What about an option to reduce forts while at peace? Sometimes i wish i could de-fortify a province but i cannot.
-
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.
- Status
What about an option to reduce forts while at peace? Sometimes i wish i could de-fortify a province but i cannot.
Heh. I'd wish following:
- An event to adjust leader stats (like with the monarch, leaders can have higher/lower skills by event, change name (rename N.Bonaparte to Napoleon, f.e.))
- An option to trade provinces. For Multiplayer purposes. AI needn't ever agree to change them, or only change provinces specified in the AI files - eg. Austrian AI has specified that it will give up provinces in ROTW, Spain or Scandinavia for (wealthier) provinces in the HRE.
- A peace event. Alliance peace and separate peace varieties.
- An event to adjust leader stats (like with the monarch, leaders can have higher/lower skills by event, change name (rename N.Bonaparte to Napoleon, f.e.))
- An option to trade provinces. For Multiplayer purposes. AI needn't ever agree to change them, or only change provinces specified in the AI files - eg. Austrian AI has specified that it will give up provinces in ROTW, Spain or Scandinavia for (wealthier) provinces in the HRE.
- A peace event. Alliance peace and separate peace varieties.
Easy. Say my Austria has conquered Ottoman muslim provinces of Serbia, Bulgaria and Kosovo with medium forts. Now I don't want to keep them, they are muslim, poor, hurt my stability and techspeed. I'd want to defortify them and give them back so I don't have a hard time beating the turk in the next war.
1. Large AI kingdoms should not be joining alliances led by one province minors.
a) Make it so the country with the most provinces becomes alliance leader.
b) Whoever starts the war/gets warred upon is the leader of the alliance for that war.
c) Code the AI to not accept Alliance invitations from one province minors.
2. Allow us to turn on/off historical rebalancing events (eg. polish event asking poland to release Prussia to a vassal when they ahistorically annex it, Venice ceding croatia to hungary, Portugal ceding granada to castile). These were made keep the game more historic I'm guessing, but its kind of stupid how a human player has to take an even larger BB hit/relations hit usually from ahistorically conquering these provinces.
3. I find that the Ottomans are having a harder and harder time getting off the ground in AGCEEP since progressive cores were added. There are too many wrong religions/wrong cultured provinces that the AI is conquering. improving the AI's religious conversion targets would help a lot (eg. focusing its conversion efforts in same culture/low population provinces).
4. The great lakes look silly being undiscovered all the time. Could you somehow make them explored.
a) Make it so the country with the most provinces becomes alliance leader.
b) Whoever starts the war/gets warred upon is the leader of the alliance for that war.
c) Code the AI to not accept Alliance invitations from one province minors.
2. Allow us to turn on/off historical rebalancing events (eg. polish event asking poland to release Prussia to a vassal when they ahistorically annex it, Venice ceding croatia to hungary, Portugal ceding granada to castile). These were made keep the game more historic I'm guessing, but its kind of stupid how a human player has to take an even larger BB hit/relations hit usually from ahistorically conquering these provinces.
3. I find that the Ottomans are having a harder and harder time getting off the ground in AGCEEP since progressive cores were added. There are too many wrong religions/wrong cultured provinces that the AI is conquering. improving the AI's religious conversion targets would help a lot (eg. focusing its conversion efforts in same culture/low population provinces).
4. The great lakes look silly being undiscovered all the time. Could you somehow make them explored.
- AI countries should ask to be accepted into player's alliance (only once, as to avoid spamming, if the player rejects, the AI shouldn't ask again until the alliance expires). Also send gifts and do all the stuff they are supposed to!
- We should be able to give up military access willingly, not in a peace deal but in the diplomatic interface. You all must have experienced how sometimes two nations that are at war with each other can't do anything because you're in the way. Very often you would actually want the AI to move through your territory, so your enemy would have some additional problems, or for some other reasons. This would add a lot more depth to the strategy in general.
- Trade of provinces. Yeah, that's something we're all dying for. But we shouldn't be able to sell them for money, it could be exploited. We should only be able to give them away, for a high relation boost perhaps. In a great deal of situations such an action would be realistic and practical. This feature is a must!
- We should be able to give up military access willingly, not in a peace deal but in the diplomatic interface. You all must have experienced how sometimes two nations that are at war with each other can't do anything because you're in the way. Very often you would actually want the AI to move through your territory, so your enemy would have some additional problems, or for some other reasons. This would add a lot more depth to the strategy in general.
- Trade of provinces. Yeah, that's something we're all dying for.
But we shouldn't be able to sell them for money, it could be exploited. We should only be able to give them away, for a high relation boost perhaps. In a great deal of situations such an action would be realistic and practical. This feature is a must!
- A lot more game options for MOD'ers (take a look at Arsenal of Democracy to see how it can be done)
- Multi player stability.
- Multi player stability.
Thank you to the FTG team for pushing out 1.2 despite the troubles! I'm glad to see so much positive feedback, especially with regards to the AI changes - a good AI makes replayability so much better! Thank you again!
So far I'm going to list only 2 wishes for 1.3, including the biggest one that keeps me still playing EU2:
So far I'm going to list only 2 wishes for 1.3, including the biggest one that keeps me still playing EU2:
- A configurable option to restore the EU2 pre-computed colonization/conversion success (success/failure is computed at send time, not at end time).
While I completely understand and support the rationale for the arrival time computation, I often like to play god with AI colonization attempts and it's much easier to modify the save file when I notice a colonist leaving the capital/sailing around than having to make an adjustment to the province after the fact if it didn't go the way I wanted. On the 30th of January each year I can save the game, make all the colon/conv adjustments I want since most attempts are started just after treasuries get filled, then reload with the changed savegame.
- Trade fleets.
Goods have to get to market from colonies. Fleets will obviously eventually have to be protected, but maybe in version 1.3 it would be enough to have to create them in order to get decent revenue from trans-oceanic provinces. Could also tie fleet visits into yearly province growth/trade post survival - for small, young colonies, without regular visits from the home country, they could stagnate/be absorbed slowly by the native population. During times of war trade fleets could take higher levels of attrition to abstract capture by the enemy. I say trans-oceanic because I think trans-Baltic/trans-English Channel/trans-Med trade can take care of itself - if smugglers can do it, so can legit merchants.
Another (simpler?) approach would be trade routes. There must be a secure sea route from the province to the capitol or to a CoT with the home country's merchants. By secure, I mean explictly patrolled by friendly (home/alliance) warships and no pirates. Required frequency would increase over time as presumably trade volume and pirates increase. Somebody mentioned trade companies earlier - they would be sure to insist on such protection. (Maybe trade routes in 1.3 and trade fleets for 1.4?)
Last edited:
1.government-system:monarchy(feudal ,absoluta,constitutional),republic,theocracy,tribal alliance,junta
only monarchy and tribal alliance can offer a royal marriage
when you relesa vassals,they have the same government with you
revolution event have a goal to change government
you can force other nations to change the government(same with you) by war
theocracy have bonus in missionary and stable,but penalty in Tech and business.
Junta have bounus in morale and price to form army but penalty in stable
republic have bonus in business and Tech but penalty in stable.
tribal alliance have bounus in morale but penalty in stable and Tech.
absoluta monarchy have bounus in stable
constitutional monarchy have bounus in business
government have affection on diplomacy
2.trade provinces and give provinces as gift except your capital,on the premise of move the capital to another place manually
3.A programmable Auto-send Merchant/Colonist device
only monarchy and tribal alliance can offer a royal marriage
when you relesa vassals,they have the same government with you
revolution event have a goal to change government
you can force other nations to change the government(same with you) by war
theocracy have bonus in missionary and stable,but penalty in Tech and business.
Junta have bounus in morale and price to form army but penalty in stable
republic have bonus in business and Tech but penalty in stable.
tribal alliance have bounus in morale but penalty in stable and Tech.
absoluta monarchy have bounus in stable
constitutional monarchy have bounus in business
government have affection on diplomacy
2.trade provinces and give provinces as gift except your capital,on the premise of move the capital to another place manually
3.A programmable Auto-send Merchant/Colonist device
Last edited:
I quite concur with nelsonlee's suggestions regarding government types.
They wouldn't need to be 'dynamic' or player changeable as in EU3, which may make coding them a little easier - I don't know. You could have the government type written in the country file in the scenario folder and it could be changed by historical event (historical ones such as the Commonwealth or the French Republic) or perhaps even in a rare chance of a random one such as a generic revolution event when certain triggers are met. I'm not too fussy - simply having them at all would be a huge step in the right direction, and it would certainly help stop Royal Marriage spamming and perhaps a few less historically implausible alliances.
My only other request would be to have the variables associated with each government type editable in defines.txt
(As an aside... this sort of system would probably be a logical step towards personal unions, which MichaelM has indicated he will probably add)
Austen
They wouldn't need to be 'dynamic' or player changeable as in EU3, which may make coding them a little easier - I don't know. You could have the government type written in the country file in the scenario folder and it could be changed by historical event (historical ones such as the Commonwealth or the French Republic) or perhaps even in a rare chance of a random one such as a generic revolution event when certain triggers are met. I'm not too fussy - simply having them at all would be a huge step in the right direction, and it would certainly help stop Royal Marriage spamming and perhaps a few less historically implausible alliances.
My only other request would be to have the variables associated with each government type editable in defines.txt
(As an aside... this sort of system would probably be a logical step towards personal unions, which MichaelM has indicated he will probably add)
Austen
Ok, understand, but give them back to who, previous owner?, to cut down your BB ? exploit??
IMO , you should only defortify when not at war because the other defines parameter will deal with leveling down the forts when at war
you do know you can place leveling up of forts "out of reach" for most nations by raising the costs
In multiplayer games, I will often get provinces I can't or don't want to keep. For example, my hypothetical France might conquer 4 provinces in Egypt after being attacked by the same Ottoman over Alexandria I happen to own. I know I'll have a war of revanche coming (I'm blocking his access to the african manpower), and I don't really want Egypt either. So I guess I'd sell it back to the turk. Razing some of the bigger fortresses would guarantee I don't have to deal with another war at the gates of Alexandria in 5 years.
As pointed before me, this has big uses for multiplayer purposes. During a war i might conquer a few provinces with large forts and i might notice that they are more trouble than worth keeping around, so much so that i want to reduce them.
Of course such is impossible at the moment so i thought that "defortifying" wouldnt be a bad thing to add at all.
Obviously there are more important things to add IMO that should take priority (like governments, sale of provinces, etc), thus why i didnt even post that stuff regarding defortification as a suggestion.
Its already been explained above, but Im not interested in chances. Just an option to defortify so the enemy is weaker next time round and yes, so (possibly future) rebel held provinces are easier to recapture, is that unhistorical or something?
One instance in particular I recall is that of Kenilworth castle (Warwickshire, England), which had its keep blown up and battlements and water defences destroyed (in 1656) after the English civil war...Because it was such a power defensive structure and such a hassle to capture. Sure, it happened all over the place...why not in game? (Unless of course its too hard to implement).
Last edited:
A check-box for every CoT that tells the merchant auto-sender to NOT send merchants to that specific CoT.
I quite concur with nelsonlee's suggestions regarding government types.
They wouldn't need to be 'dynamic' or player changeable as in EU3, which may make coding them a little easier - I don't know. You could have the government type written in the country file in the scenario folder and it could be changed by historical event (historical ones such as the Commonwealth or the French Republic) or perhaps even in a rare chance of a random one such as a generic revolution event when certain triggers are met. I'm not too fussy - simply having them at all would be a huge step in the right direction, and it would certainly help stop Royal Marriage spamming and perhaps a few less historically implausible alliances.
My only other request would be to have the variables associated with each government type editable in defines.txt
(As an aside... this sort of system would probably be a logical step towards personal unions, which MichaelM has indicated he will probably add)
Austen
yes. I think no player changeable for gov-system is very import to keep FTG as a historical game to distinguish from EU3.
the gov-type just can be changed by historical events and random revolution events,in some way,same as religion
Last edited:
- A programmable Auto-send Merchant (only send to selected COTs, setting priorities).
- Ability to offer military access to another nation.
- Ability to trade provinces at peace.
- Ability to offer military access to another nation.
- Ability to trade provinces at peace.
Dude that were like gameplay suggestions #4 through 8 in your seventh post of this thread which is supposed to contain one post per user with three gameplay suggestions.
If he was VIP he wouldn't even need to post his suggestions here... last post of mine this is...
True. I guess rules are... not rules
Or some can write better then they can read.- Status