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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Wikipedia is a terrible scholarly source, and thus not a very reliable source for any discussion on historical accuracy. At best it can provide a good general background on a field, but even then, one should take it with a whole truckload of salt and use it as a basis upon which to build and not the end of the argument.
My personal philosophy about Wikipedia, it's better than nothing. If it's used as a guide it can be helpful, but "Wikipedia" often contradicts itself.
There is a hierarchy of source credibility:
Worst: "This is my unsupported opinion."
Better: "This what a strange and sketchy website says."
Better: "This is what Wikipedia says."
Better: "This is what this academic website says."
Best: "This is what this academic book says."
But discussing credibility of sources is off-topic derailment.
My personal philosophy about Wikipedia, it's better than nothing. If it's used as a guide it can be helpful, but "Wikipedia" often contradicts itself.
There is a hierarchy of source credibility:
Worst: "This is my unsupported opinion."
Better: "This what a strange and sketchy website says."
Better: "This is what Wikipedia says."
Better: "This is what this academic website says."
Best: "This is what this academic book says."
But discussing credibility of sources is off-topic derailment.
To just further expound on this, Wikipedia can generally be trusted to get the most basic facts right - names, places, dates, battles, most maps and so on, but anything beyond that should indeed be taken with a bowl of salt.
It also tends to be quite reliable on the irrelevant - such as a list of Monty Python episodes.
Well I would say that we are still talking about it and we have never left the subject. If you don't understand the logic trap that I think GH has lain for me or anyone else who would argue his salient points understand that in so far as I could be said to be in this to win this that I understand that GH is just not in a state to be won over. His towering intellect just has no need for winning or losing on the points I would make here. Understand that of all the people who could have been viewed as on my side that I think it adds up to 0. You might ask why I counted to 0 here. To someone who is a gambler and is more fully versed in numbers than GH I would point out that 0 is a completely accepted and valid starting point in counting. AIs use it all the time. In so far as Pornek gave me a hand in my "side" of the argument it was not a helpful hand but it was a hand given in full knowledge that I very well might "lose" this fight so badly that it would reinforce the perception that Wikipedia is not a valid source even concerning topics that are not controversial at all.
In so far as my logic is twisted I freely admit it. I do understand that in so far as I could be said to have a side in this that it is not my mine. To prove that Wikipedia is a good source even for controversial topics I am at some point in this thread going to walk away from my biased view that Wikipedia is a good source at all and explain my understanding that it is only a good source of NPOV controversial topics in that it is very shrewdly edited - nominally for free - and that in so far that it is useful when it speaks about controversial topics that it very willingly allows paraphrased editing to break down controversy and speak falsely. I, fool that I that I am, do understand that if I am going to teach anyone viewing this thread about anything "important" that even once I feel that I have made my "punitive" point that Wikipedia is important that then I am going to then be faced with the task of explaining the other side of the argument. ie I would have to freely throw away any and all points of agreement that I could have said to have won and explain how all the glaring holes in my nominally "winning" argument does not break my argument but proves it. I certainly do not expect GH to help me out on that one either.
I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia (or TVTropes for that matter) for a literary analysis of Monty Python, though. As you say, it's more a question of facts versus interpretation.
Anyway. Honestly I'm not sure religious missions shouldn't just be a thing that everyone ought to be able to do anyway. It would be a convenient use of missionaries which are occasionally left completely irrelevant. Maybe make it so you can either send them on missions with permission or secretly (using your spy attack vs their spy defense not to be noticed). Presumably it wouldn't increase revolt risk if you went secretly (Until you convert the province of course). Maybe it should take longer based on their intolerance of your religion (less time if tolerance is +ve)?
You guys just need to stop talking about history and realize this is a game forum and in the case of the game catholicism is an underpowered thing that needs balance and pretty muche everyone knows that, period.
You guys just need to stop talking about history and realize this is a game forum and in the case of the game catholicism is an underpowered thing that needs balance and pretty muche everyone knows that, period.
K. So out of interest, which do you think would be best to replace -1 heretic tollerance; -5% dev cost, -10% dev cost, -10% build cost or -5% tech cost?
You guys just need to stop talking about history and realize this is a game forum and in the case of the game catholicism is an underpowered thing that needs balance and pretty muche everyone knows that, period.
It's not underpowered, but merely situational. The baseline bonuses (with low influx of PI) are lackluster compared to its usual neighbors (Protestant,Reformed, Islamic), however. With reasonable PI influx, Catholicism is very strong.
That said, I'm all for replacing the heretic intolerance with something useful.
K. So out of interest, which do you think would be best to replace -1 heretic tollerance; -5% dev cost, -10% dev cost, -10% build cost or -5% tech cost?
Look, I understand you feel you know more about game balance than the devs. But if they say it is not a malus it is just not a malus. Do you think hectoring them on a single sentence about game balance for months is really going to pay dividends even if you are correct? It is a video game and the point of it is to have fun. If a single number in a single set of numbers is so important maybe you should just mod it out. Some of us come to this forum for reasons other than solving all the world's problems thru video games.
Look, I understand you feel you know more about game balance than the devs. But if they say it is not a malus it is just not a malus. Do you think hectoring them on a single sentence about game balance for months is really going to pay dividends even if you are correct? It is a video game and the point of it is to have fun. If a single number in a single set of numbers is so important maybe you should just mod it out. Some of us come to this forum for reasons other than solving all the world's problems thru video games.
I didn't say I did. If I thought i knew everything about game balance I wouldn't need to ask anyone else's opinion. My point is that the best way to un-derail a thread is to get back to talking about what the main point if the thread is, not just talking about how it's derailed. But if it's not a malus then why do no ideas give -1 heretic tolerance? Every idea (not national - idea group ones) give a bonus and the only ones that give any change to tolerance always increase it. Why would they do that if this weren't a bad thing?
Anyway. Honestly I'm not sure religious missions shouldn't just be a thing that everyone ought to be able to do anyway. It would be a convenient use of missionaries which are occasionally left completely irrelevant. Maybe make it so you can either send them on missions with permission or secretly (using your spy attack vs their spy defense not to be noticed). Presumably it wouldn't increase revolt risk if you went secretly (Until you convert the province of course). Maybe it should take longer based on their intolerance of your religion (less time if tolerance is +ve)?
But if it's not a malus then why do no ideas give -1 heretic tolerance? Every idea (not national - idea group ones) give a bonus and the only ones that give any change to tolerance always increase it. Why would they do that if this weren't a bad thing?
-1 Heretic tolerance is normally an unambiguous penalty (particularly if you were planning to take Humanist ideas).
If you're intending to stay Catholic and to not take Humanist Ideas, however, negative modifiers to heretic tolerance are at least situationally useful due to the mechanical details of the Reformation.
-1 Heretic tolerance is normally an unambiguous penalty (particularly if you were planning to take Humanist ideas).
If you're intending to stay Catholic and to not take Humanist Ideas, however, negative modifiers to heretic tolerance are at least situationally useful due to the mechanical details of the Reformation.
I like playing as a Humanist Venice, but the penalty is pretty stifling, and it makes it far much less of a choice to switch over to Reformed to just get bonus' on all fronts.
I didn't say I did. If I thought i knew everything about game balance I wouldn't need to ask anyone else's opinion. My point is that the best way to un-derail a thread is to get back to talking about what the main point if the thread is, not just talking about how it's derailed. But if it's not a malus then why do no ideas give -1 heretic tolerance? Every idea (not national - idea group ones) give a bonus and the only ones that give any change to tolerance always increase it. Why would they do that if this weren't a bad thing?
Well reasoned response BS. But my answer would be just another attempt at an answer that is just wrong. Here is where things get tricky for me personally. In that the answer is intricate and I am already in way over my head. It is balanced to the devs, subjectively. There is just no clear-cut answer here.
Well reasoned response BS. But my answer would be just another attempt at an answer that is just wrong. Here is where things get tricky for me personally. In that the answer is intricate and I am already in way over my head. It is balanced to the devs, subjectively. There is just no clear-cut answer here.
Because -1 heretic tolerance is situationally useful? What if they just added a decision which let you get -1 heretic tolerance at the cost of the other bonus?
Or is it that you feel catholic is too good already and it needs the penalty to bring it back inline with other religions? I think I wouldn't mind if they made the curia just a little weaker if that's what they really needed to do to make it balanced, but personally I would prefer it if they buffed every other religion (except maybe protestant - it's already stronger than catholic) and brought the curve up a little.
Because -1 heretic tolerance is situationally useful? What if they just added a decision which let you get -1 heretic tolerance at the cost of the other bonus?
Or is it that you feel catholic is too good already and it needs the penalty to bring it back inline with other religions? I think I wouldn't mind if they made the curia just a little weaker if that's what they really needed to do to make it balanced, but personally I would prefer it if they buffed every other religion (except maybe protestant - it's already stronger than catholic) and brought the curve up a little.
I've given the whole 'Send Missionary to other countries' idea a bit more thought, and this is what I've managed to come up with as a preliminary idea;
You can establish Mission Treaties with other nations in the same way you would in asking for fleet basing rights; it occupies a Dip slot, you pay a monthly fee and the sender's opinion of the recipient increases, and they must be within colonizing/coring range. Acceptance is reliant on opinion and realpolitik (allies, friendly and threatened nations will be more likely to accept, while Protectorates will not be able to refuse. It can also be demanded in treaties).
If they accept, you can send a missionary to convert their provinces that are already not your religion. Any bonus' one would gain upon successfully converting a province (PI, for example), would still apply.
To avoid this being far too one-sided, the country that accepts will gain a bonus to trade power and a tech cost reduction (a -2.5% interval for every level they are ahead in a specific category) while the treaty is active. Likewise, Stability, Decisions and Inquisitor's effects on missionary strength will not apply while in a foreign country, and you can only have one missionary in a foreign country at a time.
There will be events that can affect your relations with that nation, progress of your missionary, the province he's in, etc.
If you have the proper ideas in espionage, you can send a missionary without a treaty with the threat of discovery and expulsion hanging over his head. Naturally, relations will be damaged if he is.
Abrahamic and Buddhist countries will be more likely to send missionaries. Pagans will be less likely.
I just have three words for you guys
Index librorum prohibitorum
There is no way you can convince me that the catholic church somehow helped science advance.
Religion in all it's forms have hampered technological advances for fear of undermining the faith.
As soon as somebody says "there is now way you can convince me" you are pretty much just admitting that you are close-minded, because that is literally the definition of the word.
Please respect the views of others if they can prove them to you somehow, don't just hamfist your own opinions when you can't even be bothered to do research.
I've given the whole 'Send Missionary to other countries' idea a bit more thought, and this is what I've managed to come up with as a preliminary idea;
You can establish Mission Treaties with other nations in the same way you would in asking for fleet basing rights; it occupies a Dip slot, you pay a monthly fee and the sender's opinion of the recipient increases, and they must be within colonizing/coring range. Acceptance is reliant on opinion and realpolitik (allies, friendly and threatened nations will be more likely to accept, while Protectorates will not be able to refuse).
If they accept, you can send a missionary to convert their provinces that are already not your religion.
To avoid this being far too one-sided, the country that accepts will gain a bonus to trade power and a tech cost reduction while the treaty is active. Likewise, the base penalty for your missionary is doubled from -2% to -4%, and you can only have one missionary in a foreign country at a time.
There will be events that can affect your relations with that nation, progress of your missionary, the province he's in, etc.
If you have the proper ideas in espionage, you can send a missionary without a treaty with the threat of discovery and expulsion hanging over his head. Naturally, relations will be damaged if he is.
Abrahamic and Buddhist countries will be more likely to send missionaries. Pagans will be less likely.
Disagree with the doubled penalties, but it might not be affected by some decisions which boost missionary strength in your country by offering legal incentives to convert. Bonuses from ideas and policies would still carry over though.
Everything else looks good. Presumably go get PI from converting via missions.
Would it make sense to be able to force missionary acceptance as part of a peace-deal?
Also tech cost reduction should be based on the difference in tech levels between the two countries (maybe 5% discount per level difference?)
