Yes, but not really in-synch with the motiff of the thread. Not that most of the posts, including my own, have been in-synch with the thread purpose...Quift said:
Tired Ideas and Old Regime Mentality
- Thread starter State Machine
- 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.
DP sliders is a tired idea, basing all assumtions on the new game on the DP is old regime mentality. So it I think I'm quite in line
State Machine said:
Hopefully the AI will be improved and the computer players will use them.
I love the idea of DP sliders. Didn't really care for most sliders had a "best" position. Though it seems like they tried to fix that some in the later patches.
Random Events.
I love the idea of them, but after a while it seemed like they were designed solely to annoy the player. Crusader Kings was even worse. I cringe whenever I see a random event pop up because I know it's just going to pile on additional misfortune or present me with some Hobson's choice.
I love the idea of them, but after a while it seemed like they were designed solely to annoy the player. Crusader Kings was even worse. I cringe whenever I see a random event pop up because I know it's just going to pile on additional misfortune or present me with some Hobson's choice.
You can turn them off in AGC-EEP, perhaps a similar function could be included in EUIII?Gebhard Blucher said:
DP sliders should go; really, most sliders should go and be replaced with something else. They don't really seem like choices a monarch would actually do. I think an almost event-like policy section could replace them.
Anyone have decent links on naval strategy from the time? I like the no sea zone idea, or very few sea zones, but I'd still be interested if anyone had more information about it.
Anyone have decent links on naval strategy from the time? I like the no sea zone idea, or very few sea zones, but I'd still be interested if anyone had more information about it.
1) Trade. Please, fix this. It's a micromanagement hell.
2) Inflation, or any other feature that can readily make a nation unplayable for hundreds of years.
3) The missionary system. Surprise, it's converted! Surprise, you failed! I am guessing they're already correcting this, though.
4) More sensible BB - penalize the player for nasty wars of aggression and conquest heavily, and penalize him lightly (or not at all) for reasonable things, like reconquering revolters.
5) More sensible WE, or at least an AI that will make white peace when you are halfway across the world from them and the countries have no particular beef with each other.
Other than that, it's a damn fine game.
2) Inflation, or any other feature that can readily make a nation unplayable for hundreds of years.
3) The missionary system. Surprise, it's converted! Surprise, you failed! I am guessing they're already correcting this, though.
4) More sensible BB - penalize the player for nasty wars of aggression and conquest heavily, and penalize him lightly (or not at all) for reasonable things, like reconquering revolters.
5) More sensible WE, or at least an AI that will make white peace when you are halfway across the world from them and the countries have no particular beef with each other.
Other than that, it's a damn fine game.
Cagliostro said:
Different religions cohabited in the same province, and the game should reflect this. You may have, for example, in a province: 60% catholic, 30% sunni, 10% jew.
This fractions would vary with time, influenced by:
1.Yor religious tolerance slider (or whatever would replace the sliders in EU3). Let's suppose you have 80% Catholic tolerance, and 10% to others. As time passes, sunni and jew fractions would decrease. Some of them would convert, to avoid problems, leading to an increment of Catholic population in the province. Some of them would migrate to more tolerant provinces, leading to a decrease of the province population, but an increment of Catholic population fraction.
A low tolerance may lead to a rebellion of the discriminated groups.
2.Migration. EU3 should reflect this. Population migrate from one province to another, in search of religious tolerance, peace (from states in war to another), money (to the colonies, or, in later stages of the game, from the country to the cities)... This would change the religious fractions.
3.Missionaries. I would replace the missionaries units by a item in the budget. You decide how much money you expend in missionaries. This money would be inverted in convert people to your religion, not in a single province, but in the whole known world (of course, the influence would not be the same in the whole world. It would be much stronger in your provinces, and in friend or near states than in enemy or far states).
In the same way, the religous fractions in your province would be modified by the money the rest of the word spend in their own missionaires.
There would be also 'spontaneous missionaries', not financed by any nation. This is the way you would model the protestant conversions.
Last edited:
And nations reconquering a revolter shouldn't call allies to the war, resulting in the province being handed over to someone else instead of reconquered, OR there should be a special condition added to allow a handover back to the original owner.Cagliostro said:
One thing I'd really like to see would be a revampment of the message system.
Now, events are nice, and everything, and the current system of settings for notficaiton of various things is powerful, but there are a number of ways I can think of improving it, namely by making it more specific.
I often like to be notified when historical events or, in particular, historical events involving multiple choice selections, occur. This does not mean, however, that I care as much about the fact that, say, Holstein went with Yes, let raise the tax, as the fact that Castile decided not to merge with Aragon.
The message settings should be able to be defined into finer points of selectivity for this very purpose, by say, allowing me to choose that I'd like to be notified in a pop up box when my neighbors and certain other specific countries make decisions or have events happen to them, while the others can just go into the game log, and the even more unimportant or distant corners of the world can choose not to notify me at all when anything happens to them. By the same token, if I'm, say, England, I care alot more if France declared war on Spain than if China declared war on um... something. Or if Holstein declared war on Hessen. Or something.
Off the top of my head, these are filters that would be useful for cutting down on message spam:
1) Hear from Neighbors.
2) Hear from top ten, or five perhaps, countries in terms of victory points.
3) Hear from specific countries I can choose from on a list. Or perhaps through a right click menu option when I right click on my rightful territory they just so happen to be ruling.
4) Hear from countries I have very bad relations with. Or very good relations.
5) Hear from vassals/allies.
Comesurate from this, is *not* having to hear from anyone else. This makes the game history, and the event pop ups, more useful through elimination of information I don't want. And if another players wants it? Great. Don't use the option.
Now, events are nice, and everything, and the current system of settings for notficaiton of various things is powerful, but there are a number of ways I can think of improving it, namely by making it more specific.
I often like to be notified when historical events or, in particular, historical events involving multiple choice selections, occur. This does not mean, however, that I care as much about the fact that, say, Holstein went with Yes, let raise the tax, as the fact that Castile decided not to merge with Aragon.
The message settings should be able to be defined into finer points of selectivity for this very purpose, by say, allowing me to choose that I'd like to be notified in a pop up box when my neighbors and certain other specific countries make decisions or have events happen to them, while the others can just go into the game log, and the even more unimportant or distant corners of the world can choose not to notify me at all when anything happens to them. By the same token, if I'm, say, England, I care alot more if France declared war on Spain than if China declared war on um... something. Or if Holstein declared war on Hessen. Or something.
Off the top of my head, these are filters that would be useful for cutting down on message spam:
1) Hear from Neighbors.
2) Hear from top ten, or five perhaps, countries in terms of victory points.
3) Hear from specific countries I can choose from on a list. Or perhaps through a right click menu option when I right click on my rightful territory they just so happen to be ruling.
4) Hear from countries I have very bad relations with. Or very good relations.
5) Hear from vassals/allies.
Comesurate from this, is *not* having to hear from anyone else. This makes the game history, and the event pop ups, more useful through elimination of information I don't want. And if another players wants it? Great. Don't use the option.
A man after my own heart...Chilango2 said:
I posted in some old thread (by now - a couple of weeks ago
) my approach to messages...
Two other things I'd like to see go:
1. The monthly checks for attrition. Why, in a RT game, should it make a difference which date your army or fleet moves? This is gamey, & leads to players paying close attention to things they shouldn't have to worry about ("I have to remember to move these troops on the 1st".) Attrition should just be a function of how long you spend in moving, not when.
2. I've objected to this in specific cases, eg, Art in sieges, but generally, I dislike all clear lines between levels of effectiveness. Rather than 10 guns, or 5 ships blockading, or whatever, all these cases would be better handled incrementally, so the more you can put into the job, the better.
1. The monthly checks for attrition. Why, in a RT game, should it make a difference which date your army or fleet moves? This is gamey, & leads to players paying close attention to things they shouldn't have to worry about ("I have to remember to move these troops on the 1st".) Attrition should just be a function of how long you spend in moving, not when.
2. I've objected to this in specific cases, eg, Art in sieges, but generally, I dislike all clear lines between levels of effectiveness. Rather than 10 guns, or 5 ships blockading, or whatever, all these cases would be better handled incrementally, so the more you can put into the job, the better.
Belatedly...Quift said:DP sliders is a tired idea, basing all assumtions on the new game on the DP is old regime mentality. So it I think I'm quite in line
I see that I misunderstood your post. Yes, indeed, tired ideas and old regime mentality, indeed.
Oi!Sonny said:DP sliders are just so far ahead as a concept that they seem to behind the times.
You support them anacrhonistic beasts that are disassociated from any reality, in terms of consequences, in adjusting them and such?
Anti-DP sliders is not the theme of the thread, but is illustrative of failed features. Think of other things, like the tech-tree of HoI - totally brilliant, but sadly a failed game mechanism. Paradox surely have their own view of what has worked and what has not worked.
And so do we...
State Machine said:Oi!
You support them anacrhonistic beasts that are disassociated from any reality, in terms of consequences, in adjusting them and such?
Anti-DP sliders is not the theme of the thread, but is illustrative of failed features. Think of other things, like the tech-tree of HoI - totally brilliant, but sadly a failed game mechanism. Paradox surely have their own view of what has worked and what has not worked.
And so do we...
I didn't say DP sliders could not use a lot of improvement - surely they can - just as the HoI tech tree was not dropped but morphed into the HoI2 tech tree.
The DP overall need an overhaul. I made an attempt at it inm y dynastic DP proposal thread (where I have made some pretty convincing arguments), but I think that the domestic policy should not as it currently is a tool for foreign policy. Now DP is simple and requires very little from the player, but for the rulers of the day, DP was the most important and timeconsuming. THis is wrong, and this should be adressed. This would also make it funnier to play smaller countries since their DP is as important (if not more so) that the big. It may also be a way to include the checks and balances needed in a more approriate manner.
Two more bad features I remembered:
The way 1-ship can indefinitely prevent amphib landings (even if it was just routed).
The "burn manu" exploit of clicking armies to move, repeatedly.
The way 1-ship can indefinitely prevent amphib landings (even if it was just routed).
The "burn manu" exploit of clicking armies to move, repeatedly.
Quift said:
I've always thaought that there should be min-max DP(or whatever equivalent will be used) limits based on the historical preferences of the ruler.