|
In a hypothetical European diseases institution situation you would remove primitive penalties from the game and just have a colony anywhere in the New World by any Old World nation start giving you points toward a disaster that starts knocking down your development. Embracing the disease would just make the disaster stop.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
This doesn't help with the fundamental issue of there being an insufficient number of other countries to interact with or the repetitive nature of the religious reform system. I'm pretty convinced that any first step involves changing colonization from taking over empty provinces to having to conquer those provinces; it makes colonization more interactive for the country that's colonizing and having more countries around means that there is more to do early in the game before Europeans start to colonize. You could even tie this into a degradation of development by letting provinces become unoccupied if development goes low enough or something along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 03:58
|
|
|
I think something Like Vicky 2's colonization system would be neat. Competing with other tribal nations within the same province, escalating into war or someone backing down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
I wish that the AI would focus a lot more on fighting battles than on sieging each other down, and also that they could recognize a doomed war and give in to initial demands instead of fighting on until they're facerolled like every war is WW1. Stealing some of CK's CB mechanics might be a good idea. Have a list of demands the attackers start with that are the default "victorious" peace treaty. The AI's willingness to fight should be tied to how harsh these are. Unlike CK, exceeding them should be possible but costly. This could also make interacting with allies more fun- like I should be able to say "I'll join your offensive war but I get X" or "I'll give you Y if you join mine." When provinces aren't on the line, you could dangle things like a greater share of the payout or a promise for support when the non-benefitting nation goes for a third-party province down the line. e: of course diplomacy with an AI always suffers because they're an AI, I think having peace terms laid out at the start would help them make judgement calls. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jan 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I wish that the AI would focus a lot more on fighting battles than on sieging each other down, and also that they could recognize a doomed war and give in to initial demands instead of fighting on until they're facerolled like every war is WW1. I am really hoping that this major patch that they have been working on for so long addresses that, manually controlling every army, the AI spamming 1 infantry unit merc stacks to annoy the poo poo out of the player (automation would help here though), Trade Companies (mainly the AI buying random poo poo for no good reason), loans being free money, sailors, and a few other things. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Jan 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
When is the Jesus Patch estimated to come out again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 16:24
|
|
|
The problem with not having the AI do a hell War, if I recall, is that players will still do them to take the most they can while refusing any peace provided by the AI. If AIs are more amenable to peace too there is more chance the player can dismantle alliances/coalitions and face roll even earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
Yeah whenever the ai offers a peace deal I just say nope until I can grab the max amount possible. If you agree to their one province offering you’re just going to have to fight them again in ten years
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 18:07
|
|
|
i would take ai peace deals if they had super reduced ae maybe
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
StarMinstrel posted:The problem with not having the AI do a hell War, if I recall, is that players will still do them to take the most they can while refusing any peace provided by the AI. If AIs are more amenable to peace too there is more chance the player can dismantle alliances/coalitions and face roll even earlier. appropriatemetaphor posted:Yeah whenever the ai offers a peace deal I just say nope until I can grab the max amount possible. If you agree to their one province offering you’re just going to have to fight them again in ten years I never said I want the AI to make the offer, though? Both of you are talking about peace deals provided by the AI and that is not what I said at all. I want the AI to be willing to accept a player's peace deal if the player is asking for something reasonable, as in, update how wargoals and peace deals work so I can declare a war for a state on the AI and if I have that state occupied, the AI's army is beat, and other forts are under siege, it would be willing to end the war. The more states I demand in the war the more stubborn the AI would get, stuff like that. You know, build the system to encourage less-than-hellwars?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Ah yeah that’d be good then. I’m sure they could some kind of modifier to tell the dumb ai that it’s a good deal and they should take it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Making war tougher and internal affairs more in-depth and fun, and then making refusing decent peace deals painful internally, would help even on the AI peace deal side. But that's an EU5 thing really, and I know some people really like EU being Blob Game so who knows. Also the AI sometimes fights on in hellwars even when it has nothing on the line which is really bad for it. You'll see an AI get ripped apart in a hellwar over an OPM rather than peacing out for a pittance and letting the OPM war leader get annexed. You'll see the Kalmar Union end in 1461 after tens of thousands of french troops occupy Stockholm and Copenhagen to finally end the milanese conquest of Parma. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
I feel like war exhaustion should tick up way faster for the non-primary belligerents. I can see French and Danish people getting pissed off way earlier than Milan and Parma in the above scenario. E: and also, war exhaustion contibution to peace terms acceptance should be multiplied by 2 or 3 for non-primary belligerents, for the same reasons. canepazzo fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Jan 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Also the AI sometimes fights on in hellwars even when it has nothing on the line which is really bad for it. You'll see an AI get ripped apart in a hellwar over an OPM rather than peacing out for a pittance and letting the OPM war leader get annexed. You'll see the Kalmar Union end in 1461 after tens of thousands of french troops occupy Stockholm and Copenhagen to finally end the milanese conquest of Parma. canepazzo posted:I feel like war exhaustion should tick up way faster for the non-primary belligerents. I can see French and Danish people getting pissed off way earlier than Milan and Parma in the above scenario.  and I understand that people will probably complain if the game got too dictate-y with telling players how long they can stick out a war, how to make their peace deals, and that kind of stuff, but the systems have worked as is for years now and it would be nice to try something new, or hear about how they tried changing things internally but it all sucked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
The problem with that is this isn't a "quickly change 3 numbers just to give it a checking out" kind of problem. AI alterations like that have knock on effects throughout like half the game, so I can completely understand them playing this one conservative especially since the current system still does work pretty okay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
Koramei posted:The problem with that is this isn't a "quickly change 3 numbers just to give it a checking out" kind of problem. AI alterations like that have knock on effects throughout like half the game, so I can completely understand them playing this one conservative especially since the current system still does work pretty okay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
I don't really think that logic follows, dude. A giant patch where they already have a bunch of other things planned won't really be the best time to also try to cram in something else huge. I'd like to see it changed too but I think to do so in a way that's actually good might be more of an EU5 thing. Stepping back from hell wars changes things on a pretty fundamental level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I don't really think that logic follows, dude. A giant patch where they already have a bunch of other things planned won't really be the best time to also try to cram in something else huge. Do we even know everything they're working on with this patch? Did they give us a roadmap?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
There was a dev diary a year or so back with a general roadmap of stuff they were wanting to overhaul. With Jake suddenly leaving and Johan taking over though I wonder if there might be some big changes to it after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I don't really think that logic follows, dude. A giant patch where they already have a bunch of other things planned won't really be the best time to also try to cram in something else huge. Do you think a small patch is the time to cram it then, dude?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
yikes
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 01:57
|
|
|
cram it all in, gently caress the patches!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
Patch size might not be relevant if the game is getting bloated enough even the devs don't know the way something as vital as combat works  No offense Groogy
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
Everyone talking about their issues with the way the Americas are modeled inspired me to go back and do some work on a native overhaul mod that I had barely started. First item on the list is simply filling the Americas entirely with First Nations, and renaming certain tribes so they aren't called by their exonyms (like my people, both Mohawk and Iroquois Confederacy are exonyms, we call ourselves the Kanienkehaka of the Haudenosaunee). Then I'll have to better model some of the culture groups and add some others that don't exist. My ultimate goal is to accurately portray the effects of disease on the native population, possibly by increasing starting dev in the Americas and scripting events that can decimate it after first contact, including completely depopulating provinces that lose enough dev. Another thought would be to have events that empty manpower pools or something of that nature. Anyways, that's all in the very distant future if I ever get to it at all. Here's what I've done so far, if people are interested it may help to keep my motivation up.  Also does anyone know of a way to mod out the need for European contact to reform and/or embrace Feudalism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
I'd be interested in giving it a whirl, see if my normal multiplayer group would be interested.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 07:50
|
|
|
Gravity Cant Apple posted:Everyone talking about their issues with the way the Americas are modeled inspired me to go back and do some work on a native overhaul mod that I had barely started. First item on the list is simply filling the Americas entirely with First Nations, and renaming certain tribes so they aren't called by their exonyms (like my people, both Mohawk and Iroquois Confederacy are exonyms, we call ourselves the Kanienkehaka of the Haudenosaunee). Then I'll have to better model some of the culture groups and add some others that don't exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
This is fascinating and I would like to see where this goes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
Gravity Cant Apple posted:Everyone talking about their issues with the way the Americas are modeled inspired me to go back and do some work on a native overhaul mod that I had barely started. First item on the list is simply filling the Americas entirely with First Nations, and renaming certain tribes so they aren't called by their exonyms (like my people, both Mohawk and Iroquois Confederacy are exonyms, we call ourselves the Kanienkehaka of the Haudenosaunee). Then I'll have to better model some of the culture groups and add some others that don't exist. Seems really cool
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
Gravity Cant Apple posted:Everyone talking about their issues with the way the Americas are modeled inspired me to go back and do some work on a native overhaul mod that I had barely started. First item on the list is simply filling the Americas entirely with First Nations, and renaming certain tribes so they aren't called by their exonyms (like my people, both Mohawk and Iroquois Confederacy are exonyms, we call ourselves the Kanienkehaka of the Haudenosaunee). Then I'll have to better model some of the culture groups and add some others that don't exist. So the way that reforming works is that it checks for an adjacent cored province of a nation that has any institution. I'm not aware of any way to change the button that checks for reform religion; on the other hand, it is probably possible to check for five reform levels as a decision and then use that to spawn a center of reformation for a reformed version of one of the new world nations and give that province the feudalism. There are probably other ways to do this, but this is the first thing that comes to mind for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
i think you can just open common\institution\00_Core.txt and mess with this
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Can you change country colours without breaking ironman yet? I kinda wanna try for some cheevos. (blue scotland and blue prussia paradox you cowards) e: also I just remembered base EU3 when Austria was loving red. Is everyone in Sweden colourblind? Why paradox? e2: I'm going to play exclusively with a garish yellow Sweden until I get answers Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jan 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Can you change country colours without breaking ironman yet? I kinda wanna try for some cheevos. Bring back early EU4 toothpaste blue Germany and Vicky 2 piss-yellow Prussia you cowards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
scrap the next DLC and add a "choose color" ~*~*slider~**~*
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
Gravity Cant Apple posted:Everyone talking about their issues with the way the Americas are modeled inspired me to go back and do some work on a native overhaul mod that I had barely started. First item on the list is simply filling the Americas entirely with First Nations, and renaming certain tribes so they aren't called by their exonyms (like my people, both Mohawk and Iroquois Confederacy are exonyms, we call ourselves the Kanienkehaka of the Haudenosaunee). Then I'll have to better model some of the culture groups and add some others that don't exist. This sounds really cool. It would be fun to have an alt history mode where disease doesn't have a big impact on the First Nation populations, maybe just enough to allow some colonization to take place but also allow strong states to survive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 11:30
|
|
|
Yeah that's a legitimately interesting alt-hist scenario, albeit one EU really isn't setup to handle. Native societies historically became dependent on European trade goods super quickly (turns out metalworking is great!), with coastal societies dominating their inland neighbors due to their status of gatekeepers to European trade. In a world without diseases that wreaked havoc on the population of those societies there'd probably be waves of native empires spreading inland while trying to monopolize European access.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 23:30
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Even with the diseases, like half of the tribes that people think of as plains tribes were refugees from the Beaver Wars after my people went HAM on the Great Lakes and Midwest. Guns are a hell of a drug. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
As long as we're fixing all of colonizations many, many problems, please for gently caress's sake go back to the drawing board with the whole buying trade charters mechanic. It makes for awful border gore, interferes with campaigns in just the most ridiculous ways (I'm trying to unify China as Yuan and now I have to go siege down Naples and their French allies because the AI stupidly sold them a province?), and it doesn't really model what was actually happening historically at all. I mean, I'm gonna do it, but I'm gonna be grouchy about it. Buying a trade charter should get you something like permanent fleet basing rights and the ability to station a merchant in the trade node. If you want the actual clay then send an army, not just ducats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
Family Values posted:interferes with campaigns in just the most ridiculous ways (I'm trying to unify China as Yuan and now I have to go siege down Naples and their French allies because the AI stupidly sold them a province?) This right here irritates me to no end. The other parts of the trade company mechanic I can go either way on, but I hate how it can completely screw up your missions and decisions. It seems like something that must've been overlooked during development, but Paradox never went back to the drawing board after this issue was pointed out. At least make chartered provinces irrelevant for those events and missions or something. More often than not, what happens to me when I'm playing in India is that a European power will buy a province required for me to complete an early mission, and I have to put the entire loving Indian mission tree on hold for a century while I build up power and the ability to fight a world war. Then I fight a clusterfuck of a war across the globe just so I can get a single lovely 6 dev province and immediately complete like 7 missions at once after I'm done since I've already met the conditions for all the other missions. This loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2020 00:40
|
|
|
Gravity Cant Apple posted:Even with the diseases, like half of the tribes that people think of as plains tribes were refugees from the Beaver Wars after my people went HAM on the Great Lakes and Midwest. Guns are a hell of a drug. Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:This right here irritates me to no end. The other parts of the trade company mechanic I can go either way on, but I hate how it can completely screw up your missions and decisions. It seems like something that must've been overlooked during development, but Paradox never went back to the drawing board after this issue was pointed out. At least make chartered provinces irrelevant for those events and missions or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2020 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
Family Values posted:As long as we're fixing all of colonizations many, many problems, please for gently caress's sake go back to the drawing board with the whole buying trade charters mechanic. It makes for awful border gore, interferes with campaigns in just the most ridiculous ways (I'm trying to unify China as Yuan and now I have to go siege down Naples and their French allies because the AI stupidly sold them a province?), and it doesn't really model what was actually happening historically at all. I mean, I'm gonna do it, but I'm gonna be grouchy about it. This is probably the worst mechanic they've ever added to the game. Does anybody think it's a good thing for random European countries to be able to grab huge chunks of land in Asia for a handful of ducats?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2020 02:41
|
|
