-
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.
If we're going to start handing out latin techs, then I should get it in the Tulip Era.
Alright if sanction both Russia and OE to recieve Latin tech then every Naval Nation will have the option to go more fully Land if they choose. Agreed?
It is one thing to disagree with a tech group assignment, it is quite another to change DP sliders at will. If naval nations get DP clicks, everyone should get DP clicks.
EDIT: Yeah, so if you get land clicks I want a innovative click, a free subjects click, and then the rest of my clicks in Plutocracy.
EDIT: Yeah, so if you get land clicks I want a innovative click, a free subjects click, and then the rest of my clicks in Plutocracy.
Last edited:
Bumble Bee said:Or land powers get a nice juicy deflation?
That may be great for Beli, but I am deflating quite fine with full governors.
I doubt Drew is going to let us get DP clicks, he just wanted a freebie for himself.
i dislike the idea of letting naval nations make some deal that they can all go land, it screws the traditional land powers and seems to be rather exploitive, anyone agree?
Agreed, it gives nothing to Land nations but the bonus of Latin Tech is juicy and traditionally the offset of MP is the reason Russia and OE don't have Latin
The best way for these nations to obtain Tech since they're short is to build tons of Weapons to get to 51 before the rest of us
The best way for these nations to obtain Tech since they're short is to build tons of Weapons to get to 51 before the rest of us
You guys asked for a naval tech boost before. Do you still want one? Moving the naval countries a few clicks to land and giving you guys NT 26 would be fair, wouldn't it? Maybe we could give you 50 warships as well to make it interesting. Since we'd be evening out the land war playing field, it would be only fair to even out the naval aspect as well.
*Not including Russia and the OE, since they already get a bonus.
*Not including Russia and the OE, since they already get a bonus.
Considering I do not have a port, no I dont think that is fair compensation for me. Perhaps for OE, Russia, Brandenburg, France, and Venice, but not for Austria. I want either DP clicks or -5% inflation.
NOTE: I had Piedemonte with a port, but I immediately sold it to France.
NOTE: I had Piedemonte with a port, but I immediately sold it to France.
MT points for 1679. No longer counting "disadvantages".
Austria - 11*: (2.5 increase)
(.5 + .5 for beating Hol-Eng alliance)
(.5 + .5 for beating Venice)
(.5 for fighting Rus-OE alliance)
Denmark - 9.5*: (3 increase)
(.5 + .5 for beating Russia)
(.5 + .5 for beating Portugal)
(.5 + .5 for beating the OE)
France - 8*: (1.5 increase)
(.5 + .5 for beating England)
(.5 for fighting the Port-Ven alliance)
Brandenburg - 6.5*: (2 increase)
(.5 + .5 for beating Hol-Eng alliance)
(.5 + .5 for beating Venice)
England - 6*: (.5 increase)
(.5 for fighting the Fra-Aus-Bra alliance)
Portugal - 4*: (1 increase)
(.5 for fighting Den)
(.5 for fighting Fra)
Russia - 4*: (.5 increase)
(.5 for fighting Den)
(.5 + .5 for beating Austria)
Venice - 4*: (1 increase)
(.5 for fighting Fra)
(.5 for fighting Aus)
OE - 3* : (1.5 increase)
(.5 + .5 for beating Austria)
(.5 for fighting Denmark)
* nations that have fought wars since the last leader generation
LE mentioned last session that the leaders we have are too good. Since her MT points before the last generation weren't very high, she had to be talking about the regular random leaders, of which there are quite a few 555s floating around that tend to skew the effect of the MT system. I've brought this up before and nobody seemed to notice, apart from one person(who happened to have the lowest MT score).
What do you think? MT points are worth a lot less while we have so many great random leaders floating around already. The down side of doing that would be nations that have already had their share of good random leaders would be getting an advantage over ones that have a lot of good randoms lined up for the next century. As Denmark's random leaders file is a little sparse towards the end, I feel a little awkward bringing this up, but concern over the issue was expressed last session and I feel a responsibility to bring such issues to discussion. Lets look at this. Even if it's too late to apply, I want to know if you guys think it's a good idea to not have random leaders along with historical leaders in other games that use an MT system.
Austria - 11*: (2.5 increase)
(.5 + .5 for beating Hol-Eng alliance)
(.5 + .5 for beating Venice)
(.5 for fighting Rus-OE alliance)
Denmark - 9.5*: (3 increase)
(.5 + .5 for beating Russia)
(.5 + .5 for beating Portugal)
(.5 + .5 for beating the OE)
France - 8*: (1.5 increase)
(.5 + .5 for beating England)
(.5 for fighting the Port-Ven alliance)
Brandenburg - 6.5*: (2 increase)
(.5 + .5 for beating Hol-Eng alliance)
(.5 + .5 for beating Venice)
England - 6*: (.5 increase)
(.5 for fighting the Fra-Aus-Bra alliance)
Portugal - 4*: (1 increase)
(.5 for fighting Den)
(.5 for fighting Fra)
Russia - 4*: (.5 increase)
(.5 for fighting Den)
(.5 + .5 for beating Austria)
Venice - 4*: (1 increase)
(.5 for fighting Fra)
(.5 for fighting Aus)
OE - 3* : (1.5 increase)
(.5 + .5 for beating Austria)
(.5 for fighting Denmark)
* nations that have fought wars since the last leader generation
LE mentioned last session that the leaders we have are too good. Since her MT points before the last generation weren't very high, she had to be talking about the regular random leaders, of which there are quite a few 555s floating around that tend to skew the effect of the MT system. I've brought this up before and nobody seemed to notice, apart from one person(who happened to have the lowest MT score).
What do you think? MT points are worth a lot less while we have so many great random leaders floating around already. The down side of doing that would be nations that have already had their share of good random leaders would be getting an advantage over ones that have a lot of good randoms lined up for the next century. As Denmark's random leaders file is a little sparse towards the end, I feel a little awkward bringing this up, but concern over the issue was expressed last session and I feel a responsibility to bring such issues to discussion. Lets look at this. Even if it's too late to apply, I want to know if you guys think it's a good idea to not have random leaders along with historical leaders in other games that use an MT system.
Yah my leaders have been overpowered generally,
Had a 5,6,5 a 5,4,5,2 and a 4,3,5,1 and thats just last session
Had a 5,6,5 a 5,4,5,2 and a 4,3,5,1 and thats just last session
Considering some nations have virtually zero historicals, I dont know if that is fair to Portugal, for example.
I thought the first war of a session was worth 1 point, then every subsequent war .5; victory bonuses notwithstanding?