The question is how? Should we just edit war back or edit out truce?
-
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.
i came to conclusion that the embargos hurt more the people with high free trade. Since i was denied cots having only 2 to sustain myself on, i had to go free trade, but as consequence i get more negative trade efficiency then those who have high number of cots.
therefor it empowers those wiht more cots and further weakens those with less
therefor it empowers those wiht more cots and further weakens those with less
(and he will)
I offered you WP and you accepted. Pretty sure of it. But we can reverse that I suppose?
Well, I WPed him sep due to the NAP we had. Same with POR.
Either is good I suppose.
That was the point, IIRC. Makes people fight more for the CoTs.
Hal, these leaders are ridiculous. I'm going to have 6-8 leaders next week all with total stats of 17-20? I don't remember the program being so out of balance from the last thirst for glory. Didn't we always have a whole bunch of mid range leaders, and then at the higher MT levels you might get 2-3 ubers? Why can't we have that?
Back in action! The HDD came yesterday and it took pretty the whole day (and some of this morning) to get the computer operational. Somehow it killed my soundcard, then the onboard sound drivers refused to install until I downgraded to SP2. Quite an unpleasant experience, but the good news is that I'll be here Tuesday.
for the record
its insane that defence gets such a huge bonus in mt
its obvious if your on defence your atrition will be alot lower then those invading, especially when the defending country has a huge morale advantage and massive forts as johns country has
therefor i recommend we count atrition+combat losses & devide it by 2 so fighting offensive is actually worth it tbh without inflating the mt even more, atm its really not worth attacking invading a country like john directly purely cause his morale+forts are a fairly deadly combination
another thing we should consider is add a mt penalty for loosing a war (like 0.5-1 a lost war) so a gang doesn't automaticle gives 677generals but on the other side also don't criple a players mt by loosing a war or 2
there is a third issue and thats the amount of randoms we get right now, as john sayd we shouldn't be capable of having tons of them however i do think cutting it down to 1/1 is to extreme again so i reckon we should find a compromise to it
1/1 from mt & 2/2 randoms by stats with max 4stats could work
its insane that defence gets such a huge bonus in mt
its obvious if your on defence your atrition will be alot lower then those invading, especially when the defending country has a huge morale advantage and massive forts as johns country has
therefor i recommend we count atrition+combat losses & devide it by 2 so fighting offensive is actually worth it tbh without inflating the mt even more, atm its really not worth attacking invading a country like john directly purely cause his morale+forts are a fairly deadly combination
another thing we should consider is add a mt penalty for loosing a war (like 0.5-1 a lost war) so a gang doesn't automaticle gives 677generals but on the other side also don't criple a players mt by loosing a war or 2
there is a third issue and thats the amount of randoms we get right now, as john sayd we shouldn't be capable of having tons of them however i do think cutting it down to 1/1 is to extreme again so i reckon we should find a compromise to it
1/1 from mt & 2/2 randoms by stats with max 4stats could work
Last edited:
I don't support any change at all. Any change will be too much of a hassle anyway. This game is what it is. Every session every player has one or two ideas over how the system should change and whatnot. It's not feasible. Bugs should be fixed of course, but the rest was there from start and has to be lived with; for good and for bad.