Also, we need to fix it where in a PU, the leader in order to annex its union partner needs to have more provinces. With development, it should be all about having more development not provinces to integrate the union.
- 1
What do we know about 1.14.
- Thread starter IIWW
- 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.
The problem with this is that relative development would only be a static value for people not running CS. If one has development on which many of us di, a large PU partner would potentially be at a disadvantage as the junior partner might have nothing better to do than constantly increase its development.
Second to this would be that this would mean that feeding expensive to core provinces to the junior partner while taking Manny more cheap to core provinces for oneself could result in simply never being able to integrate or inherit.
When you combine these two scenarios together the result could be something many people find quite unpleasant.
- 1
- 1
Sea tiles in the English Channel and between Skania and Jutland are getting reshuffled.
- 1
Those without the DLC can do it the old way of more provinces. Those with the DLC can do it the new way of more development.
Which would not work well at all for the reasons I outlined above.
Turning development into a race with a junior PU partner would be unpleasant particularly when feeding them Further as the devs stated the game balance is designed around all DLCs being turned on therefore that is the only scenario that would be relevant. Making this change would make for a accounting mess.
What actual vale to the player exists in making the development the constraint rather than number of provinces? How is this beneficial? Personally I see none so help me understand how this would improve my games?
Last edited by a moderator:
Doesn't make sense for a small heavily populated country to be unable to absorb a large underpopulated country just because the large underpopulated country has more land hanging (unused land that is).
Realism is never a valid argument as the common saying here goes.
Therefore in the absence of "the benefit to game play would be ..." or the benefit to the player would be ..." there isn't an argument in favor of doing this by the devs' stated standard for changes. They might have one in this case but I don't see what it is. Likewise I've stated why the development mechanic doesn't seem to work well for thid.
Finally having yet another change that induces players not to buy or use CS would seem counter productive to PI's main goal - sales.
Impressive, wasn't aware Paradox managed to break causality but given their name I suppose that should have been obvious.It will be nice that free features of the patch will be released before the DLC
Am now eagerly awaiting EU30 in 2000.
- 1
