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
DSYoungEsq said:
Nonsense. The trigger is quite easily avoided. All one has to do is not own certain provinces at two specific times. Anyone who has read the event's triggers can accomplish it even in SP, if they want.
Click to expand...

Well, avoiding the event needs a careful read of event's triggers. The whole OR setting was not meant to make easy to avoid. Compare to any other event that you can avoid, those got triggers way more easier.

The thing is with the current engine is impossible to make triggers that fullfill the intention of the event. So their avoidance is simply finding a loophole in the engine.
 
Arco,

Not at all.

Set an event to fire (perhaps even with the New Reconquista) when Spain has acquired the Mexican gold and another when it has acquired the Incan. The first wakes State Bankruptcy IA and IB (that assumes only the Mexican gold has been taken) and the second wakes State Bankruptcy IIA and IIB. That takes into account all the things folks want taken into account while making it impossible to avoid if you take the mines.

So there you are. And that's a HoG solution, inelegant and probably vastly inferior to what many others could come up with.

Rezag,

I think DSY's point was not that everybody reads the event file in advance so it'd be suicide for him not to. I think his point is that so many (myself included) have read the files for mods, scenarios, etc., and experienced in the course of playing the game hundreds of times, that you can't have an even playing field if you don't.

Novices, or those who've rarely/never played a particular country, are already at a significant disadvantage against more veteran players. It's foolish to expect them not to read and avoid events themselves.
 
So, if i understood correctly

- Everyone agree that the event try to simulate the inflation caused by the gold mine.
- Most people think that the event is badly coded.
- 50% of the people think that you can avoid it if you know the triggers.
- The other half think it's an "exploit" (Whatever the definition. Anyway, the definition of a word is not important here since people defined their view on this word when they used it).

What does I conclude from that? Nothing, because we each play the game differently. And that's good like this.

Except for the fact that now most people know the triggers for each events. Boring. Regular games is less and less appaling for this fact alone.

HoG,

I do like the solution. if i uinderstand you have an event that triggers another one X years later if the country still owns most of the gold mines?
 
balinus said:
I do like the solution. if i uinderstand you have an event that triggers another one X years later if the country still owns most of the gold mines?
Click to expand...

No.

The seizure of the goldmines triggers an event with the sole effect of "waking" another event down the line.

This second even cannot be avoided. It is enough for spain to own the goldmines once for it to activate and become inescapable. The only way for spain to avoid it is to never own the mines in the first place.

Ideally it would be a number of events depending on how many of the mines are taken. For instance if mexico is avoided and peru is seized, the effects should not be as harsh.

This series of events could be made to affect the likely holders such as France England and Spain.

OR it could be made province owner specific and any nation holding the provinces at the time of the inflation event gets the inflation. The only way to exploit this would be giving the provinces to some AI nation for when the event triggers. A way to defeat this exploit would be to make the offset large enough that Spain would stand to lose a great deal of money by attempting it.
 
personally i ve played spain only 1 time (TOT 3)
i didnt avoid bankrupt.....


.....simply coz didnt know i could avoid it

:D
 
Dago said:
personally i ve played spain only 1 time (TOT 3)
i didnt avoid bankrupt.....


.....simply coz didnt know i could avoid it

:D
Click to expand...
I've seen Venice own Mexico so often I could write the alternate history for it. :D
 
balinus said:
HoG's solution is not that good then imo. Because the 1st one doesn't count the effect that what if Spain takes the mines and lose them 20 yrs later? The gold that came up in this 20 yrs is not enough to justify a monster inflation.

Bah, I'll wait for eu3.
Click to expand...
The way around that would be to chain the events, so that the amount of inflation and bad things that you suffer at the time of the bankruptcies is dependent upon how many times a check-point was reached where you owned the mines. This is less elegant, more cumbersome, but perhaps more accurate in accomplishing what was desired.
 
Balinus,

Spain rarely (i.e., almost never) loses the gold mines before 1598, when the first event fires. It has to be played pretty terribly to be defeated that badly with Alba and Farnesse in the field.
 
DSYoungEsq said:
The way around that would be to chain the events, so that the amount of inflation and bad things that you suffer at the time of the bankruptcies is dependent upon how many times a check-point was reached where you owned the mines. This is less elegant, more cumbersome, but perhaps more accurate in accomplishing what was desired.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Make a string of events that fire every 10 years and gives the owner(s) +2 inflation or something to that tone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back