Why Common Sense lacks, well, common sense!
- Thread starter wolffrnd
- 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.
Wiz, making this game even better is obviously a thankless task. Why don't you move on to Rome 2 already? 
- 3
What if baggage train units were added. Increase attrition in each province but each baggage train unit will reduce the attrition. Baggage trains should be expensive.
This would go a long ways towards simulating the high cost of keeping an army in the field in enemy territory. Also provide a gold sink latter game. The train's efficiency could increase with tech...probably Admin tech.
Just throwing out an idea to be expanded upon. Sorry to deviate from the OP.
- 1
- 1
This is not a legitimate argument for them to change it, "MUH IRONMAN" is not a reason for them to make a change that YOU feel is unfair when you can easily make that change for yourself.
- 6
- 1
And neither is "you can just mod it out if you don't like it" a legitimate argument for keeping a flawed mechanic in the game. Having a modding scene is no excuse not to make the base game as good as possible.
- 9
- 1
It is not a flawed mechanic, that is literally just your opinion. In my opinion(and I believe in the devs opinion as well) it is meant to balance between Monarchies and Republics, Republics have weaker Rulers in average but they never have to deal with Regency Councils.
Changing the Regency Council rules would NOT make the game better, it would make it different but it wouldnt be better(or worst for that matter) so do not pretend you have the Gameplay High Ground, you do not.
Play Nahuatls they can declare war on Regencies, just convert yourself and is on the base game too!
Also "It works just fine as it is now and is balance, if you don't like it tho you can simply mod it" is a very legitimate argument to keep it as is.
- 3
- 1
Well let's examine it shall we boys?
Regency council penalizes a player for not having an heir who is "of age." How does this change game-play? What systems are enhanced and what systems are degraded by the feature? What do those effects mean in the larger picture?
I can't see any glaring effects other than making it even more important that you have an matured heir lined up - which is arguably a little too much out of control of the player. Removing the feature would make regency councils just a meaningless place holder where there should be a hint of instability without a strong ruler (IMO).
We don't need to reference history here, because the mechanic is abstract. We also don't need to point out how stupid someone is for not knowing or wanting to use mods or desiring Iron Man compatibility because you might as well be arguing at a brick wall. There is no good conclusion to that path. So let's look at what the mechanic does, as is, and how it would be better.
Regency council penalizes a player for not having an heir who is "of age." How does this change game-play? What systems are enhanced and what systems are degraded by the feature? What do those effects mean in the larger picture?
I can't see any glaring effects other than making it even more important that you have an matured heir lined up - which is arguably a little too much out of control of the player. Removing the feature would make regency councils just a meaningless place holder where there should be a hint of instability without a strong ruler (IMO).
We don't need to reference history here, because the mechanic is abstract. We also don't need to point out how stupid someone is for not knowing or wanting to use mods or desiring Iron Man compatibility because you might as well be arguing at a brick wall. There is no good conclusion to that path. So let's look at what the mechanic does, as is, and how it would be better.
- 2
I would actually really love this. On that note, March of the Eagles style forts when?
- 2
I think the main issue is not the Regency themselves, its a lack of Peace Time Mechanics(time to beat a dead horse!)
I think Development and the new Building system were steps in the right direction that add some planning to what you are doing, I also think making Factions for every single Government type would add some flavor and activities for Peace Time(I need to mod that in, but I am not very good and balancing stuff lol)
- 1
I see the MotE logistics and fort system brought up a lot. Is there a quick summary available somewhere? The Paradox Wiki comes up empty.
IF you speak about Realism, I believe that the current system of government types is just not good enough.
Or at least make Constitutional Monarchy a government that can be enacted ONLY by Revolution.
It's freaking me out that constitutional monarchies are EVERYWHERE in late game because AI picks Economic+Trade ideas. It even doesn't make any sense that a nation of trade and economic ideas become Parliamentary monarchies. Historically, All those trade empires, if they are Portugal, Ottomans or something else became exactly the opposite, Absolute.
I know that lately, most of my threads in EU4 forum were about it, about how improve this particular system, and I wish for a long time for a comment if there will be anything done about it, or even explain why it should be stayed as it is now, and what's the point behind this.
Many thanks,
Or at least make Constitutional Monarchy a government that can be enacted ONLY by Revolution.
It's freaking me out that constitutional monarchies are EVERYWHERE in late game because AI picks Economic+Trade ideas. It even doesn't make any sense that a nation of trade and economic ideas become Parliamentary monarchies. Historically, All those trade empires, if they are Portugal, Ottomans or something else became exactly the opposite, Absolute.
I know that lately, most of my threads in EU4 forum were about it, about how improve this particular system, and I wish for a long time for a comment if there will be anything done about it, or even explain why it should be stayed as it is now, and what's the point behind this.
Many thanks,
Not saying you should put this into EU, but I would totally play a logistics officer simulator game.
- 5
Can you tell me - from a purely gameist perspective, in the first instance, since we've established that any historicist justification is at best shaky - why regencies should not be allowed to declare war?
I have - for all practical purposes - no agency regarding whether I get a regency council. Sure, reckless play with respect to converting my leader or heir into generals can increase my risk, but there is literally nothing I can reasonably do, as a country with more than 20 provinces, to mitigate my risk. And when I get one, I am denied gameplay without compensation. No interesting new gameplay is opened to me. The game is strictly less interesting during a regency council than otherwise.
- 2
- 1
Just because I don't make it explicitly clear that what I'm saying is my opinion, that doesn't mean that I'm pretending to present some kind of absolute truth. A lot of forum posts are made by people expressing their subjective opinions, and you can generally infer when they're doing so, even if they don't qualify every statement by adding "in my opinion" in front of it.
But if you want me to make that clear, I'm more than happy to oblige:
In my opinion, regencies not being able to declare war is a mechanic that removes player agency through no fault of their own.
In my opinion, that is not a good thing.
Therefore, the game would, in my opinion, be better if that restriction were to be removed.
And, no, "if you don't like it you can just mod it out" is still not a valid argument, because in my opinion the game would be better for everyone were that mechanic to be removed. You are, of course, free to disagree with this, but that argument does nothing to adress why, in your opinion, it is a good mechanic, all it does is attempt to shut down the conversation.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
Sure, having a regency council is bad, but not the end of the world for its duration. In a recent Muscovy game I was forced into a 10+ year regency council before while I was literally holding the mouse button over the "declare war" button, about to press it - it's aggravating, to be sure. But really it just means an unexpected change of plans - as Beaga pointed out, you can still get into wars if you play your cards right. Shortly after that regency council started, I noticed a Danzig-holding Pommerania was in a solo war against Teutonic Order, so I allied TO and they called me in. I beat back Pommerania and acquired Danzig in a separate peace.
Or just a way to justify to not change the game. Why not abstruct that a game bug is just the Gods cursing your nation for whatever reason (or blessing you depending on the bug effect)? Abstraction is picking something and giving it the meaning that best fits you (or Pdx in this case).
- 1
I don't see anything wrong with the current fort system. Maybe some color coding to the fort map layout would be nice, but that's such a minutiae that I don't know if even merits attention.
On a side note, it's always fun as hell seeing Wiz drop the hammer.
On a side note, it's always fun as hell seeing Wiz drop the hammer.
- 1
There is none that I'm aware of, no. Basically garrisons are separate armies and can be moved around. Field armies can also flee into fortresses if there's enough space for them. I suppose the closest analogue is that it's comparable to how the Total War games handle forts.
Now I'm just wondering why you were unpaused. Were you waiting out a truce timer or something?
The tradeoff for "weaker rulers on average" is "you can spend RepTrad to improve them" and "you get to choose what they're good at and you will never have a 0/0/0 troglodytic derplord".
I should not be denied access to a user interface convenience feature just because I dislike a game mechanic and want to use a mod that changes it.