Went against us in the diet

[Malecord]

Any devs new on the fate of that opinion modifier?

I've decided to give Austria a shot in 1.30 and I've quickly realized that this modifier united with the random nature of princes vote simply makes emperor decision a non decision at all.

With a modifier that is perpetual you simply can't go against the majority. By defying princes you're not just making your next 20 or 25 years of game more complicated. You're throwing away your game. I must say that imho that's a very big letdown for the new HRE. I would prefer either if the vote could be bought or if the modifier had some expiration date. Or both.

 

[Battlex]

Any devs new on the fate of that opinion modifier?

I've decided to give Austria a shot in 1.30 and I've quickly realized that this modifier united with the random nature of princes vote simply makes emperor decision a non decision at all.

With a modifier that is perpetual you simply can't go against the majority. By defying princes you're not just making your next 20 or 25 years of game more complicated. You're throwing away your game. I must say that imho that's a very big letdown for the new HRE. I would prefer either if the vote could be bought or if the modifier had some expiration date. Or both.

It's a solid modifier like council of Trent, but is a decent effect that once big as Austria you still need to be diplomatic and not always going the path you want

 

[Manwe_Sulimo]

I also think it only lasts until the next imperial incident. But I am not sure.

 

[Malecord]

It's a solid modifier like council of Trent, but is a decent effect that once big as Austria you still need to be diplomatic and not always going the path you want

Fair enough. Let double the opinion penalty and give it an expiration date to 30 years. That way you if go that way you seriously risk to jeopardize a re election or a reform vote. But losing a crucial voting or missing a critical opinion threshold for your game on the second half of the 18th century just because you decided to go against the princes 3 centuries before in the first 50 years of the game is no good game design imho.

 

[Battlex]

Fair enough. Let double the opinion penalty and give it an expiration date to 30 years. That way you if go that way you seriously risk to jeopardize a re election or a reform vote. But losing a crucial voting or missing a critical opinion threshold for your game on the second half of the 18th century just because you decided to go against the princes 3 centuries before in the first 50 years of the game is no good game design imho.

If you release new tags they don't remember what you did in the diet iirc

 

[Herr B.]

Fair enough. Let double the opinion penalty and give it an expiration date to 30 years. That way you if go that way you seriously risk to jeopardize a re election or a reform vote. But losing a crucial voting or missing a critical opinion threshold for your game on the second half of the 18th century just because you decided to go against the princes 3 centuries before in the first 50 years of the game is no good game design imho.

That would be the better way forward. And why not make it a decaying modifier like most in the game, affected by the improve relations modifier?

If you release new tags they don't remember what you did in the diet iirc

What kind of argument are you trying to give? Had you ever a situation where more than half of the HRE princes were freshly released?

 

[RichardOlcese]

As a nutritionist, I agree with the relation malus if they go against us in the diet.

 

[love sweden]

Alot is wrong, tedious and boring in the HRE. The opinion modifier isnt even the worst offender.