• 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.

Doomdark

Chief Creative Officer
Paradox Staff
61 Badges
Apr 3, 2000
5.436
11.383
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Leviathan: Warships
  • Magicka
  • Majesty 2
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • March of the Eagles
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Rome Gold
  • Semper Fi
  • Sengoku
  • Ship Simulator Extremes
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • Supreme Ruler 2020
  • Starvoid
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • The Showdown Effect
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • War of the Roses
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Cities in Motion
  • Cities in Motion 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Dungeonland
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • For The Glory
  • For the Motherland
  • Gettysburg
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Impire
First off, I must say that the game I am playing today is incredibly improved compared to the old 1.00. Mainly, unit types and terrain effects on combat/attrition are now sensible and the AI is much tougher; both on the operational and strategic levels.

The latest patch brought about a dramatic increase in difficulty for expansionistic players. No longer is rapid expansion possible, but IMO there are some general balance issues left to address.

1) Every province taken, every annexation, every war declared, plunges your relations with all other nations by frightening amounts; and they never rise again! (except very slowly for friendly nations and unless you give them money). By the time things are finally looking up for you, all of your neighbors will start attacking you and won't let up until you are pulverized. This is unrealistic and it detracts from the overall fun.

I propose a radical redesign of the diplomatic relations model, where all relations slowly return to 0 over time (say, 4 points per year). For each diplomatic action the relations are modified depending on your basic friendliness with the other nations. Furthermore, I don't think you should be so greatly penalized for winning wars of self-defense. Lastly, on the 'normal' aggressiveness level, the AI should not react differently to human and other AI aggression.

2) Certain events occur too often, and others too seldom.

2a) Fewer manufactories gained/destroyed in fire. These events happen way too often. Saving money to build a manufactory is a major investment, and losing it in a random fire is murder.

2b) More explorers. Nations with no historical explorers are inevitably going to stall in their development due to lack of income. This is especially true after the 1.06 research balancing. Gaining random explorers should be a common event until sea tech 11 is reached. It should be dependent on the number of ports in the nation and the number of existing explorers.

2c) Conversion of heretics should be more common; certainly a lot more common than the opposite. It is to be assumed that a low level of government sanctioned conversion is always going on.

3) This is unconfirmed, and perhaps more of a bug than a balance issue, but Sweden never seems to get a COT in the Grand Campaign despite having one in later campaigns. This is worth looking into. Also, if Denmark does better than Sweden and Sweden does not have a COT, Denmark should get one. Lastly, on the subject of COTs, shouldn't the Holstein/Hamburg COT really be located in Mecklemburg/Lubeck instead?

/Doomie

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 22-01-2001).]
 
Hi Doomie! :)

A comment on #1: This is mainly the issue of the new 'badboy value'. Whereas it´s basically a good addition it has to be finetuned a bit, then everything will be o.k.
Another thing is the new 'nationalism revolt risk'. Because of it the CB provinces (with the little shields) are now of much more importance than before. They should be a little adjusted in the case of Austria to include all of Bohemia and Hungary (but without Serbia).
BTW: Especially playing Austria (and I mean: in the 'normal' run-of-the-mill way of conquering Bohemia and then peacefully annexing Hungary) is at the moment only recommendable to devoted masochists: You´ll get whipped mercilessly if You do any of this PLUS You have revolts everywhere. (Compare it to Turkey: THEY get CB shields all over the Balkans!)

Hartmann

P.S.: Have You visited the leaderthread lately (*hint, hint*) :)
 
Hmmm i have a question about these shields, i don't know if it's wrong or historical. The province TULA has no russian shield, at least until 1.05b.

------------------
Pour dieu et mon droit
 
Doomie - Is it possible to edit the AI files or whatever files it is that can change the diplomacy defaults?

I like your idea of relations returning to o when no events are transpiring over a period of time. That seems natural. Can a player actually go in and edit the relavent settings ina file or is that part of the game engine?

Hartmann - I agree. Austria should have CB nearly as widespread as Ottomans in the Balkans and certainly Hungary should be exclusively a CB for Austria and NOT Ottomans.

------------------
~ Salve ~

[This message has been edited by Savant (edited 22-01-2001).]
 
On the question of Hungary, historically speaking, Hungary enjoyed greater local autonomy under its Turkish masters, then it did under it Austrian ones, this did not change til the 'Maygar' gentry fell in love with Maria Theresa, which happened, in no small part, to her giving them more control.

------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon
 
Is it possible to edit the AI files or whatever files it is that can change the diplomacy defaults?

After a fashion, yes. You can edit the DiplomaticMatrix.csv to set the basic friendship between all the nations. Positive values will mean relations that increase over time. Negative decrease, of course.

/Doomie
 
Originally posted by GulFalco:
On the question of Hungary, historically speaking, Hungary enjoyed greater local autonomy under its Turkish masters, then it did under it Austrian ones, this did not change til the 'Maygar' gentry fell in love with Maria Theresa, which happened, in no small part, to her giving them more control.

Fully agreed. But I´m thinking more about historical gameplay here. The Turks get those CB shields so they can do their 'part' of history. The Austrians should be able to do 'their´s' also. In earlier versions (in case the player was not directly involved) we mostly had two outcomes in the Balkans: In the long run either the Turks succeeded in their conquest, or the Austrians succeeded in creating their K.u.K. empire. Now, as an unwanted side effect of the new features (which I highly appreciate in principle) the Austrians are thwarted a priori. I´d like to have this adjusted again. In my latest runs, the Balkans always became an utter 'swiss cheese' chaos in the end. The AI Austrians, not able to vassalise and annex Hungary, always went for Posen, Pommerania etc. When I chose them myself, I found that they are EXTREMELY difficult to play now, to say the least ...

Regards, Hartmann
 
Originally posted by Hartmann:
The AI Austrians, not able to vassalise and annex Hungary, always went for Posen, Pommerania etc. When I chose them myself, I found that they are EXTREMELY difficult to play now, to say the least ...

Regards, Hartmann

Hmmm thats right, i've never seen that austria was successful. It was allways conquered by Venice, the Turks or Boehmia (or how it is spelled in english)
Ahm by the way where is Lower Franconia?

------------------
Pour dieu et mon droit
 
Originally posted by GulFalco:
I agree, Austria should have the same advantages vis-a-vis Hungary, I just do not think it should come at the expense of Turkey.

But it´s not an 'Either/OR'! Turkey and Austria may BOTH receive those shields. This should settle the issue, right? :)

Hartmann

PS.: @Leprechaun: 'Lower Franconia' is 'Unterfranken', the most northwestern region of Bavaria with the local capital Würzburg. Don´t call anyone there a 'Bavarian', though! ;)
 
1. I think that both having COB over Hungary may be the best solution now that you mention that alternative. Both made significant inroads there and it was hotly contested for some 200 years so I would have to agree both country shields should be present.

2. So if the text files that control relations can be altered easily, isn't that a viable solution for folks who are put off by the poor recovery of relations? See, that might be another advantage to visiting these boards - getting the scoop on how these features can be tweaked to make for a more engaging game experience.

3. Is there a list of user-modifiable features and the files they reside in posted on the board somewhere? I couldn't find anything that detailed that. Are the CB shields among those features that can be changed?

------------------
~ Salve ~

[This message has been edited by Savant (edited 22-01-2001).]
 
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Hmmm thats right, i've never seen that austria was successful. It was allways conquered by Venice, the Turks or Boehmia (or how it is spelled in english)
Ahm by the way where is Lower Franconia?


Last game I played, with patch 1.07, Austria Rules over Bohemia, Bayern, Alsace, Wurttenberg, Hungary and some more bits and pieces. With their last war of quick expansion (against lorraine) they were attacked by an Alliance of France, Poland & company, quickly followed by the turkish alliance. They lost a couple of provinces and where 'calmer' later on.
 
IMO There is a serious game balance issue that needs to be adressed and that is the Colonial development and Colonial warfare.
The AI players do not react to the growth of a tremendous Colonial power, more it doesn´t actively pursue trade wars, The rich trading centers, specially in Asia should be fields of terrible competion and plenty of warfare.
Specially because of the role of Trade in Tech development! this is the obvious reason for the anoumalous tech growth of most human players playing colonial powers.

I think some modifications are in order:

1) Territories outside Europe should be considered under 'open hunting season', trade posts and colonies smaller than the '5000 pop. cities' should change hands easely without the use of regular diplomatic means. Any country that takes enemy colonies like this should incurr in a strong diplomatic penalty. This should stop the 'warcraft production rush' style of colonial games were everybody tries to build a huge amount colonies and unfortified cities when they are certain that no amount of warfare by an enemy nation will result in the loss of those undefended setlements. Just the costs of fortification and army maintenance will seriously affect colonial development.
Maybe a 'colonial gluton' factor could be used, it could be the result of the relation of the sum of the countries possessions outside Europe when compared with other European countries :)

Note that historically colonial warfare, specially in Asia was a very 'open activity'

2) to offset any absurd tech development the calculation of the investment needed to achieve a new tech level should be affected by the difference between the historical date when the tech was developed and the current game date: a exponential factor determined by date differences would be best - the bigger the difference the bigger the change to the total needed to invest; that way a reasonable advantage would allways be possible but tech development would never go tottaly out of hand (and would stop the ultra tech specialisation strategy and the absurd advantage of big trade monopolies)

One other change not related with this balance issue but also important IMO:
Governors impact in inflation.
The governors impact on inflation shouldn´t be a constant value: actually -1%.
IMO the governor-inflation relation should be on a total nr of provinces/ total nr of governors basis: lets consider that total desired inflation reduction produced by governors is 20% then if you have a 2 provinces kingdom if you promote 1 governor you get 10% inflation reduction.
They could also influence the inflation growth rate calculation, making it possible to take more money from the treasury without such a huge growth of inflation.
 
I would just _love_ to see the trade get more impact in the game. In the BG it is one of _the_ most important diplomatic issues, and sending one trader too many into a trade zone can result in a declaration of war!

It would be nice if the trade was a little bit more static, IE not as many traders available, and a more user-friendly way to oversee all the (available) CoT at once. preferably with a priority option, or a 'desired level' setting.

And it could be implemented as a possible CB if another nation takes over monopoly in a countries CoT.

And trade refusal versus a specific country/ denial of a certain CoT for defeated country, perhaps with time limit, or CB until lifted or both, perhaps costind different amounts of stars.

This would make it possible to play a trade nation who agressively attack any contenders but still not annexing the provinces of the loser, but rather fighting for economic dominance!

------------------
Arngrim
 
Of course these are all good suggestions. :) Such brain power ....

I agree that diplomatic relations should slowly improve over time, in particular for the most negative relations. This would solve the problem of so many nations at -200. It seems they already decline over time unless you actively continue to send gifts or arrange royal marriages or bring nations into your alliance. So I do not know that any additional decline toward 0 should be instituted. Is there any benefit to being a friend of a nation's friends or being an enemy of their enemy?

I am not sure that you should allow the taking of colonial provinces without a declaration of war. It is true there was some raiding, but weren't colonial wars (the full-out type) usually during times of war in Europe as well? Perhaps the burning of trading posts could be something allowed without a declaration of war (representing minor colonial struggles), but then giving the other nation a CB against you ... ?

It does seem possible to take COTs in colonies by warfare, thus gaining a tech advantage as time passes. Maybe the AI should consider COTs to be more valuable, thus defending them better?

Sending one too many traders can indeed cause a war, as each time you bump out another trader I think your relations with that nation take a hit.

[This message has been edited by Tom (edited 23-01-2001).]
 
I think that both Spain and especially Portugal shoulduse the treaty of Tordesillas for all it's worth. At least against France which mostly stays Catholic (I beleive I've read somewhere that the Treaty doesn't apply to Protestantic countries). That way if France as much as touches any half decent colonial sites Spain or Portugal depending on area should come running to the 'free' colonies, with their great amount of good conquistadors they should be able to capture anything France or any other naive Catholic nation places in the Americas or Africa/Asia. Especially since my own experiences from GCs is that France usually kicks Spains butt in Europe.

But the point I'm saying here is that Spain in the boardgame GC at least in the early period is DANGEROUS, you simply don't take them on lightly, but that is not the experience I've got with Spain from the GC. And in Portugal is usually too easy a target :(

Just my 2 ducats

Cobos

------------------
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the precipitate.
 
Originally posted by Savant:

2. So if the text files that control relations can be altered easily, isn't that a viable solution for folks who are put off by the poor recovery of relations? See, that might be another advantage to visiting these boards - getting the scoop on how these features can be tweaked to make for a more engaging game experience.

From the very beginning, I was toying with the idea of making an improved GC scenario. This would address the following matters:

a) missing countries like Ethopia would be added in exchange with countries which weren´t really there at the time (like Cyrenaica).
b) some countries (like the Moguls and the Mamelukes) would receive more provinces according to historical accuracy
b) CB shields and troop strenghts would be adjusted.
c) diplomatical relations would be adjusted (like I already proposed for the Khanates somewhere else)
d) some buildings would be adjusted, e.g. Venice gets the 'Arsenale' (famous wharf) while the wharf at Ragusa will be deleted etc.

The problem is, that at the moment I have no time. Also I lack knowledge about certain regions while having a fair knowledge about others. So maybe we should again start some sort of 'project' to accomplish this together?

Hartmann
 
From the very beginning, I was toying with the idea of making an improved GC scenario. This would address the following matters:

a) missing countries like Ethopia would be added in exchange with countries which weren´t really there at the time (like Cyrenaica).
b) some countries (like the Moguls and the Mamelukes) would receive more provinces according to historical accuracy
b) CB shields and troop strenghts would be adjusted.
c) diplomatical relations would be adjusted (like I already proposed for the Khanates somewhere else)
d) some buildings would be adjusted, e.g. Venice gets the 'Arsenale' (famous wharf) while the wharf at Ragusa will be deleted etc.

The problem is, that at the moment I have no time. Also I lack knowledge about certain regions while having a fair knowledge about others. So maybe we should again start some sort of 'project' to accomplish this together?

Hartmann


I'd be up for helping with the Mod Project. I think your ideas are great. For instance, I agree completely that the Ragusa wharf is out of place and should be located in Venice. The Venice Arsenale was the first real example of a mass production system using skilled labor and the object of foreign intelligence for several hundred years.

So, once I get a copy of the US version you can count me in for sure.

------------------
~ Salve ~
 
@savant: Great! So I will come back to that in due time!

Any others willing to help? :)

Hartmann

P.S.: AI files can be added/tweaked also. E.g. we could make the pacifist Moguls a bit more aggressive/expansionist in India etc.