Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

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.
Mr.Bigglesworth

Mr.Bigglesworth

Major
43 Badges
Dec 23, 2002
567
0
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
We were talking about exploits in another thread, and I wanted your opinion on this: Should countries not at war be able to supply the overseas troops of another country at war? i.e. Germany lands in USA, nuetral Italy supplies them. There would be no way to blockade the supplies coming in. In my opinion, that is a major exploit, what do you think?
 
Nah, that was common, look at the example of the USA supplying countries prior to entering the war.

Everyone does it and it effects everyone the same so it isn't a big deal. How about England giving rubber to a neutral Poland? A neutral China? Two of my favorite tactics.
 
I was thinking about this issue, sorta. Mine was the "spy ships" of a neutral tracking naval movements.

I'm going to agree with tank_buster on this one. Thinking back to WWI and the Lucitania incident (for example) - the german actions almost brought the US into the war..

hmm

What about a modification allowing attacks on neutral shipping but with a WE increase for the effected neutral?

i.e. on the diplomatic screen you can select "sink this country's convoys"

could that be programmed easily?
 
I like it

So it seems we are following each other around the booards to day Der. . .

I like the idea of being able to attack neutral shipping, this is obviously a huge strat for the allies. The US player, with little to do busies himself by sailing the seven seas with their large navy and limitless oil supply giving crutial intel on axis movements around the globe.

We haven't even discussed shipping supplies. The US (who can afford it) can ship supplies to England thus giving them effectivley another 25-35 ICs depending on their troop levels. Not an exploit, but definately gamey.
 
The US (who can afford it) can ship supplies to England thus giving them effectivley another 25-35 ICs depending on their troop levels.
Click to expand...

Amazes me more people don't do that :)
 
Originally posted by tank_buster
Nah, that was common, look at the example of the USA supplying countries prior to entering the war.

Everyone does it and it effects everyone the same so it isn't a big deal. How about England giving rubber to a neutral Poland? A neutral China? Two of my favorite tactics.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point of my post. I don't have any problems with shipping resources or supplies to another country, I think that's fine. But I do have a problem with countries shipping supplies to troops that are overseas.

For example, say Germany lands in Scapa Flow, and UK moves his navy to blockade the Scottish coast to keep the Germans from being supplied, using the main advantage of the UK, which is the navy. However, the German troops in Scotland get supplies from a convoy from a still neutral Japan. UK has no chance to sink these convoy ships, and therefore cannot starve the Germans even though they have naval dominance.

I consider that an exploit.
 
But I do have a problem with countries shipping supplies to troops that are overseas.
Click to expand...

should be banned. 100% concur. I did miss your point.
 
Originally posted by Mr.Bigglesworth
We were talking about exploits in another thread, and I wanted your opinion on this: Should countries not at war be able to supply the overseas troops of another country at war? i.e. Germany lands in USA, nuetral Italy supplies them. There would be no way to blockade the supplies coming in. In my opinion, that is a major exploit, what do you think?
Click to expand...
Well, its case by case. The one you mention is clearly exploit, because in real life it couldn't hapenn.

Still, i think USA supplying China wouldn't be-since Japan can Dow if she wants, and USA can't Dow Italy.
 
Originally posted by Diefledermas
I was thinking about this issue, sorta. Mine was the "spy ships" of a neutral tracking naval movements.

I'm going to agree with tank_buster on this one. Thinking back to WWI and the Lucitania incident (for example) - the german actions almost brought the US into the war..

hmm

What about a modification allowing attacks on neutral shipping but with a WE increase for the effected neutral?

i.e. on the diplomatic screen you can select "sink this country's convoys"
Click to expand...
WE increase wouldn't solve it, as USA still would have to Dow neutral Italy, getting unrealistic 40% dissent.
 
Re: I like it

Originally posted by tank_buster
So it seems we are following each other around the booards to day Der. . .

I like the idea of being able to attack neutral shipping, this is obviously a huge strat for the allies. The US player, with little to do busies himself by sailing the seven seas with their large navy and limitless oil supply giving crutial intel on axis movements around the globe.

We haven't even discussed shipping supplies. The US (who can afford it) can ship supplies to England thus giving them effectivley another 25-35 ICs depending on their troop levels. Not an exploit, but definately gamey.
Click to expand...
Thats not gamey, thats lead-lease :)
 
Originally posted by Diefledermas
should be banned. 100% concur. I did miss your point.
Click to expand...
Easy to implement house rule-only ship resources/supplies to port connected to capital of the receipent, though even this has some drawbacks.
 
re: Maur's comments on neutral shipping

Hey Maur,

Let me clarify,

I don't mean attacking neutral "ships", I mean attacking neutral convoys (i.e. shipping).

The attacking nation would manually choose to attack (or stop attacking) neutral shipping in the diplomatic options screen. The attacker would have to interdict convoy routes (i.e. just like normal).

The war entry "increase" could be a one shot but I think a more realistic and effective method would be to have WE go up on a per diem or per ship sunk basis (.1% or something like that) which could prompt a cessation of neutral shipping attacks, etc...

What do you think Maur?
 
Oh,

Sorry I hijacked your post Big.
 
Ah, that way... well, i see one problem, if its just attack neutral/don't attatck neutral shipping, you could very easily end sinking UK, French or Japanese convoys at peace, while you only wanted to kill those Italian ships supplying German beachhead....
 
Ah, that way... well, i see one problem, if its just attack neutral/don't attatck neutral shipping, you could very easily end sinking UK, French or Japanese convoys at peace, while you only wanted to kill those Italian ships supplying German beachhead....
Click to expand...

That's why I was thinking of it as a selection in the Dip screen. You wouldn't select "neutral shipping" really - you would select "attack this country's convoys" in the Dip screen (on a country by country basis)
 
Originally posted by Diefledermas
That's why I was thinking of it as a selection in the Dip screen. You wouldn't select "neutral shipping" really - you would select "attack this country's convoys" in the Dip screen (on a country by country basis)
Click to expand...
That would work, although, what is going to stop you from attacking Italian convoys to Ethiopia in 1936 of British from Singaport in the same year?
 
That would work, although, what is going to stop you from attacking Italian convoys to Ethiopia in 1936 of British from Singaport in the same year?
Click to expand...

Damn, good point - wasn't thinking about the democracies. How about some kind of dissent hit? (say 1% for fascists, 3% for communists, and 10% for democracies) And the US isolationist factor would ban them from doing it until they joined the war.
 
Oops been away from this post a while. . .

I also missed the original point, I totally agree with not allowing neutrals to supply overseas armies of a beligerant nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back