- Dec 14, 1999
- 18.404
- 38.945
Actually.. it scales with your "unmodified" income. ie, before inventions, ideas, policies and laws.
Update 1.2 Cicero Beta Patch: Feedback Thread!
- Thread starter badgr
- 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.
Actually.. it scales with your "unmodified" income. ie, before inventions, ideas, policies and laws.
That is bizarre thinking. That you're locked into them *is* the cost of them. It's opportunity cost. It would actually make more sense to make them changeable if they did have an associated resource cost.
Not at all. Honestly Omens is another thing that needs some more work now that it's had its cost removed and reworked, especially given how important they were back in the day. I remember one example from Caesar's campaign in Gaul where the Gauls refused to attack Caesar due to bad omens several days in a row. Literally sat on their asses in camp until they finally got a good omen and, in the process, massacred a fair number of farm animals. Omens should have a constant cost and upkeep and - for something like a Republic - refusal to partake in it should make the populists more and more popular. If the populists refuse to start amending the omen situation? Start tapping on negative events and whatnot given how important religion is for the time period, especially in war.
Is there a way to see unmodified income? Hovering over the income tab in the economy screen doesn't give any breakdown, and hovering over taxes/commerce gives a rather unhelpful tooltip just showing the taxes from your various provinces.
Do you think that the abundance of scaling costs creates a perverse incentive, though? Getting buildings to boost my income only helps me to get more buildings because most of the other things I do with money are a scaling cost.
Perhaps it would work better to scale costs on something like 'empire size' rather than base income. That way you still won't trivialise money by growing big, but growing your income by building buildings would still work.
Yeah and now invention spam is 10 times worse bc now it costs gold...great...also Finesse being tied to pop growth is a baaad idea. Tying it to trade would work better. Pop growth is not something that should depend on your ruler. As for being dependent on a good ruler - YES. That is the point, but you'd also get tools to ensure you can modify your ruler to fit better with what you wanted. Give players the option to add/remove traits and points and stuff via events.
Yes spending gold should be necessary but there's the normal buildings for that. The mana or political power is used for the development options now too, except now you have 1 resource for all 4 types of upgrade and it's bland asf. There's no difference between a high martial ruler with millitary connections and a finesse oriented trader ruler now except for a small empire wide bonus number which is boring and bland and has no imagination in it. My entire point is make rulers easier to influence and therefore you can go in a different direction with your empire by teaching the child of your current king to have another stat high or retraining your ruler or having him spend time with someone else and learning.
As for them dying, they really don't you get AMPLE warning of when a ruler dies via the health bar. It's rare to get a higher ticking negative health than 2, which means you get 50 months worth of warning time, that should be more than enough imho.
Yes, that's actually a good idea to further emphasize the importance of good stats on rulers. Maybe if there's a scheme to gain a free one and you get it quicker the better stats the ruler has and it costs some other resource per month while the ruler is trying to get it.
Well the costs are plain bad tho. Like, 20 for adding an idea? 50 to increase stability a bit? Those are huge costs compared to incredibly slow rate and that doesn't simulate the way an empire works at all. Why would the priesthood have to wait with a sacrifice because the traders are improving a province or the king just changed an unrelated law? These things happen simultaniously all the time. Different groups don't have to wait for each other to finish before doing their thing, the military, the priesthood, the traders, the politicians/people can do things at the same time without waiting...
PS - Some people say its hard to expand? I don't get that. I mean recreating the Roman empire doesn't sound hard, just boring...I did this with Iol before 1.1 and I wasn't even trying that hard to go for all out expansion and that starts as a vassal of Carthage with barely any pops. The game's also not over either I just grew bored of it so never finished it. Maybe they're talking of 1.1 I dunno, only really played Ulutia and Sumpa in 1.1 so far and those aren't especially expansive in the early game.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
Maybe it could scale directly with your pop number instead of base income?
This way you support a bit more playing tall countries with highgly productive pop.
It also makes more interesting to have sujects (for tribal/wrong culture group land, etc).
On the more role playing side, it kind of make sense in a way, the more population you have, the harder and more expensive it is to introduce new inventions.
The more I think about it, the more I think some kind of empire size, or empire sprawl mechanic, ala Stellaris, would be a good solution. Could be contributed to both by number of cities/provinces and number of pops. That would also provide a disincentive to taking crappy land just for its own sake. So pop and land efficiency would really matter that way. It would mean that growing your base income isn't disincentivised while still ensuring that growing huge doesn't trivialise the game.
Just make sure it's not like EU4's corruption from territories which mostly just serves to slow down the most boring part of the game (late game mop up). Balance this mechanic so that it delays the point of the game where you are so powerful everything is trivial.
Just make sure it's not like EU4's corruption from territories which mostly just serves to slow down the most boring part of the game (late game mop up). Balance this mechanic so that it delays the point of the game where you are so powerful everything is trivial.
So im starting my first cicero game, taking it slow and looking at things
i cant stop looking at the migration, (even though i've modded the game to smooth over the worst effects of the bug where conversion_speed overwriting migration_speed).
... looking past migration sped issues, migration attraction and eligibility certainly needs tweaking.
I think ports attract too many migrants. its perhaps too much to allow them to attract migrants from inland cities in other port provinces, rather than just the home inland + other port cities
i cant stop looking at the migration, (even though i've modded the game to smooth over the worst effects of the bug where conversion_speed overwriting migration_speed).
patch notes said:
... looking past migration sped issues, migration attraction and eligibility certainly needs tweaking.
I think ports attract too many migrants. its perhaps too much to allow them to attract migrants from inland cities in other port provinces, rather than just the home inland + other port cities
I played a game as Macedon and tried to conquer a country that was guarenteed by Phrygia. The problem is, Phrygia called in all her vassals and allies (including Egypt) and there was no notification or hint in the Declare War menu that this was going to happen. I lost the war because of this.
Can there please be a UI change similar to EU4 that tells you if guarenteeing nations will call in their allies and vassals? I don't want to find out I'm fighting half the world when the menu initially said I'd be fighting 3 nations.
Can there please be a UI change similar to EU4 that tells you if guarenteeing nations will call in their allies and vassals? I don't want to find out I'm fighting half the world when the menu initially said I'd be fighting 3 nations.
I'm going to echo few others here and say that inventions for just gold isn't so great and that the scaling costs stop you feeling like you've grown more powerful. You can still scale them but just slower than the economy tends to grow.
Removing gold from peace deals as the economy isn't very good (or because of inventions) in the game is a bad decision imo. Instead make the economy and inventions more robust in how they work and maybe tweak down the amount of gold you can get in peace deals as well (from 1.1).
I'd still like to see characters have more.... character I guess. Especially the leader, I would like their stats and traits to have more impact on country stats and resource generation as well as events and event options. Favours could become more of a system to play with than it currently is, like maybe have it so that being friends generates x amount of favours over n amount of time etc.
Final request at this time is to add most of the subject interactions and controls that you have in EU4. I want to tell me stupid ai vassal to attach always to my army or to act as a reserve etc. Maybe cut them some tribute slack for more loyalty or other similar ideas.
Removing gold from peace deals as the economy isn't very good (or because of inventions) in the game is a bad decision imo. Instead make the economy and inventions more robust in how they work and maybe tweak down the amount of gold you can get in peace deals as well (from 1.1).
I'd still like to see characters have more.... character I guess. Especially the leader, I would like their stats and traits to have more impact on country stats and resource generation as well as events and event options. Favours could become more of a system to play with than it currently is, like maybe have it so that being friends generates x amount of favours over n amount of time etc.
Final request at this time is to add most of the subject interactions and controls that you have in EU4. I want to tell me stupid ai vassal to attach always to my army or to act as a reserve etc. Maybe cut them some tribute slack for more loyalty or other similar ideas.
I agree with a couple of complaints from this thread:
1. Small states have a (comparatively) harder time to do "stuff" now than previously because of the huge significance of the +1/+2 size bonuses to political influence, wheras before the baseline MP income was much higher
2. Monarch stats still don't feel as important as they should.
To resolve both issues I would suggest a small bonus to political influence based purely on total stat points of your ruler (including co-rulers and consorts). This would be entirely independent of the income based on loyalty of your office holders, and essentially represents the ability for a capable ruler to make changes without necessarily needing the support of other power holders within the state. I would suggest something like +0.03 / month per stat point, which would be 1.2 PI per month for an excellent 10/10/10/10 ruler.
Also regardless of how the end balance of migration ends up it's important IMO that non coastal ports are treated the same was as coastal ports. I'm not 100% sure of all the differences at the moment but at the very least non-coastal ports aren't getting the bonus to migration attraction that coastal ports do, and generally speaking it feels like non-coastal ports aren't getting much migration at all, which makes the new major rivers system a lot less meaningful than it could be.
Perhaps the thing which is causing weirdness with migration is a combination of how the "population capacity" bonus is calculated combined with the general attractiveness of coastal ports.
For example of this start a new game and check out migration into the Macedonian island city of Skyros. It has a relatively poor population capacity of 5/28, and yet it's attracting pops from all over Macedonia and other parts of the local Greek world. In comparison the much larger capital province of Pella with 50/96 pops, is attracting exactly zero migration.
1. Small states have a (comparatively) harder time to do "stuff" now than previously because of the huge significance of the +1/+2 size bonuses to political influence, wheras before the baseline MP income was much higher
2. Monarch stats still don't feel as important as they should.
To resolve both issues I would suggest a small bonus to political influence based purely on total stat points of your ruler (including co-rulers and consorts). This would be entirely independent of the income based on loyalty of your office holders, and essentially represents the ability for a capable ruler to make changes without necessarily needing the support of other power holders within the state. I would suggest something like +0.03 / month per stat point, which would be 1.2 PI per month for an excellent 10/10/10/10 ruler.
Also regardless of how the end balance of migration ends up it's important IMO that non coastal ports are treated the same was as coastal ports. I'm not 100% sure of all the differences at the moment but at the very least non-coastal ports aren't getting the bonus to migration attraction that coastal ports do, and generally speaking it feels like non-coastal ports aren't getting much migration at all, which makes the new major rivers system a lot less meaningful than it could be.
Perhaps the thing which is causing weirdness with migration is a combination of how the "population capacity" bonus is calculated combined with the general attractiveness of coastal ports.
For example of this start a new game and check out migration into the Macedonian island city of Skyros. It has a relatively poor population capacity of 5/28, and yet it's attracting pops from all over Macedonia and other parts of the local Greek world. In comparison the much larger capital province of Pella with 50/96 pops, is attracting exactly zero migration.
Last edited:
I'm trapped in a vicious circle.
I want to convert to Zoroastrism, but the requeriment of half of free people being Zoroastrian in the capital can't be fullfilled, because no Zoroastrian Slave will promote. I know it can be modded, but maybe now something can be checked with pops promotions and conversions?, Like I have the high priest being Zoroastrian, I would expect no Zoroastrian being converted to Heptadic.
Also this is kinda strange, Nisaia is the Capital of the nation, but Parthian Gates is the Province capital, And I can't move the province capital to Nisaia to help with centralization...
I want to convert to Zoroastrism, but the requeriment of half of free people being Zoroastrian in the capital can't be fullfilled, because no Zoroastrian Slave will promote. I know it can be modded, but maybe now something can be checked with pops promotions and conversions?, Like I have the high priest being Zoroastrian, I would expect no Zoroastrian being converted to Heptadic.
Also this is kinda strange, Nisaia is the Capital of the nation, but Parthian Gates is the Province capital, And I can't move the province capital to Nisaia to help with centralization...
I agree. Should be formula, say = 30 + (number of cities) / 4 or something.
If the Zoroastrian believers is to be your people, move your capital to where they live, and make them free men and majority. i think this makes sense. it costs 540 influence to move the capital, but it can be done. you cna do it somwhere where there are no/few free pops of otehr religions (due to migration or war?)
It wont be economically efficient unless maybe if you annex something with enough free pops where you can establish your capital instead.
In my current carthage campaign Im in year 627 or something, and one invention costs me 850 gold. So it really depends on your income.
(cut rest for brevity)
I can kinda feel this guy's point of view. Won't ramble about it, he said it well.
After further playing, I would like more control over the pop ratio in my cities. As in, more ability to promote having a higher percentage of citizens. And Instant Citizenship via Dictator/Monarch action has tons of historical precedent.