-
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.
.png "image.psd(1).png")
International Dillations?
International Mints?
International Thymes?
I'm just going through culinary herbs to find the best one to replace oregano.
- 6
There was aI don't get it
- 1
It probably has to at least show up in the map mode name, though I agree with your point more generally.
- 1
I actually think IOs will have a "Has_Mapmode = Yes" check, rather than all of them showing up on one mapmode. We know the Papacy is an IO, they've said so in the past, and I struggle to think of a way to represent the Papacy, the HRE, Guelphs and Ghibellines plus any potential Coalitions, which IIRC will be using the same system, on one "International Organizations" mapmode in an informationally meaningful way.
- 3
- 1
All of their recent games include the game concept that a thing belongs to in tooltips. This allows players to use nested tooltips to find out more about that game concept. And I don’t think it’s totally useless information for a player to know that both the HRE and the Yoke are IOs (or whatever name) and not some other mechanic.
- 4
- 2
If there's mechanical similarity, then I agree. If there is little to no mechanical similarity between all IOs, then I disagree. From the way they've described IOs, it sounds more to me like a general tool to produce things like the HRE, Yoke, Shogunate, Papacy etc in the backend. Something to streamline the design process of complex systems involving multiple tags, which could be a massive PITA to create in EU4. If that is the case, it isn't actually useful gameplay information to know they're all IOs - it's trivia. If you're going to use the system while modding or something, I'd assume it to be extremely suboptimal to be looking through nested tooltips in-game instead of browsing a wiki.
For it not to be trivia-tier info, there would need to be mechanical similarities which makes it useful to know that a Coalition is built on the same mechanical bones as the Empire of China. And I genuinely do not hope that is the case.
- 7
- 1
I think it’s legitimately useful to know that f.ex. the Yoke is an IO and not a Situation or type of subject or some different mechanic.
IOs will have mechanical similarity on a base level, in that they’re organizations of multiple countries that apply some extra element onto those countries. There’s also similarity in distinction - as with the above example, I expect it to be meaningful that something is an IO and not a situation or normal diplomatic relationship or shared religion, etc.
Considering that the cost of putting it on the UI is almost nonexistent (having to see a slightly awkward name is really not a big deal, and I doubt it’s the only awkward name or phrasing well see) and it keeps the UI consistent (since instances of other mechanics will surely name their game concept in the same way) I don’t think there’s a good reason to remove it.
- 5
- 5
I think a common tern is still needed at least to be easily described as a concept in tutorial. AFAIK 3.3 million people bought EU4, whereas this forum is actively read maybe by several hundred users. There will be a need of a wiki page and tutorial chapter for new players and it is hard to describe without a specific term.
So I think what they mean as an IO is actually a bloc. It just needs different adjectives for different types of blocs – political/diplomatic/religious/economic bloc.
It immediately gives a hint what is this bloc about:
Last edited:
- 8
- 1
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on a fundamental level, I think. As I said, my argument rests on the hope that there won't be enough mechanical similarity between IOs to neccessitate alerting the player to them being the same "type" of mechanic. I got the impression that the intent of IOs were to create more or less bespoke mechanics for different political landscapes across the globe: EU4 has these things as well, but I certainly never missed something telling me that the HRE, EOC and Shogunate were kinda similar mechanics.
As to the point of not conflating them with Situation specifically, we see the Guelphs are an IO that is associated with, in fact, a Situation as described in a previous TT. I can also imagine the Protestant and Catholic leagues for 30YW will create IOs for the participants based on that in a similar fashion - although that is purely speculation - which will lead to two IOs of which large portions will be part of a third IO, and a significant portion of one faction will be in a fourth IO, all of which serve different mechanical functions.
I'll agree to the cost of having the "International Organization" handle in the UI is low, but I see the benefit of having it in there as completely nonexistant - if my understanding of the IO tool is correct - so the cost/benefit analysis still comes out negative to me.
- 2
- 2
I still think "Circle" sounds more fitting for the period than "International Organisation". Plus "Circles" seem more versatile in their potential meaning.
- 4
- 1
"Bloc" to me is like the quintessential terminology used for modern or near future international organisations. It makes me think of the EU or BRICS, African Union, etc, not the HRE, Tatar Yoke or the Shogunate.
- 11
- 1
- 1
Pretty sure they've already confirmed that each IO appears only when you select a relevant country in the mapmode-- but unless they tie the mapmode button to the IO interface, you've still gotta name the mapmode button something generic.
- 1
Since every name seem to create an argument, why don’t we just rename IO to “Paradox Forums” to represent the complications that this mechanic has created.
- 9
