-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
Gentlemen,
as you will know, our GM is never on ICQ
p) and lazy p) too.
Therefore, I present my case to you [well, actually, he told me to do so, but anyway...]
As you will remember, I started out as a sub in this game, playing Burgundy, that most of you expected to go the way of the Dodo.
However, after a victorious war against France (and the subsequent vasal chaos) it seemed that Burgundy had a future ahead of her, and I could play as a perm.
However, in light of Balance, Hyperteching, Gangbanging and whatever other fancy words usually used to cover one's vile acts or get others to fight a third party, And in light of the future of my country, I requested an edit to become Holland (losing French culture in the process) and then gradually retreat from France to give her room to take her place as a balance to (mainly) the Habsburgs.
In his infinite (well, you could argue about that one ) wisdom, our GM decided to make me Flandern instead (probably some nationalist sentiment ) depriving me of one of the two reasons to request a tagchange (the first being historical leaders).
So the question is, do you think I should get some/all of the Dutch events, or something else to "balance"(edits, fantasy events) against other countries' (generally) positive events? [I know there are some countries that have some nasty events, but the general trend on historicals IS positive]
as you will know, our GM is never on ICQ
p) and lazy p) too.Therefore, I present my case to you
[well, actually, he told me to do so, but anyway...]As you will remember, I started out as a sub in this game, playing Burgundy, that most of you expected to go the way of the Dodo.
However, after a victorious war against France (and the subsequent vasal chaos) it seemed that Burgundy had a future ahead of her, and I could play as a perm.
However, in light of Balance, Hyperteching, Gangbanging and whatever other fancy words usually used to cover one's vile acts or get others to fight a third party, And in light of the future of my country, I requested an edit to become Holland (losing French culture in the process) and then gradually retreat from France to give her room to take her place as a balance to (mainly) the Habsburgs.
In his infinite (well, you could argue about that one
) wisdom, our GM decided to make me Flandern instead (probably some nationalist sentiment ) depriving me of one of the two reasons to request a tagchange (the first being historical leaders).So the question is, do you think I should get some/all of the Dutch events, or something else to "balance"(edits, fantasy events) against other countries' (generally) positive events? [I know there are some countries that have some nasty events, but the general trend on historicals IS positive]
DSYoungEsq said:Then why are we having the post in the thread?
because that WAS his answer....
You want a strong France (judging from comments and actions in game, f.ex. concerning Britanny) or atleast suggest you do.
Therefore, I requested to become The NETHERLANDS. And I started a gradual retreat from France (abandoning BRI when I could've slaughtered those sneaky Englishmen, LOSING French culture)
Several of you have, if not directly said so, SUGGESTED that Flandern should be reduced to only the lowlands (which is, in fact, probably necessary for France to have ANY chance at balancing Tonio's bigass Spain) - losing me 2 of the 3 "advantages" for Burgundy (not to mention I have crap DP's for "Holland")
Therefore, I requested to become The NETHERLANDS. And I started a gradual retreat from France (abandoning BRI when I could've slaughtered those sneaky Englishmen, LOSING French culture)
Several of you have, if not directly said so, SUGGESTED that Flandern should be reduced to only the lowlands (which is, in fact, probably necessary for France to have ANY chance at balancing Tonio's bigass Spain) - losing me 2 of the 3 "advantages" for Burgundy (not to mention I have crap DP's for "Holland")
yes.. it really is fun to country hop for a century...juv95hrn said:
I did not necessarily want to be Holland, HOWEVER it is the most obvious choice for an interesting country in the region.
no, if you want to give Andalusia to Portugal you shall have to live with the lossTonioz said:
{actually, I'm fine with it}
BUT, you ARE evil, and way too big.
should be home in time, but I might just be a tad late- in which case I hope my brother can sub a bit.
And I'm assuming I'll remain Flandern with no events.. atleast leaves me an excuse when I end dead last
And I'm assuming I'll remain Flandern with no events.. atleast leaves me an excuse when I end dead last
Norrefeldt said:
I must say I find this to be at odds with the maptrading rules. This is a FAR more significant edit than editing 10 seazones or somesuch. [and very close to, if not more changing the balance than making BUR HOL]
IMNSHO- for core editing ALL parties influenced (others having the core, owning the prov. Arguably people bordering the prov, having the culture etc.) should agree.
And since the AI can't agree to it, it should not be possible to gain cores on AI provinces this way. [if you want it, take it then claim the core]
And since the AI can't agree to it, it should not be possible to gain cores on AI provinces this way. [if you want it, take it then claim the core]
Adam Breit said:
Indeed, HOWEVER, in discussions with me (regarding me being edited to HOL, then FLA..) where I and Barnius had agreed to move FRA's core on Calais to BUR/FLA/HOL you DID NOT edit it, because Juv opposed it.
I find it perfectly reasonable for Juv to oppose it, HOWEVER, I think that, since Genoa CAN'T oppose it (being AI and all that) there shouldn't have been edits to cores that directly affect her.
Adam Breit said:Nonono, I didn't do that one because you wanted one, just like that, not getting it from France ...
ehm, actually, no, it would be a transfer of a French core to Flandern..
(I MAY not have said that 100% clear, though)
@[1]: no, and that is EXACTLY what we (I) want in.Tonioz said:
it is an exploit/exploitish, and we are discussing it much like we were discussing the vasal rule; to IMPROVE it.
@[2]: well, perhaps that is because 1) it could (and does?) affect cores on our countries too 2) we have an interest in these AI countries?
@[3]: what purpose does it serve to constantly name them all, when the discussion can be held for one?
@[4]: I cannot check now, but IIRC, when FRA takes over Provence's claims that either triggers a response event, OR directly decreases relations with SPA. While Spain does NOT (necessarily) even have the provinces affected.
Therefore, I propose that, if a Core is TRADED (or claimed) All parties affected[leaves open the definition of affected, ofcourse] should have a say in how to respond. And because the AI is rather weak in acting to these sort of events (and in general, but thats a different point) and it is VERY easy to exploit the AI as is, we shouldn't make it easier. Ie. a deal should not be possible if the AI is affected.
------
rule change proposal:
Cores can be demanded/negotiated in a treaty.
These claims should "trigger" a response from all countries affected, they can either 1) oppose the claim [getting TCB {on the receiver and the giver} and/or PCB] 2) Ignore the claim [nothing happens] or 3) accept the claim [ceding the land if they have it, lose their core, that sort of thing] {see French claims in Italy, Chambers of Reunion for an idea, I guess}
"affected countries" proposed definition:
- countries that have a core on the province(s).
- countries that own the province(s).
- countries that have the culture.
and (perhaps) a lesser response for countries allied to the claimant or the affected countries.
Additional (minor) rule: CB's on provinces owned by the AI cannot be traded {AI is easy enough to beat already, no need to make it even easier}
Or for a simple (yet reasonably effective) rule:
cores can ONLY be traded for provinces owned by one of the trading parties.
-----
Let us assume a situation where:
country A has 10 provinces, cores on those provinces.
Country B has one province, and cores on this province and all of country A's.
Country C has 20 provinces, and cores on her own provinces.
at this point, country A is perfectly ok with country B having cores on her land- she can't do anything with them anyway.
With the current rules, between sessions, country A could suddenly be faced with country C claiming all of her land- WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING until country C jumps in to take them.
patoche34 said:
?
it's a known bug...
I assume, though, that that explorer thing is not implemented?
the treaty has been ratified by vote in the Staten Generaal.Barnius said:
Last edited:
juv95hrn said:
I suspect Attila had a (significant) hand in that...
but yeah, this is not going the right way....
-----
and my monarch sucks, too
900 stabcost, and It costs 10+ years to try a conversion, with a chance of 30 percent in my own culture provs
I managed to lose a third of my income in such a short session, yay me...
these years will go down in Flandrian history as the years of religious instability..
Norrefeldt said:
does a 2/2/2 monarch count as lunacy?
[I'm betting the answer will be no, any takers?
]
While burgundy did suffer, it was only marginal.
The alliance was broken, which we might have been able to organise better in light of alliance leadership. (I think Genoa leads the alliance now )
And I did suffer a marginal (-1) stabhit (which ofcourse pales in comparison to the stabhit from going reformed- but it did have a minor effect)
As a minor change, could FRA be made alliance leader of the alliance she has with Genoa?
...that is all, I think
The alliance was broken, which we might have been able to organise better in light of alliance leadership. (I think Genoa leads the alliance now
)And I did suffer a marginal (-1) stabhit (which ofcourse pales in comparison to the stabhit from going reformed- but it did have a minor effect)
As a minor change, could FRA be made alliance leader of the alliance she has with Genoa?
...that is all, I think