|
I don't mind someone else taking over leadership of a war. I do mind it happening 5-6 times in the same war. When I declare war, it should say "Country A is allied with Countries B, C, D. If B joins the war, they will take over leadership of the war." And that's it. The buck stops there. B can call in his allies, but none of those will take over leadership and call in their allies. I should be able to tell with reasonable certainty just who I end up fighting when I declare war.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Changing warscore could probably stop OPMs from surrendering when their capital is occupied with an allied 20k stack sieging it. But didn't one of the EU3 expansions mostly fix cascading alliances, like the war leader only switches once?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
I suspect those alliance chains will be substituted by the coalition system they have made vague mentions of, and that might debut in some form for March of the Eagles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
A Violence Gang posted:I wouldn't mind if the second-level allies could be called but only fight in defense of their actual allies' territory so they can't get improbably roped into the initial aggression. But that raises some questions about how strictly you define that (must the fighting take place within the ally's borders?) and might be too nuanced for the AI to handle. And even if that did work perfectly, it'd still make it impossible to conquer an OPM if France is a friend of a friend. Cynic Jester posted:I don't mind someone else taking over leadership of a war. I do mind it happening 5-6 times in the same war. When I declare war, it should say "Country A is allied with Countries B, C, D. If B joins the war, they will take over leadership of the war." And that's it. The buck stops there. B can call in his allies, but none of those will take over leadership and call in their allies. I should be able to tell with reasonable certainty just who I end up fighting when I declare war. I'd prefer "Country A is allied with Countries B, C and D. If B joins the war, they will take over leadership, but will only be able to call in allies of Country A."
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:I don't mind someone else taking over leadership of a war. I do mind it happening 5-6 times in the same war. When I declare war, it should say "Country A is allied with Countries B, C, D. If B joins the war, they will take over leadership of the war." And that's it. The buck stops there. B can call in his allies, but none of those will take over leadership and call in their allies. I should be able to tell with reasonable certainty just who I end up fighting when I declare war. Yeah, one level of alliance cascading is fine, I just hate seeing wars go OPM->TPM->Medium Power->France. Add a second level if you declare war on a vassal because a vassal calling their master shouldn't count as the one cascade, hold off assigning new warleaders until everyone the initial nation sends a call to arms to responds so you don't get Naples grabbing up the one cascade while the UK has yet to agree to enter the war, and you're done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
A Violence Gang posted:I wouldn't mind if the second-level allies could be called but only fight in defense of their actual allies' territory so they can't get improbably roped into the initial aggression. But that raises some questions about how strictly you define that (must the fighting take place within the ally's borders?) and might be too nuanced for the AI to handle. Example: Salzburg is allied to Baden, and to Bavaria, which is allied to Austria. Palatinate goes to war with Salzburg, which calls in Bavaria. Bavaria cannot call Austria, since they are not allied to Salzburg. Bavaria can call Baden, even though Bavaria isn't allied to Baden, because Baden is allied to Salzburg. Either that or just scrap the war leader thing entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:I'd prefer "Country A is allied with Countries B, C and D. If B joins the war, they will take over leadership, but will only be able to call in allies of Country A." Makes guarantees and vassals a gigantic liability, if someone can declare on them and you can't pull in your allies. Then you either let the vassal die, or you fight a losing war. Neither are good options and if the war leader function has one purpose, it's to let larger countries protect their vassals and guarantees with all they have. If you can't do that, you might as well scrap both those systems as any competent player will just use them to pull you into a war you can't win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
The real problem with Alliance cascading in wars is that the concept of 'leadership' is really a stopgap to make do for the lack of a mechanism for real peace negotiations both between and within alliances. An Alliance leader doesn't really suffer for screwing over his partners' war aims. There isn't really a reason for the UK to do the historical thing and trade back overseas conquests to preserve map lines in Europe. There's no way for the lesser Coalition partners (who might collectively be powerful enough to win) to say 'hey we want to keep fighting'. There's no way for someone getting screwed over by the deal to say 'I'll keep fighting alone then'.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Friend Commuter posted:And even if that did work perfectly, it'd still make it impossible to conquer an OPM if France is a friend of a friend. Now how you define "defense of Holland" is tricky -- only battles within Dutch territory? Or can French armies join any battle Holland is participating in, wherever that happens? With a simple rule there's still lots of potential for undesirably dumb behavior. I'm envisioning lots of pingponging as the status of whether France is eligible to join a particular battle flips back and forth, and if the AI is unable to determine that before a battle between you and Holland begins, taking travel time into account, their help would likely be even more useless than it already is. So I doubt this could ever get implemented in a good way, but the general idea of more clearly defined, rational limits on the extent of each nation's participation might be worth some thought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
I don't know why this is a complex issues. You call in all your allies, and that's where it ends. They don't get to call theirs in too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Riso posted:I don't know why this is a complex issues. It's a complex issue because what happens when your OPM ally calls you in against France and all of a sudden you can't call on your other 6 allies that give you a fighting chance against the blue blob.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
That's a good moment to reconsider upholding your alliance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Or when a great power is protecting a nation of great importance to it (Castile is protecting Navarre lets say against the French) and because the Navarre gets overrun quickly, even if Castile is doing well on another front and wants to fight on, Navarre surrenders and Castile has no ability to fight on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Riso posted:That's a good moment to reconsider upholding your alliance. And if they're your vassal? Who only have one ally, which would be you? There's a whole bunch of systems(Vassals, Guarantees, Expand Influence) that all rely on a larger nation being able to defend a much smaller nation on equal footing with a potential aggressor. Removing the ability for a larger nation to take leadership of the war means you have to change a whole bunch of other systems to account for that. It's not as easy as going "No cascades whatsoever. Done. Time for coffee".
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Have the mechanic that you can't attack the vassal directly, but have to go through the master first and demand the province in the peace deal. Master can call his allies. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Riso posted:Have the mechanic that you can't attack the vassal directly, but have to go through the master first and demand the province in the peace deal. And now when France wants to munch your OPM they go to war with you directly and you lose the option to just let your vassal be eaten while you bide your time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Why, because you can't just peace out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Declaring on vassals already triggers a defensive call to arms for the liege's allies anyway. Its the same as attacking them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Riso posted:Have the mechanic that you can't attack the vassal directly, but have to go through the master first and demand the province in the peace deal. Which is a new take on the vassal system, with its own pros and cons. Now do the same for guarantees and warnings. Hint, the same system won't work there. Vassals are easy because they're almost part of the masters holdings, but guarantees and warnings are an entirely different beast. Taking over leadership of the war works for all three, your solution does not. If they come up with a coalition solution that works, I'll be happier than a dog in poo poo, but they haven't referred to it yet and it seems like the sort of thing they'd shout from the hills. Personally, so long as they cap the cascading, I'd be fine with it. Primarily from a gameplay standpoint. I don't see any easy solutions to keeping all the systems that rely on the war leader mechanic working well, and I'd much rather have those and a single tier of alliance cascading, compared to neutering related systems and removing alliance cascading. run DNC posted:Declaring on vassals already triggers a defensive call to arms for the liege's allies anyway. Its the same as attacking them. Because they're automatically set as war leader when they're called in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:
Im not sure that that is true. I think it triggers the liege lords guarantees and sphere of influence based allies too, which doesn't happen when switching war leader otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Is there anyway to stop the wokou pirate raids when you are playing Korea, or do I just have to take those annoying pop-ups forever ? e: Pirate rates are going up skipThings fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Wiz you've been at paradox for like a whole week now. Why aren't there any cheesy youtube clips of you talking about Rome 2 in front of a wallpaper bookshelf 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Wiz you've been at paradox for like a whole week now. Why aren't there any cheesy youtube clips of you talking about Rome 2 in front of a wallpaper bookshelf He's already been assigned to HOI4. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:He's already been assigned to HOI4. Over 200,000 provinces!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Over 200,000 provinces! Determine kit and loadout for each individual soldier in your entire army. Reload their guns manually during combat or assign it to an automated AI assistant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Determine kit and loadout for each individual soldier in your entire army. Reload their guns manually during combat or assign it to an automated AI assistant. Track their individual thirst and hunger levels!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Determine kit and loadout for each individual soldier in your entire army. Reload their guns manually during combat or assign it to an automated AI assistant. The AI proceeds to forget to tell all your soldiers on the Eastern Front to reload and your forces are immediately routed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
enigma74 posted:Track their individual thirst and hunger levels! Look, I know how you guys feel about keeping the pee breaks on automated, but if you have your soldiers stay past the bladder threshold for a few minutes, you'll notice a slight performance boost during combat! (for the record I do like HoI3, I just find it.... overwhelming for lack of a better term)
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
enigma74 posted:Track their individual thirst and hunger levels! PVT T. Hofman is starving! PVT G. Shulz is starving! PVT R. Schneider is hungry! PVT C. Müller is hungry! PVT F. Herrmann has starved to death! CLICK HERE TO DELIVER SAUERKRAUT TO 5TH COMPANY 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:
I would play this game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I would play this game. Just buy the Sims and download a mod that adds nazi uniforms!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:I would play this game. KITCHEN COMMANDO: UNSUNG HEROES OF WWII Kickstarting this now
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Guide your troops through their trenches. Dig latrines. Open MFRs. Clean guns. Hold your guts in. Accessorize with gas masks and bayonets. Experience war as you've done before, in Sims: Trench warfare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Deploy gas in own trench, remove exits from trench.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Determine kit and loadout for each individual soldier in your entire army. Reload their guns manually during combat or assign it to an automated AI assistant. So basically this, the PC game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
I was thinking more Dwarf Fortress, for unprecedented levels of excruciating detail. It would be the first Paradox game to run slower than real time, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:So basically this, the PC game. Wasn't this the game that had an optional (probably tongue in cheek) rule to account for Italians needing increased water supplies for boiling pasta?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
I'm so sick and tired of you guys badmouthing HOI4! You don't have to set troop breathing to automated to play; you just have to pause every other second to go through the chain of command and remind them to breath in new oxygen and exhale CO2. Personally I find it the immerse challenge rather fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Cowcatcher posted:As a person from the Balkans, I feel my worldview was shattered by your snappy reply. You have shown me the error of my nationalistic ways. I will strive to be like you in every regard. Do you like clay? When you see clay, do you have a sudden impulse to kill those of other ethnicities in order to obtain it? HOI4 will include automation-optional atomic interactions, including manual magnetism! Farecoal fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Gorgo Primus posted:I'm so sick and tired of you guys badmouthing HOI4! You don't have to set troop breathing to automated to play; you just have to pause every other second to go through the chain of command and remind them to breath in new oxygen and exhale CO2. Personally I find it the immerse challenge rather fun. The nice thing is, the more enemy soldiers you kill the less processor cycles that need to be dedicated to their breathing, and the faster the game runs! I'm finding my late game speeds in HOI4 are significantly faster then the early years, which is the exact opposite of my experience with most Paradox titles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2013 03:17
|
|