Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Quick poll: Avoiding Spanish bankruptcy an exploit or not?

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.
Show only dev responses
unmerged(18425)

unmerged(18425)

Cyborg
Jul 24, 2003
10.309
0
Hi,

I am in the middle of deciding if avoiding the Spanish bankruptcy events by not owning the gold mines that trigger the event at the right time is an exploit or not.

I myself am of the opinion that Spain should, if she owns the gold mines for the majority of time, get the bankruptcy events.
If Spain should decide to not take the gold mines from start of the game, that should be fine. Owning the provinces, but giving them away right before the bankruptcy fires is not OK.

What do you think?
 
what's more- Spain usually gives away only the *minimum* to avoid the bankruptcies (So that one of the OR's is false) - and usually not a gold bar more..


Avoiding it like that, while not an exploit, I would certainly ban if I were to GM.
 
FAL said:
I am still curious why you think it should be allowed though, since there are a great deal of controversial things you want to forbid.

Please expand on it.
Click to expand...

Well Iam sure Daniel wants all good event removed too hey why only avoid bad once :rofl:.
 
FAL said:
I am still curious why you think it should be allowed though, since there are a great deal of controversial things you want to forbid.

Please expand on it.
Click to expand...

1. This is a game of skill
2. A vital part of that skill is knowing how the game works (another is to apply this knowledge in practice but that is besides the current topic)
3. To forbid people to use this knowledge means you are reducing the skill element in the game, making it more mechanic
4. If you forbid people to use the knowledge of how the game works in one situation, what says you cannot do it in another?

I will give an example of item 4.

Assume you play a nations and strive for centra 10, using every DP slider move to go centra. You have reached centra 8 and now 10 years have passed since you last moved it. You also know that within 1 year you will get a super-event giving you centra +2. Well, are you going to act upon the knowledge of this event and adapt your actions in-game after this? That is move another slider instead of the centra slider. The answer is that all of us would move another slider and not anyone of us would be ashamed, instead we would say to ourselves: good of you old buddy to have pre-knowedge of that event ;)

What is in kind the difference between your case and mine? There is a difference in degree for sure, the Spanish bankruptcy event is one of the worst in the whole game, I can only think of the Chinese CW events to be worse (there are probably a few others as well).
 
Last edited:
edit : its something thats alowed unles you got a rule forcing you to
besides you can avoid many bad events why should the spanish 1 be different ?
russia avoiding times of trouble = nobody will mension it
spain avoiding bancrupty = ohh its a exploit
 
Daniel A said:
1. This is a game of skill
2. A vital part of that skill is knowing how the game works (another is to apply this knowledge in practice but that is besides the current topic)
3. To forbid people to use this knowledge means you are reducing the skill element in the game, making it more mechanic
4. If you forbid people to use the knowledge of how the game works in one situation, what says you cannot do it in another?

I will give an example of item 4.

Assume you play a nations and strive for centra 10, using every DP slider move to go centra. You have reached centra 8 and now 10 years have passed since you last moved it. You also know that within 1 year you will get a super-vent giving you centra +2. Well, are you going to act upon the knowledge of this event and adapt your actions in-game after this? That is move another slider instead of the centra slider. The answer is that all of us would move another slider and not anyone of us would be ashamed, instead we would say to ourselves: good you pre-knowedge of that event old buddy ;)

What is in kind the difference between your case and mine? There is a difference in degree for sure, the Spanish bankruptcy event is one of the worst in the whole game, I can only think of the Chinese CW events to be worse (there are probably a few others as well).
Click to expand...

I agree with Daniel on this and I think he makes a good point here, if your going to use your knowledge on other events to your benefit, why should avoiding the Spanish bankrupt event be any different. Yes, it is gamey, but hey, its a game and we all want to do whats best for our country, dont we?

Are you also going to ban England from raking up 10% inflation just before their 10% deflation event? Get real.

If your going to ban this, then you have to go on and ban all the other things people do to avoid bad events or ensure good events.....never going to happen...
 
Last edited:
The equivalent of running up 10% inflation as England when a -10% inflation event is coming up is not colonising the gold provinces as Spain because you know there will be bankruptcy events, not holding all gold provinces bar the few that allow you to miss the events.

The bankruptcy events are there to penalise the player (Spain in case because it almost always is so, it really should go for an nation that holds those mines as Spain usually does bu as it seldomly happens it is a pretty moot point) that holds the goldmines for extended periods of time and gets much, much income and many benefits from it. They represent the drawbacks from such a gold based economy.

Sadly EU2, as is the case for most exploits, is somewhat deficient in reaching that effect and the triggers for those effects are rudimentary at best. At the moment the negative consequences fire for the person holding a few provinces at a certain point in time. The triggers aren't advanced enough to make the consequences trigger based on a nation having held lots of goldmines over time and having had a lot of income from goldmines.

We have to make do with what we have. But my point is that I think we can agree that these events are there to penalise the nation and act as a drawback to having lots of gold income over a longer period of time and not to penalise a nation that holds a few goldmines at a certain point in time. IF you can't even admit to that, this discussion is pretty useless. IF you really want to stand by the "These events are there to penalise Spain and Spain only in 1592 and 1621 because it holds a few province numbers.", be my guest but I won't take you seriously :D

(This rudimentariness also works badly in the other way where as a nation you can get hit by those events when you only recently captured those gold mines and thus haven't had an influx of gold into your economy for a long time already. This however almost never occurs so it's pretty much a moot point.)

The event is supposed to fire for a nation that has a big, steady influx of gold into its economy for a longer period of time. Having such an influx and not getting those events just is not how it is supposed to work. The exploit lies in the fact you abuse the rudimentary trigger to avoid consequences you should definitely be getting.
 
BiB said:
We have to make do with what we have. But my point is that I think we can agree that these events are there to penalise the nation and act as a drawback to having lots of gold income over a longer period of time and not to penalise a nation that holds a few goldmines at a certain point in time. IF you can't even admit to that, this discussion is pretty useless. IF you really want to stand by the "These events are there to penalise Spain and Spain only in 1592 and 1621 because it holds a few province numbers.", be my guest but I won't take you seriously :D.
Click to expand...

I agree with that.

And, BTW, IMHO knowing the triggers of some events is not 'skill'
 
What Daniel said (belive it or not :D )

If you forbidd to exploit one particular event then everything of this kind should be forbidden in order to make it fair.

Although, when i play Spain i take the gold inflation hit and the bankcrupsy events. But that's only because i'm greedy when playing Spain and dont want to share the precious gold :p

Spain is one of the few that can handle high inflation also.
But forbidd people to avoid certain events is too much. :)
 
Well, I wouln't allow it.

When you say : "If you forbid this act, all similar act (with lesser influence) should be also forbidden".

This sentence is complete bullshit imho. It's like, "since we allow thieving we should also allow murder, because we need to be consistent."

If the Bey's event was triggered by the posession of Alexandria, Smyrna and Trebizond : you would allow that those provinces could be edited to let's say England?
 
It's a big exploit, should be forbid to do it... in fact, this is inside the list of exploits that are not allowed in my games :) .... not that I specifically said to the fellas about it, but I rely on them as being a nice group of gents :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back