Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Well, even with MEIOU and Taxes, all I can do while playing this game is look into all of the things that they got wrong in the process. Not major things, but just small details like... well, the existence of Arbanon in 1356 (I can't find any bit of info on that whatsoever, especially the part where it is a vassal of Achaia) or the conquering of Serres (which has the wrong land borders anyway) in 1360.

Guess it is back to making suggestions on their forum...

Unfortunately M&T runs like crap and was a letdown in comparison to the [smarter] changes of VET. If they combine and consolidate [see: overcomplicated trade node paths that slow down the game too much with no real bonus or added depth beyond a couple of nodes that should have exit paths but don't in vanilla] I'll be interested but M&T in its current form is rather unplayable for me since there's a total conversion that doesn't run at 1 day/second.

Honestly, I wish the trade node modifications would stop deciding arbitrarily that all trade should go to London/Lubeck/Amsterdam. Trade should not always end up at the same nodes. Those nodes severely need an exit path [to eachother?], or some sort of mechanic that gets diminishing returns from being the *only* trader in a node, a la stagnation in EU3. Giving them exit paths to eachother would atleast incentivize the three powers that always eventually form around these free money pits to be challenging eachother to control their favorite nodes. I'm thinking I'll just do this myself and see how it affects balance.

The way it works currently is if you're located in London/Lubeck/Amsterdam you will always have a metric fuckton of free cash due to free money always ending up at these nodes and piling up over time without any real chance to slow down the inevitable 100+ trade values in each node. Or, an alternate strategy is to rush for the Amsterdam/Lubeck/London trade nodes if you're anywhere in Europe because all your trade ends up there anyways. It's pretty 1-dimensional.

Note: I'm in 1600ish in the 'wealth expansion' and I don't have any options to form new trade nodes or change paths of any sort, like I inferred from the description. Kinda not sure what the expansion does besides add piracy buttons and a Lisbon trade node.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=231022790&searchtext=

It handles things like vassal annexation, tech groups, modernization of capitals, trade power [the first trade ships have .2 trade power now] and rebalances most of the ridiculous horseshit, if you aren't playing as ERE in the fantasy bookmark, that is.

Also: If you want to enjoy EU4, turn on 'Selflearningai' in the console.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Which is?

[Culise]

Wait, VEF (sorry, but I can't call it VET; I keep thinking of the CK2 mod VIET) doesn't even model the Serbian Empire?  I was considering picking it up, but...that's actually a really, really blatant inaccuracy. 

[Mictlantecuhtli]

VET. I was looking at the state of the Byzantine Empire in 1356- in VET, it had the Ottoman Empire owning an incredibly large swathe of land that it shouldn't. Hell, it even held Bulgarian lands in VET, which is just absurd.

That's been the 1356 bookmark since EU3. And yeah, it's VEF, dunno why I was thinking VET.

Also, culise, I'm sorry, but..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Serbian_Empire

The empire period is over just about the start of EU4. I guess Serbian empire can exist in the first bookmark and then be event-forced to a normal kingdom, but that's historical railroading and in no way is it the goal of the mod to force certain nations to play ways as determined by events, otherwise we'd have event-forced PUs and colonization.

[Culise]

VET. I was looking at the state of the Byzantine Empire in 1356- in VET, it had the Ottoman Empire owning an incredibly large swathe of land that it shouldn't. Hell, it even held Bulgarian lands in VET, which is just absurd.

That's been the 1356 bookmark since EU3. And yeah, it's VEF, dunno why I was thinking VET.

Also, culise, I'm sorry, but..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_Serbian_Empire

The empire period is over just about the start of EU4. I guess Serbian empire can exist in the first bookmark and then be event-forced to a normal kingdom, but that's historical railroading and in no way is it the goal of the mod to force certain nations to play ways as determined by events, otherwise we'd have event-forced PUs and colonization.

Yeah, but the date was specified as 1356.  A decent way to model its decline, I'd hope, would have been a lack of cores on its gains, a very poor and young ruler who won't die in the near future and won't give many monarch points from ADM, and hostile cores from Bulgaria, the Byzantine Greeks, Hungary, and the Ottoman Turks (semi-deterministic, but to encourage them to expand beyond Gallipoli).  As for government, the usual despotic monarchy or feudal monarchy would be the best to model it; the kinds of empires modeled by EU's empire government are not the sort Serbia was, and I apologize if I was misinterpreted as attempting to argue for that. 

That said, you're right that Europa Universalis has never been very good at modelling the fall of empire in anything other than an event-driven context.  It's just odd that a mod, of all things, didn't even try.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

You also have to take into account in VEF there's a province capacity limit that all 'Empire' government types remove [an extremely large boon]. In M&T there's no alternative anti-blobbing mechanics so there's no reason not to give Serbia a shiny 'Empire' boilerplate.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

Just had a 6,6,5 18 year old heir die in a hunter accident and my 46 year old non-general leader die in the same week resulting in a regency. I cam extremely close to throwing my computer in rage. 

[MoLAoS]

Just had a 6,6,5 18 year old heir die in a hunter accident and my 46 year old non-general leader die in the same week resulting in a regency. I cam extremely close to throwing my computer in rage.

Regencies are literally the 3rd worst mechanic in the game.

On another topic, the new ideas are so horribly abuseable. I'm gonna conquer the world while also getting max tech as Poland when the new DLC drops.

[Tarran]

Just had a 6,6,5 18 year old heir die in a hunter accident and my 46 year old non-general leader die in the same week resulting in a regency. I cam extremely close to throwing my computer in rage.

Instead of raging, do yourself a favor and use the reload function. It's better to avoid a mental breakdown than to maintain a stupid ironman for a video game. Assuming you're playing singleplayer, of course.

[Sergarr]

Just had a 6,6,5 18 year old heir die in a hunter accident and my 46 year old non-general leader die in the same week resulting in a regency. I cam extremely close to throwing my computer in rage.

Regencies are literally the 3rd worst mechanic in the game.

On another topic, the new ideas are so horribly abuseable. I'm gonna conquer the world while also getting max tech as Poland when the new DLC drops.

Cheat DLC are the bane of my existence.

[WealthyRadish]

Speaking of cheating, I added a decision for Hosokawa ages ago that inherits all the daimyos and becomes Japan (I was doing a lot of testing), and funnily enough it works in ironman since apparently the checksum the game uses to check against stuff like that isn't shipped with the update, but generated locally on first initialization (or something). I actually tried removing it, and doing so prevents ironman. The funny part is I started to think about how this could abused, when I could just, you know, not play ironman and cheat all I like.

[Sergarr]

Speaking of cheating, I added a decision for Hosokawa ages ago that inherits all the daimyos and becomes Japan (I was doing a lot of testing), and funnily enough it works in ironman since apparently the checksum the game uses to check against stuff like that isn't shipped with the update, but generated locally on first initialization (or something). I actually tried removing it, and doing so prevents ironman. The funny part is I started to think about how this could abused, when I could just, you know, not play ironman and cheat all I like.

That looks like a giant hole. Can you give Ryukyu the decision which give it the whole world on day 1 and complete the Three Mountains achievement that way?

[Descan]

Who cares? Achievements don't give you anything except a sense of accomplishment, if you cheat to get one it's not like it'll mean anything to anyone else besides an "Oh, that's cool" (if they don't know you cheated)

If something isn't detrimental to others' experience, I don't see how it's "abuseable."

[MoLAoS]

Who cares? Achievements don't give you anything except a sense of accomplishment, if you cheat to get one it's not like it'll mean anything to anyone else besides an "Oh, that's cool" (if they don't know you cheated)

If something isn't detrimental to others' experience, I don't see how it's "abuseable."

Mainly it detracts from others because if they care about achievements and you got one that should be impossible it'll drive them nuts trying to imagine how it was done. But probably only for a little bit before they give up caring or figure out you cheated.