Ampoliros said:
i rest my case tbh clearly full central is overpowert and should be banned
-
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.
i rest my case tbh clearly full central is overpowert and should be banned
It just came to my mind a better way of fixing the trade value of cots without messing around with eu2 files and making game version diferent.
Just substitute a lot of province goods with grain or some low trade value good. Of course such will take a couple of hours to do... And might lower a lot production incomes in certain provinces. But might be ok if you do it in certain areas, like india-china since these are rarely taken over by humans.
Just substitute a lot of province goods with grain or some low trade value good. Of course such will take a couple of hours to do... And might lower a lot production incomes in certain provinces. But might be ok if you do it in certain areas, like india-china since these are rarely taken over by humans.
The vassal rule seems reasonable.
The TE issue is going to be much more difficult. I'm not so sure how a rule requiring TA with a set number of AI nations is going to work. I would imagine it would only add to the tedium of rule oversight, constantly making sure everyone has the correct number of TAs according to the year and number of COTs owned. Of course it may not be as big of a deal as I perceive it.
This does seem like a pretty good idea, but what are the determining factors that decide what provinces will be altered? Only in major COT areas like India and China as you say? Would this be applied in European provinces? Americas?
The TE issue is going to be much more difficult. I'm not so sure how a rule requiring TA with a set number of AI nations is going to work. I would imagine it would only add to the tedium of rule oversight, constantly making sure everyone has the correct number of TAs according to the year and number of COTs owned. Of course it may not be as big of a deal as I perceive it.
This does seem like a pretty good idea, but what are the determining factors that decide what provinces will be altered? Only in major COT areas like India and China as you say? Would this be applied in European provinces? Americas?
National_Cause said:
Well Asian COTs are what make the bulk of everyone's tremendous wealth. Americas too. Europe is imo actually fine as it is. But Indian COTs usually reach about 800d each.
Americas are also a lot rich due to the bloody amount of sugar provinces there exist. If you convert them to fish (fish is better since grain allows bigger armies), the amount of cash from trade will be reduced tremendously.
If i were to make such a change to a map, i would change remote and poor-ish provinces that most people rarely bother with. Like Tibet, Vietname, etc. They are wrong culture, wrong religion and very poor-ish and rarely does anyone conquer them.
Spices-Sugar-Chinaware are what make the trade value of COTs go nuts.
admiral drake said:
That's fine, the extra TE from monopolies constitutes part of the total figure we're trying to curb. If this is enough to cancel out the gain from monopolies altogether, I think that's pretty good. It certainly is something.
Refineries get pretty expensive with the more you build. Sure, I've got 26 in that game, but do you have any idea how much I spent placing them? The last ten I built probably haven't paid for themselves yet, they were like 5-6kD a piece. It was more about pimping it out for the stats page than making a good investment.
The tech idea is interesting, that much I'll say. It seems like it would be a little bit too controlling though.
National_Cause said:
Yes, as one of the people who'd have to keep an eye on that, I definitely agree about keeping it simple.
If I were playing then I would agree on the infra>=trade tech rule to restrict trade as it's the easiest to remember and enforce. Also perhaps a ban on building more than x number of refineries. The TA rules sound too complicated and revising the trade values in the scenario too time consuming and also affecting the game itself making it less easy to get subs for the game.
BurningEGO said:
Interesting. A cool idea, imo, I like it a lot. Thanks Ego.
Would this suffice to lower the value of asian and american CoTs though?
(If not we could always reduce the number of Chinaware and Spiceprovinces - there are far too many of those anyway. Historicaly Spice was a very rare commodity, the really groovy stuff being limited to the Mollucas)
And would it realisticaly be moddable?
Also we could complement this by reducing the ammount of sugarcane provinces (albeit not by much as most areas in the game were sugarcane areas historicaly - the Carribean especialy must remain a sugarcane hotspot, imo.
)
Changing tradegoods to fish does seem like far the best idea, won't affect MP either.
I also vote in favor of the no TA proposal.
I also vote in favor of the no TA proposal.
Yeah if you change enough goods. Sugar needs to be terribly worked on though since it exists in exorbitant quantities and they usually contribute around 20d to COTs early on (and their price will continually increase as you build more manus, etc).
COTs disappear so easily in WATK, can we do something against that?
about the +1 inflation per 3gold mines rule, are you serious, gentleman? because i won't play with such a rule, I already have 2 bankrupts...
about the +1 inflation per 3gold mines rule, are you serious, gentleman? because i won't play with such a rule, I already have 2 bankrupts...
Ulschmidt said:
This rule takes place instead of the spanish bankruptcy events, which will be slept.
It was created to allow for a more fair and balanced setting where everyone going for gold was punished accordingly, instead of just Spain.
Now if you have a problem with that don't go for gold - it's that simple.
bluelotus said:It didn't really bother you while you were in Austria.
conquer by conquer, one ends having what he wants, or at least a medium term of what he wants.
my proposal is to add inflation to Spain for this concept in a particular way: 1 point per 5 gold mines. I'm going to have gold inflation anyway.
sorry for the pressure, gentlemen. I was GM. My sympathy to Ampoliros for such a fate.
Ulschmidt said:
There won't be any exceptions to the rule. So Spain like everyone else will get 1 % inflation for every 3 gold provinces it controls.
Ampoliros said:
No bankruptcy? great! I'll be able to build manufactories before 1600 then.
However, playing with events, scenarios or mods will show the imbalances. WATK is full of imperfections.
bluelotus said:It didn't really bother you while you were in Austria.
btw, who are you?