Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Warfare: A weenie problem

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
Slargos

Slargos

High Jerkness
53 Badges
Dec 24, 1999
10.838
321
www.paradoxplaza.com
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • PDXCon 2019 "Baron"
  • PDXCON 2017 Gold Ticket holder
Most of you know by now what this is about: The lack of it.

Warfare for many parties is usually a necessary evil rather than a pleasant break in boring peace.

I even found myself afflicted by peaceitis when I played a stinking filthy rich Holland being the defacto overlord of the orient until a series of subs finished it off. The possibility to increase my power peacefully filled me with greed. Of course, I still found ways to fight atleast one war per session, along with France more than any other nation in the game. ;)

Evidently, greed is the driving motivation behind staying peaceful. It's easier to economize by being at peace.

The Daniel clone (sorry dude, your name is too weird to register) made among his more insane rants a pretty good suggestion: Victory points.

What if there were provinces in or outside europe with massive production and basetax incomes? Give every player one or two starting VPs. Make the noncontrolled ones pagan and outlaw conversion of them in order to keep them attractive to all comers. Say a goldprovince with 200d goldincome and 200-300d tax income. This WILL be an attractive goal in a war. Or perhaps keep the value lower but still decently high to avoid making them gamebreaking but still attractive enough.

Couple this with Ryoken's "leader points for war experience" idea and people not engaging in wars will suddenly suffer 2 very difficult propositions: They will not be able to grab those VPs and they will not get good leaders making them vulnerable to the warring nations out for their own VPs.

Discuss.
 
Slargos said:
What if there were provinces in or outside europe with massive production and basetax incomes? Give every player one or two starting VPs. Make the noncontrolled ones pagan and outlaw conversion of them in order to keep them attractive to all comers. Say a goldprovince with 200d goldincome and 200-300d tax income. This WILL be an attractive goal in a war. Or perhaps keep the value lower but still decently high to avoid making them gamebreaking but still attractive enough.
Click to expand...

Well, COTs are already very high value provinces (and I think, fought over). But if having one of the richest provinces in the game has not been enough to increase the appeal of war, why more rich provinces could do so?

Specially if everyone starts with some? I guess the same process of partitioning COTs could happen with those provinces.
 
arcorelli said:
Well, COTs are already very high value provinces (and I think, fought over). But if having one of the richest provinces in the game has not been enough to increase the appeal of war, why more rich provinces could do so?

Specially if everyone starts with some? I guess the same process of partitioning COTs could happen with those provinces.
Click to expand...

CoTs in Europe are usually in provinces that can't be taken. Vienna. London. Paris.

CoTs in the ROTW are usually out of bounds for land oriented nations. The only major landpower that can conceivably steal CoTs is France. Sweden can go relatively naval but its manpower is usually matched by England and its naval power can seldom match that of Holland or Portugal. The CoT race is usually between Holland, Portugal and England.

Put "victory points" in Europe itself and suddenly nations like Austria and Brandenburg will have options aswell.
 
Just like England, Holland and Portugal divide up the colonial COTs, won't Austria, BRA and so then also not divide up the European "VP" ones, which will be pretty much out of bounds for non landpowers?
 
Like Arco mentions: we already have those, they are called "CoTs". The difference between the CoTs and your suggestion, however, is that the CoTs aren't insanely silly... ;)

But true, many CoTs are in capitals. But you know what? That can be changed. You can move the Anglie CoT to Kent, the Venice CoT to Crete, the Constantinople CoT to Ragua (or Hungary), etc...
 
Slargos said:
Oh ye of little vision. I am surrounded by conservative unimaginative people. Such is the plight of the great thinkers of every age.
Click to expand...

A sentiment I commonly find myself feeling these days.

Your idea needs work, if I didnt have an assload of stuff to do today, I would put some ideas down. I will develop later tonight a good response to this.
 
I really think we are in need of EUIII, Something that can address all these dynamics like ports, trade, tech, leaders, religion,diplomacy,Cot's and warfare etc

In the mean time keep building troops ;)
 
Slargos said:
Oh ye of little vision. I am surrounded by conservative unimaginative people. Such is the plight of the great thinkers of every age.
Click to expand...

Actually, it may be linked to how many games out of the official campaigns and games without too many special rules one had played. I have the feeling players generally want to enjoy the "standard" stuff a couple of (or in EU2's case many) times before they start to grow tired of it, and look for new concepts. As an example I can say I was very critical against randomized leaders until lately (only played MP for about a year now). I wanted to play the game with the standard leaders first. Now when I've done that and saw the induced imbalances (strong France vs strong OE in mid 17th century anyone?), I actually think randomized leaders are a lot more fun and balance out the game a lot. Definately I wouldn't have thought so unless I had played the standard game enough.
 
Chaingun said:
Actually, it may be linked to how many games out of the official campaigns and games without too many special rules one had played. I have the feeling players generally want to enjoy the "standard" stuff a couple of (or in EU2's case many) times before they start to grow tired of it, and look for new concepts. As an example I can say I was very critical against randomized leaders until lately (only played MP for about a year now). I wanted to play the game with the standard leaders first. Now when I've done that and saw the induced imbalances (strong France vs strong OE in mid 17th century anyone?), I actually think randomized leaders are a lot more fun and balance out the game a lot. Definately I wouldn't have thought so unless I had played the standard game enough.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.

I just feel compelled to point out I was joking. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back