Perhaps this has been answered, but why are Dates specifically separated from fruits?
- 3
-
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.
I can't really see a clear reason, myself. I'd thought it might have to do with dates having a different food yield than other fruits for some reason, or being less perishable, and thus more suited for trading further abroad. There doesn't seem to be a mechanical difference, though, given the TT description. Perhaps it's just been done to allow for food variety to cause pop satisfaction (Edit: Though if that's the case, you'd think that they'd have a similar system for a variety of spices being implemented to also have a similar if perhaps lesser effect, but I digress.) It would also presumably encourage some level of food trade between Europe and the Middle East/North Africa, which would otherwise have the same food goods. I imagine that those two reasons are probably why a lot of the food goods are not grouped despite having the same stats.
Whatever the case, it's probably best to ask in the TT thread.
Last edited:
- 3
- 3
Given how they mistreated the spices, I am getting more and more sure that they want to get a polished game in its core mechanics at release. This means, pop growth and dynamics should be well done. To this end, they focused on the food resources to get as realistic as possible, maybe even the construction materials, while leaving the trade goods to future dlcs and balance by modders.
My ironic comment on this was downvoted, but I feel like this might even be a good strategy to avoid the loss of performance over time that eu4 suffered.
- 2
- 1
Even if different spices had the same effect and in the end were only flavour, as @Johan said, I wish the game had at least 3 types of spices just for that flavour.
Because that historical flavour is probably the main reason why we all love Paradox games.
Because that historical flavour is probably the main reason why we all love Paradox games.
- 7
My bet is on free modders' work. Johan's bet is on that too.
- 1
- 1
Agreed - though just off of the main systems of the game, I would have thought there would have been different enough - as I laid out in my post on the thread. I guess we can only hope that they decide it's worth putting in the effort to make the market actually react to the different spices... differently - or that if they don't, it's not an issue with the economic simulation itself, as I feared in my post.
- 2
Project Caesar is going to be a 10/10 game, I'm sure. But it's going to be a little bit bland due to lack of spices and Banda Islands
- 3
- 2
- 2
I cannot understand why my posts citing the fact that paradox developers use mods at least as inspiration are disagreed upon. Are you afraid of losing mighty Johan's favor?
Balancing the game through the modder's work and the hundred of thousands of hours played by the community is a very good and cost-effective strategy; if they decided to leave the balancing of spices to that, so be it.
Balancing the game through the modder's work and the hundred of thousands of hours played by the community is a very good and cost-effective strategy; if they decided to leave the balancing of spices to that, so be it.
- 2
Not sure If someone suggested already or considered, but after reading some and thinking about the Molucas and Banda Island, and also the uniquesse of some of the new world spices, why not split in new and old world spice, and the old world also split between common and rare. In total 3 ''types'' of spice: new world, common old world and rare old world. The control of the location that produce rare old world would be encourage. The pops would demand the 3 types, after New world discovered, and only demand 2 types before, being happy with regular spice and super happy with both, rare and Common. Cheers
- 2
While better than the current single good, I think there are some significant issues with any sort of regional system like this. I detailed most of my issues with it in the first post, like having entire regions trade the same good, thus removing any reason for intra-regional trade as was seen historically - such as with the Asian spice trade - making it no better than having one good in that regard, but aside from that - I also just dislike the idea that once new world spices are grown in the old world, or vice versa, those names would look really out of place.
I don't see much reason to go for this regional split over the piquant, aromatic and fine spice split, if we're comparing a three good system to another three good system. Of course if Paradox came out tomorrow and said they were using a regional system, I'd probably grumble, but it would still be a huge improvement over the current situation, even if it doesn't address one of my largest issues with that system.
Last edited:
- 2
"Flavor" DLC including 10 spices, rock vs sea salt, honey, cheese and different qualities of food (most prized cheese in Parma and Reggio for example) goes brrr
- 6
They already added beeswax in the tinto map. If they add the spices and maybe other resources because of the outrage after johan's comment "adding them changes only flavor", I will get the credit for such implementations. All hail DLC god!
Wow, I'd figured based on that last set of comments that they'd killed the idea internally. That's great to see!
- 2
this is good yes yes. hopefully we get another post on implemented user feedback soon to see which ones they added
- 1
Of course this doesn't mean they've necessarily gone with any of the suggestions in the thread, but if Saffron is separate, I think it's safe to say that a much improved spice system is at least being tested, and it's at least not something regional, I'd hope. I'm looking forward to seeing what they end up going with. (And for them to change the good colour on the map - I wonder if a yellow similar to saffron would even work with all the yellow goods we have)
Last edited:
- 1
While I'm pretty sure that if the team is testing changing the goods to improve the system and respond the community concerns with it, and that they are trying to implement as good a solution as they are able, I figured I'd at least consider what solutions separating saffron might represent - so I will have at least thought about them on the off chance one that I don't like is chosen, keeping in mind that having Saffron be its own good might not stick around, and that as a result it could be totally different from any of these.
I'll be referring to scenarios from my possible number of goods table on my last proposal here for comparison in places.
I'll be referring to scenarios from my possible number of goods table on my last proposal here for comparison in places.
| # | Solution | My Thoughts | My Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Saffron is separated from spices as a good, but all other spices are all still represented by a single good | The only purpose this would serve is to address the common complaint that having spices in Europe will decrease domestic demand for 'exotic' spices. This is - to me - one of the more minor issues with a one-good system, and would be the most disappointing solution. It would not be addressing almost all of the major issues with the current setup such as lack of intra-regional trade for most of the world - Asia most specifically, it would be flattening of demand to one good representing very varied goods that should have various levels of supply and others discussed in this thread. If the system had to be limited to only two goods, I think this is the weakest way of doing it. While having only two goods will always have large compromises, I think my proposal scenario 7 is a much better option for the overall game and doesn't disproportionately favor Europe while if you add just one or two goods, you'll see a massive reduction in compromise, and far more interesting gameplay design. | As bad as the current setup - just quiets some people on what is one minor, regionally specific gripe while solving leaving the rest of the world in the same (Or perhaps worse) state. |
| 2 | Saffron represents the only major spice grown in Europe and this is our first look at a regional spice system with goods like 'Asian' or 'Indian' spices. | As I've discussed, a regional grouping for spices would likely not represent intra-regional trade at all, and would be about as bad for tags outside of Europe as the current setup is and likely not represent botanical realities of growth ranges or just have awkward names. Of course Saffron is grown elsewhere - most notably Iran, so I really doubt this is the case, thankfully. | This is definitely the second worst option, but still a minor improvement over the current setup. |
| 3 | Rare spices such as Saffron are unique while most are made a single good. This might mean we get Saffron, cloves, and 'spices' | Far more likely than I'd like to think about, mostly because it's a decent, if flawed solution. It still means a lack of diversity for trade, and that some regions (Like India) will have one spice good, only, discouraging intra-regional trade. Add just one extra good and you could have a decently designed pair of groups and two unique spices, and instantly have a vastly better system (Scenario 4 & 5), or just arrange three goods into better groups (Scenario 6) | I'd live with it, but I can't say I'd celebrate, given how easily it could have been made better. |
| 4 | Saffron is one of a number of goods each representing a single spice. | I'd be amazed if this were the case, just out of how many goods might need to be represented and that a 'minor performance hit' was cited as one reason that multiple spices weren't kept around. (Off the top of my head, without any grouping this would likely be ~10 major spices at a minimum, and would probably feel pretty lacking without around 15 or more.) I hope it's not the case, as I've discussed there are downsides to this approach, such as lack of competitiveness between peppers and the like. | A decent solution, with some relatively minor issues primarily around peppers. Group them and it's the solution with the least design compromises, other than number of goods. |
| 5 | Saffron is one of possibly several unique spices in system with some number of grouped spices. Perhaps even one put forward in this thread, possibly similar to proposals 3 or 4 here | Okay, it should surprise nobody that I dearly hope this is the case, and that I think it might be the most likely option - but that might be rose-tinted glasses speaking. It's a great middle ground that keeps a lot of mechanical depth, interesting flavour, while keeping the number of goods low | My preferred solution by far if number of goods is an issue, as I suspect |
| 6 | Some combination of the prior two options, perhaps grouping peppers (with or without chili) and possibly some other group for mid-range spices like Cardamom, while having most unique, such as cinnamon, ginger, vanilla, etc. | Less likely than option 5 in my opinion due to numbers of goods, but far more likely - and a far better design than option 4 Considering that even with two fairly large groups of spices, I got 5 goods for scenario 2, (Scenario 1 just has seasonings added, which is a weak addition) I imagine that this would need at least 7 goods at a guess, which seems unlikely, but would be amazing if done well. | Depends on the design, but has the potential of being the perfect solution, other than for how many goods it introduces. |
Last edited:
- 9
- 1
Update: They've gone with the second-worst option in my above estimation - at least not counting keeping the system at a single spice good - scenario 2. The regional spices are: European-Middle Eastern-African (Saffron), Asian (Pepper) and American (Chili). In some ways it's even worse than my thoughts on such a system simply by having Saffron represent all sub-Saharan spices - meaning West African peppers are now Saffron and will be priced and affect pricing accordingly...
You can read my full thoughts here, if you're inclined.
Last edited:
- 14
- 1