for example, you then have a cumultative inflation increase of about 6% for both events while Spain (depending on how many gold provs it has) potentially gets the maximum of 12%.
For final clarity here again the revised rule:
Last edited:
Did you have to clutter down my thread with this discussion...?
ive tried to stop them, but as it seems, im not allmighty!
this post isnt spam, right?
Saint Lucia (1873), Grenada (1874) and Trinidad (151) from England to NL
Turks and Caicos (1912) from NL to England.
Turks and Caicos (1912) from NL to England.