Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Anti-World Conquest events

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.
Originally posted by Belissarius
Also i dont think the logic holds for the military events. Attirion is already worked into the game. Armies swell when they are victorious not diminish. Your logic as to why is coherient BUT thats not how armies behave if history is a means to go by. Atrrition is always a problem in armies of the era, period, but this is factored into the game.
Click to expand...
There is no attrition in those events...the reduction in manpower and fortresses are justified as during periods of peace, espially long ones a nation will put less of its political money into the military and people will look for work elsewhere.
Originally posted by Belissarius
The buracratic events make sence but and this is a big BUT special events should be rewritten for big or colonial nations. As has been stated above. Hell just creating the historic Ottoman. russian and perhaps british Empires will result in these events. I'm not too keen on that.
Click to expand...
Just because they historically get big does not mean they didn't suffer these events.
 
I think these events are ready to be included in the EEP. There are a few historical cases where these events might occur, but I think it is reasonable to think that they might have happened anyway. The "Degredation of the Military" event makes sense for any large & peaceful power, for example. That happened to Britain in the 19th century, for example.
 
Originally posted by AlanC9
Denmark?
Click to expand...
Denmark often annexes a bunch of German minors in the beginning due to the Holstein alliance. Usually it gets cut down to size quickly, but I often see it annexing/reannexing German minors, which makes its BB explode.
 
Originally posted by Phillip V
I think with good suggestions and enough petitioning, we could convince Paradox to make some changes. It's not like they can't do that anymore.
Click to expand...

Paradox is putting almost all of it's effort these days into Hearts of Iron, and after that, Crusader Kings. That's the reason why no new features will be introduced into EU2.
 
i think some of these events are far too harsh ; i mean -10 stability ????? that is ridiculous, at its worst the french revolution gives only -7. As someone said before, events are meant to make the game fun, and most of these events would, but a few of them need to be toned down a lot IHMO
 
Well if the stability hit is only -3, I'd hope that these events are happening every 10 years or more often. Otherwise they don't accomplish anything. I don't see why -10 stabilty isn't fun, but I guess that's a matter of taste.

I definitely see Danish BB in the 20's, but I can't remember them reaching 35. Then French do every now and again, but they then usually get cut down due to BB war declarations. This would intensify that, but I don't have a problem with that. The Timurids is a good point. It might be worth cutting down their BB, or exempting them from these events, as they will hit 35 if they do well.
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I definitely see Danish BB in the 20's, but I can't remember them reaching 35. Then French do every now and again, but they then usually get cut down due to BB war declarations. This would intensify that, but I don't have a problem with that. The Timurids is a good point. It might be worth cutting down their BB, or exempting them from these events, as they will hit 35 if they do well.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure Denmark does it 1.05 anymore, come to think of it. I were thinking of a number of memorable games, where the AI Denmark was struck by the 'forgot to send armies to kill the rebels' problem which would typically lose them Mecklemburg. As soon as Mecklemburg proclaimed its independence, the overwhelming Danish army (that had conveniently forgotten to combat rebels) would march in an reannex. Repeated a few times and coupled with the Danish offensive acquisitions from the Holstein alliance punched Denmark to 40 or 50 BB several times.

And it would be a shame to hamstring the Timurids cum Mughals. They have problems enough forming at all already.
 
Lots of people are saying that big nations like Spain or Russia would get these events alot but didnt the event say you need # BB and # province so really Russia would not get thes events for colonizing. Same with any other country, the events just make you watch your BB alot more if you are a big country.
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Well if the stability hit is only -3, I'd hope that these events are happening every 10 years or more often. Otherwise they don't accomplish anything. I don't see why -10 stabilty isn't fun, but I guess that's a matter of taste.
Click to expand...

Of course it is a matter of taste, but as Holmesy says the stability hit is worse than any other event in the game. And your event isn't even historical. I wouldn't have a problem accepting the -10 stability, +25 inflation, -3000 ducat, if it where in specific historical events. But for random events that are just meant to add flavor it is by far over the top. I know the penalty have to be harsh to stop an empire of this size, but is that the idea? I think it is cool, to include random events that makes it more difficult for the big & bad empires, but the events should add flavor they shouldn't be a threat to empire by them selves. I can easily see a -3 stability hit being a problem if it comes at the wrong time. I don't see the need for a -10 stability hit.

You have to consider the fact that because you find a -10 stab hit funny, it doesn't mean everyone else does. And as the events are properly going to be included in the EPP, they should be made acceptable to all.
 
Originally posted by Sute]{h


Of course it is a matter of taste, but as Holmesy says the stability hit is worse than any other event in the game. And your event isn't even historical. I wouldn't have a problem accepting the -10 stability, +25 inflation, -3000 ducat, if it where in specific historical events. But for random events that are just meant to add flavor it is by far over the top. I know the penalty have to be harsh to stop an empire of this size, but is that the idea? I think it is cool, to include random events that makes it more difficult for the big & bad empires, but the events should add flavor they shouldn't be a threat to empire by them selves. I can easily see a -3 stability hit being a problem if it comes at the wrong time. I don't see the need for a -10 stability hit.

You have to consider the fact that because you find a -10 stab hit funny, it doesn't mean everyone else does. And as the events are properly going to be included in the EPP, they should be made acceptable to all.
Click to expand...

There are events i've seen that hit for -12 are -10 so it isn't unknown...at the very most i'd drop it would be -6...to make sure the player hits -3...because that's the idea.
 
Originally posted by Sute]{h

You have to consider the fact that because you find a -10 stab hit funny, it doesn't mean everyone else does. And as the events are properly going to be included in the EPP, they should be made acceptable to all.
Click to expand...

I could just as well argue that just because you find -3 acceptable it doesn't mean that everybody else does. Which isn't helpful at all. If the stability is at -3, it's not a whole lot worse than many events that are already out there, so this event should be happening quite frequently. I think this satisfies us both, rather than an infrequent event that is catastrophic it should be a frequent event that is just very painful.
 
As long as the -3 event happens often, it's enough of a penalty.

The Timurids: what if we reduce the severity of their existing events, and just let these events hit them too? I'd actually like to see them benefit a bit overall, since they get stomped just a bit too much as it is.
 
actually, i have a question, why do ppl bother go over -6 if the lowest stability is -3 anyway??

but i tend to agree random events shouldnt be too severe. the -10 stability and sliding DP by 2 or 3 is too much for a hypothetical situations that may or may not happen a lot to certain countries in a game. and i dont see a justification for ensuring the player hits at -3 stability, if all that was happening is the use of some force make nobles comply with orders. It shouldnt be much more servere than say the multiple culture/religion turmoil that is also proposed. sliding DP by 2 is too much bcos it's just too hard to imagine with the event occurring a few times the bar would go from one extreme to the other.

i agree -3 is enough a penalty if it happens frequent enough. what do u adjust the frequency with anyway??
 
Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
actually, i have a question, why do ppl bother go over -6 if the lowest stability is -3 anyway??
Click to expand...
Because extra stab hits cause revolt checks, and some people think that plunging you from stab +3 to -3 and then forcing four extra revolt checks for all your provinces is a reasonable effect for a randomly occurring event. :D

I tend to disagree.


but i tend to agree random events shouldnt be too severe. the -10 stability and sliding DP by 2 or 3 is too much for a hypothetical situations that may or may not happen a lot to certain countries in a game. and i dont see a justification for ensuring the player hits at -3 stability, if all that was happening is the use of some force make nobles comply with orders. It shouldnt be much more servere than say the multiple culture/religion turmoil that is also proposed. sliding DP by 2 is too much bcos it's just too hard to imagine with the event occurring a few times the bar would go from one extreme to the other.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree. One of the events proposed sounds like a variant of a Political Crisis, but have effects that are worse than The Disintegration of the Timurid Empire.


i agree -3 is enough a penalty if it happens frequent enough. what do u adjust the frequency with anyway??
Click to expand...
The only way to adjust the frequency is to insert an event several times in the randomevents file, since each event has the same chance of firing (given its conditions are met)
 
So your suggesting that the event text needs work because the current text doesn't really justify the effects? Something that sounds more like a civil war or the disintigration events?

I agree about the DP sliders. Certainly if the events are happening every 10 years (which I'd like) they would drive settings more than historical events or player intervention which doesn't make sense. In fact I don't see why the DP moves are needed for these event, allowing choice allows further player manipulation of sliders (getting to 0 centralization more quickly for instance) which is a nice bonus for these events. I'd suggest that the events just leave the sliders alone.
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
So your suggesting that the event text needs work because the current text doesn't really justify the effects? Something that sounds more like a civil war or the disintigration events?
Click to expand...
Actually, I'd argue for making the events individually milder but more numerous. In an ideal world events of this magnitude might have been headed off before they came to such a crisis, but with the event engine that isn't possible for random events. Which means that an event capable of shattering your empire will come out of the blue (as they are currently written), at the whim of random chance.

After all, there already is the possibility of civil war in the game and it is more likely to come about when things are going bad for you and stab is low. If you compound bad decisions and/or happen to be very unlucky, you'll be struck by civil war or at the least rebellions. But it is something you as a player can try to prevent by maintaing a stable homogenous society. I can't think of any empires that were regulary struck by civil wars or destabilising events of such a magnitude (if you can imagine such), except during brief periods of very intense competition. Usually they have featured small-scale insurgencies and local revolts, that, while bad enough for those directly involved, didn't treaten the empire as a whole unless coupled with other destabilising events.

I'd like the colossus to face more and diverse challenges, rather than a few backbreakers. Events similar to the Timurid Disintegration should, I believe, be the exception rather than the rule, and certainly not included as a random event occurring as often as the birth of an heir to the throne ;)

And that, of course, is my real beef with the suggested events. They don't seem intended to challenge the player but rather to punish him for succesfully expanding. (Ok, I guess the title should have given me a clue, come to think of it :D)

And as I've stated before, using longlasting revolt risks (500 months anyone? Or even a mere 240) in a random event is a sick, sick, idea, given the stacking of revolt risks ingame. There is a reason most random events affecting revolt risks were changed to stab hits in 1.05.
 
You're absolutely right about the stack up issue. If the effect of these things depends on whether they stack up or not the whole system becomes pretty flakey. However, what you're suggesting almost sounds like a whole different event set for those with high BB and provincesize. Aside from the work involved in creating such it would set aside the entire random event system as it presently stands, simply because the only way to get the required effects is to have these 'annoyance' events come off almost all the time. I'd still prefer something that is 'Very painful' rather than 'annoying'. I'd love it if we could (say) quintuple the chance of a civil war under these conditions, but that isn't possible.

edit: If the stability hits are small, and the revolt risks short in duration, how can these events be made challenging/interesting?
Possibly
-Forced revolts. Lots of them. Still they will pop up all over the empire, and not in one part of it which would make more sense
-Forced independence granting. Obviously this is totally hit or miss as to whether the specified tag could be released, and could end up where either no-one is released, or 20 countries are all at once.
-Forced Bankruptcy: OK it's very harsh, but it's workable.
-Massive demobilzation of the army. Still too flakey for me, could kill one country and be just a small road bump for another. If only we could remove (say) 60% of all armed forces!
-Forced Cession of provinces toi other countries. Unlikely to work at all.
Any other ideas?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
You're absolutely right about the stack up issue. If the effect of these things depends on whether they stack up or not the whole system becomes pretty flakey. However, what you're suggesting almost sounds like a whole different event set for those with high BB and provincesize. Aside from the work involved in creating such it would set aside the entire random event system as it presently stands, simply because the only way to get the required effects is to have these 'annoyance' events come off almost all the time.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The annoyance revolts are automatically spawned when you are at low stab, unless you have a very homogenous empire. One could add a local uprising event causing -1 stab and 16-20 total revolts in stacks of several revolts in the same province. Not as good as hitting adjacent provinces with revolters at the same time, but that cannot be scripted in a random event.

And thus I stand revealed. I've tentatively begun working on a superpower event set based on Korath's scaled events, with the intent to make it more interesting when you reach a large size, and somewhat more challenging too. I have the firm belief that you don't need ultra-violent events to make things harder, increasing the frequency of events with some negative effects will do (stab losses are always nasty for superpowers) - sometimes coupled with beneficial results. I'm just scanning these threads on superpowers to get good ideas, not to get events that attempt to break a player who dares to acquire an unhistoric size :)


I'd still prefer something that is 'Very painful' rather than 'annoying'. I'd love it if we could (say) quintuple the chance of a civil war under these conditions, but that isn't possible.
Click to expand...
I prefer annoying to irrelevant (which is what most of the events are for superpowers - unless they deal with stab, and -3 stab is nasty enough what with the extra rebellions) and very painful to annoying. However, I prefer challenging to very painful.
 
These events are suppose to stop unhistorical superpowers that the engine can't handle, not annoy them like a bug-bite.
Click to expand...

One question, how do you decide who is supposing to be superpower? Historical? What if France never centralize or unsuccessfully with it as Frederick Barbassoa of Germany. In fact, HRE was the superpower in the day before EU. So, France could have never unied, and HRE being united. Anyway, all of the powers have those painful event, it is the fact of life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back