Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

A list with what people might consider an exploit

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
HolisticGod said:
FAL,

That's a fairly accurate situation, though...

One of the central reasons England industrialized before the rest of Europe is that its own territories were spared the ravages of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.
Click to expand...

And thinking that one of the earliest places to industrialize in Continental Europe was good old Belgium -part of the most common battlefields in Europe, I am really not sure. I think that where was coal was a bit more relevant ;)

Anyway, in game terms, if a country can build safely manus and other no, makes for a very lopsided game. It is not like England needs even more advantages after all.
 
FAL,

And iron. I didn't say it was the most important reason, only one of the central. And England came first (also, I'm not sure how much fighting actually went on in Belgium during the period in question; there were battles, but compared to France, Spain, Austria, Northern Italy and especially western Russia?)

DSY,

Except that there's no way to give the order to burn down factories, so the best counterpart is start/stopping marches. Just because it's not a shiny button in the interface doesn't mean it can't be put to good use.

I've banned turbo-burning in every game I've ever GMed, so I see the point. It is an exploit of the engine, but if it's explictly allowed for the above reasons, I don't see the problem.
 
Thesis 1: All features that are not necessary and that decrease the fun should be avoided if possible.

Thesis 2. It is more painful for him who loses the manu than it is joyful for him who burns it (there may be some sadist players that do not agree on this :D )

Thesis 3. If it is allowed and used and you want to stay competitive in wars you will need to do this as well, and micromanaging of the brain-less type as this is definitely not fun (IMO all will agree on this :cool: ).

Conclusion: Do not permit it!

Q.E.D.
 
FAL said:
Now, as I said, every GM will have his own ideas of what an exploit is. So, as a reference, I will list here what I will allow and what I will not allow in my games.
RED means the exploit is not allowed. GREEN means it is allowed.
Click to expand...

But most of them are white FAL :p
 
Well this is what I prefer to be forbidden

  1. Attacking an enemy fleet with pirates, as well as comparatively very small fleets, only made to inhibit loading/landing.
  2. Releasing one or more vassals during wartime, to hinder an enemy.
  3. Force-burning of manufactories, i.e. repeated move and halt orders to an army in a province with a manufactory.
  5. Declaring war on a country, with the sole aim of increasing the stability of the nation you declare war on.
  6. Exploiting Simultanity: Using the game engine to break a deal, that would occur simultaneously in the real word. This includes (but is not limited to) the 'sale' of something in game.
  7. Switching to Counter-Reformed-Catholic just before a war, only to switch to your original religion after the war again.
  9. Switching to Protestantism to gain cash, when at negative stab, then switch back to the original religion.
  14. Trading maps with the AI.
  15. Cancelling being the vassal of another player within 10 years.
  16. Vassalising countries when you are below centralization 8 (only with the recent beta patch).

As a matter of fact. I consider the last two not to be exploits but I would definitely forbid them.

-------

Both religious items could perhaps be phrased: if you convert from Catholiscism to either Counter-reformed or Protestant you are not allowed to go back to Catholiscism before the edict of Tolerance. This is much easier to apply then what you propose. If possible a rule shall not among its requisites have what the player's intention was when he did what he did. .

BTW, there should be a general fake war paragraph. Fake wars AFAIK can occur in three cases

1. for stab increase
2. to get around a rule that says no map trading between humans
3. to get around such a religious rule that I suggest above

Unfortunately it seems unavoidable to focus on intention here. :( Well case 3 could simply say that it is forbidden to ask for it in a peace deal before EoT.
 
Daniel A said:
Both religious items could perhaps be phrased: if you convert from Catholiscism to either Counter-reformed or Protestant you are not allowed to go back to Catholiscism before the edict of Tolerance. This is much easier to apply then what you propose. If possible a rule shall not among its requisites have what the player's intention was when he did what he did...
Click to expand...

Well, this does block both England and Sweden's ability to take advantage of one of their events (well, unless you want them to wait 10+ years as catholics before going protestant)

It's a posibility, certainly, but it blocks a tactic that I wouldn't consider an exploit, certainly.

And if "min X years rules" are implemented anyway, you might aswell say that someone may not switch back to catholicism less than X years after they switched from it.
 
Daniel A said:
Both religious items could perhaps be phrased: if you convert from Catholiscism to either Counter-reformed or Protestant you are not allowed to go back to Catholiscism before the edict of Tolerance.
Click to expand...

Done.

BTW, there should be a general fake war paragraph. Fake wars AFAIK can occur in three cases
1. for stab increase
2. to get around a rule that says no map trading between humans
3. to get around such a religious rule that I suggest above
Click to expand...

Done.

I also added : Avoiding the Spanish bankruptcy events, despite owning the provinces that trigger them for the majority of the time.

I know the opinions differ on that one ;)
 
Daniel A said:
What events are this? Do they ususally switch to prot and then back to cath? I did not know that.
Click to expand...

For England:

Code: 
#The Act of Supremacy#
event = {

	id = 3009
	trigger = {
			religion = catholic
		}
	random = no
	country = ENG
	name = "EVENTNAME3009"
	desc = "EVENTHIST3009"
	style = 1

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1534 }
	offset = 30
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1541 }

	action_a ={		#Take Command of the Church of England#
		name = "ACTIONNAME3009A"
		command = { type = religion which = protestant }
		command = { type = treasury value = 250 }
		command = { type = breakdynastic which = -1 }
		command = { type = relation which = -3 value = -150 }
		command = { type = breakdynastic which = -1 }
		command = { type = relation which = -3 value = -150 }
		command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION value = 1 }
		command = { type = stability value = -2 }
	}

	action_b ={	#Accept Rome's Supremacy, but ignore it on a personal level#
		name = "ACTIONNAME3009B"
		command = { type = relation which = PAP value = 100 }
		command = { type = relation which = SPA value = 100 }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
	}
}

For Sweden:

Code: 
#The Parliament of Västerås#
event = {
	id = 3226
	trigger = { religion = catholic }
	random = no
	country = SWE
	name = "EVENTNAME3226"
	desc = "EVENTHIST3226"
	style = 2

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1530 }
	offset = 720
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1533 }

	action_a ={ # Convert to the Evangelic Faith
		name = "ACTIONNAME3226A"
		command = { type = religion which = protestant }
		command = { type = treasury value = 250 }
		command = { type = stability value = -2 }
		command = { type = breakdynastic which = POL }
		command = { type = relation which = POL value = -100 }
		command = { type = breakdynastic which = HAB }
		command = { type = relation which = HAB value = -100 }
		command = { type = breakdynastic which = SPA }
		command = { type = relation which = SPA value = -100 }
		command = { type = breakdynastic which = POR }
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = -100 }
		command = { type = breakdynastic which = PAP }
		command = { type = relation which = PAP value = -100 }
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 120 value = 3 }
		command = { type = provincetax which = -1 value = 1 }
		command = { type = provincetax which = -1 value = 1 }
	}
	action_b ={ # Remain true to Catholicism.
		name = "ACTIONNAME3226B"
		command = { type = stability value = 3 }
		command = { type = relation which = PAP value = 100 }
		command = { type = relation which = SPA value = 100 }
		command = { type = relation which = HAB value = 100 }
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = 100 }
		command = { type = relation which = POL value = 100 }
	}
}


I'm not saying it's the *usual* course of action, but it certainly isn't an invalid course of action, IMO (250 ducats and centralisation or basetax can certainly be worth it)
 
Aha, you suggest they go prot early on (around 1520 perhaps) and then shortly before the events you list they go back to cath. Thue being able to yet again going prot with the events and reap the benefits from them. Now I understand.

I must admit it never crossed my mind to do this. Does not conversion mean a heavy stab hit? And this in the period in any game were stab hit are as most difficult. You have already exapanded quite a lot thus increasing stab costs while not yet gotten trade and thus economy going. Therefore it takes very long time for stab to recover.

I would never consider doing this. Did Tonio (SWE) or Ozzeh (ENG) do this in Finding Neverland?
 
well, the list misses the option like:

"fast sacking capitals for maps as the purpose of the war", usually happened in Tago region.

i like old RoE rule that "you can`t siege the capital until 4 years of war passed". I would edit it only like "if sieging of the capital progressed to dark yellow status and the war started less than 4 years ago, the siege should be abandon and all sieging troops should leave the capital and they are allowed to return there only at next month".
 
Daniel A said:
Aha, you suggest they go prot early on (around 1520 perhaps) and then shortly before the events you list they go back to cath. Thue being able to yet again going prot with the events and reap the benefits from them. Now I understand.

I must admit it never crossed my mind to do this. Does not conversion mean a heavy stab hit? And this in the period in any game were stab hit are as most difficult. You have already exapanded quite a lot thus increasing stab costs while not yet gotten trade and thus economy going. Therefore it takes very long time for stab to recover.

I would never consider doing this. Did Tonio (SWE) or Ozzeh (ENG) do this in Finding Neverland?
Click to expand...

I did in BF3 (and the 250 came in *very* handy, as Sweden)

..and yes, a heavy stabhit, hence why I don't see it as an exploit (and honestly, we don't need rules to protect people from stupidity, or do we :D )

EDIT: you only get the benefits of the event at that point, not of the going protestant, but it may still be worth it (essentially, trading 6 stab for 250 ducats and some cent or basetax)
 
Tonioz said:
well, the list misses the option like:

"fast sacking capitals for maps as the purpose of the war", usually happened in Tago region.

i like old RoE rule that "you can`t siege the capital until 4 years of war passed". I would edit it only like "if sieging of the capital progressed to dark yellow status and the war started less than 4 years ago, the siege should be abandon and all sieging troops should leave the capital and they are allowed to return there only at next month".
Click to expand...

I always had the opinion that is your own duty to protect your capital.

Nevertheless, the list does list as an exploit: declaring war to sack capitals, when map-trading is banned.
 
Last edited:
ForzaA said:
I did in BF3 (and the 250 came in *very* handy, as Sweden)

..and yes, a heavy stabhit, hence why I don't see it as an exploit (and honestly, we don't need rules to protect people from stupidity, or do we :D )

EDIT: you only get the benefits of the event at that point, not of the going protestant, but it may still be worth it (essentially, trading 6 stab for 250 ducats and some cent or basetax)
Click to expand...

And why would this not be an exploit?

If you decide to go protestant before the even fires, you ought to stay protestant.

If you want the benefits of the event, you can damn well wait till it fires.
 
ForzaA said:
I did in BF3 (and the 250 came in *very* handy, as Sweden)

..and yes, a heavy stabhit, hence why I don't see it as an exploit (and honestly, we don't need rules to protect people from stupidity, or do we :D )

EDIT: you only get the benefits of the event at that point, not of the going protestant, but it may still be worth it (essentially, trading 6 stab for 250 ducats and some cent or basetax)
Click to expand...

Actually I think for England it is a better tactic to wait for the event until you turn protestant. Stab is just such a huge problem for your traders...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back