Print

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

[Catastrophic lolcats]

I think it's just to make religious ideas/converting in general have a use. Stacking high tolerance would give you a very stable empire with no downsides at all. A humanist state won't have to bother with converting but will be slightly less stable, while a religious based state trades initial stability and costs for a more stable empire further down the line. 

It seems like an interesting trade off in my opinion and certainly makes the humanist idea group less of the "I win button" that it seemed to be when announced. I think I'll still prefer religiously homogeneous realms since just getting +3 tolerance and not bothering with missionaries feels too "hands off" for my liking. Region, ideas and religion will also heavily play on that decision.

[Rakonas]

Rakonas, you have a link?

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?789400-Basis-for-Truce-Time&p=17730111&viewfull=1#post17730111

I think it's just to make religious ideas/converting in general have a use. Stacking high tolerance would give you a very stable empire with no downsides at all. A humanist state won't have to bother with converting but will be slightly less stable, while a religious based state trades initial stability and costs for a more stable empire further down the line. 

This isn't true, because culture conversion is impossible without having the correct religion. So even if you have a stable multi religious empire like the Ottomans, you'll never have a lasting effect on the culture of conquered peoples without converting them. I have no problem with this representation as it's a reasonable trade off for not creating strife through attempting to convert. Now they've just arbitrarily decided to limit heretic/heathen tolerance to +3 so that you can never have full religious equality. So it's probably completely idiotic to choose the tolerance idea group for various RR decreases instead of the religious ones for permanent changes.
Also, religious unity doesn't have anything directly to do with tolerance iirc, it's a separate metric but I'm sure you get bonuses from the tolerance idea group.

[Eagle_eye]

No, as tolerance goes up, the religious unity penalty from wrong religion provinces goes down. At +3 tolerance, your religious unity will always be at 100%.

[Catastrophic lolcats]

I'm a bit confused by your post there, Rakonas. Getting +3 tolerance of either heathen or heretics will cause those provinces to never affect your religious unity, thus giving you 100%. It was a change in 1.6.
 
Most players, including myself, do not bother with culture converting as it's a massive dip sink that is better spent on buildings or vassal expanding. Even so you still have missionaries and decisions/policies to increase your conversion rate so you can still convert those choice provinces. Also Humanism gives you a bigger threshold for culture acceptance meaning that cultural conversion is a bit less useful.

Finally religious equality didn't exist and still doesn't exist. I always found it incredibly strange it was possible to get higher tolerance of other faiths than your primary in EU3 ... how does that even work? Tolerance is tolerance but it's far from equality.

[Rakonas]

I'm a bit confused by your post there, Rakonas. Getting +3 tolerance of either heathen or heretics will cause those provinces to never affect your religious unity, thus giving you 100%. It was a change in 1.6.
 
Most players, including myself, do not bother with culture converting as it's a massive dip sink that is better spent on buildings or vassal expanding. Even so you still have missionaries and decisions/policies to increase your conversion rate so you can still convert those choice provinces. Also Humanism gives you a bigger threshold for culture acceptance meaning that cultural conversion is a bit less useful.

Finally religious equality didn't exist and still doesn't exist. I always found it incredibly strange it was possible to get higher tolerance of other faiths than your primary in EU3 ... how does that even work? Tolerance is tolerance but it's far from equality.

It was a change in 1.6

Ah forgive me then, I have played little since 1.6 because these patches just seem to be getting more and more unbalanced and less fun. I still don't think it's fair to limit tolerance at the (arbitrary) +3 limit. Making it so that the primary religious tolerance needs to be higher would probably be fine since I'm not sure how that works either.

[a1s]

Finally religious equality didn't exist and still doesn't exist. I always found it incredibly strange it was possible to get higher tolerance of other faiths than your primary in EU3 ... how does that even work? Tolerance is tolerance but it's far from equality.

It works like Affirmative Action- you just assume that the majority can take care of itself, and whenever a minority is in trouble you step in (leading to them in effect having more rights and privileges than the supposed "primary"). The trouble is that kind of thinking wouldn't be around at least until the age of Enlightment (at the end of EUIV), and arguably not until the Atomic Age (very much outside it).

[Sindain]

*snip*

Yeah that happens. Sometimes I wish they just had a flat decrease in stability over time, instead of just firing events every other month.

[Bastus]

I know how you feel if I am going to get another comet event I am going to buy ticket to Sweden so I can scream at everyone at Paradox. 
On the other hand am I the only one thinking that the way elective monarchies work is a bit strange? If you want to keep a polish noble in power you have to spend an abnormal amount of legitimacy to get him on the throne and due to the low legitimacy he has a low amount as well. So your are kinda locked in a area under 50. At least this was my experience, on the other hand I can see a lot of options for some really big PU using the new system.
Oh and did someone already played the dutch or merchant republics enough to say something about them?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Oh and did someone already played the dutch or merchant republics enough to say something about them?

You don't 'play' as the Dutch or merchant republics. You secure your trade node in ~10 years and win the game, then blob until you're bored.

[Sheb]

I was thinking of playing one of the colonial nations in the New World (You know, Mexica, Spanish La Plata or something) for my next game. Is this a terrible idea? Any suggestions about which nation to play?

[Tarran]

Hey, hey, some people just have ambitions. Don't be hatin' on them.

[Rakonas]

"I love you France"
"I love you too Portgual"
"Wait, I think I actually want to own Paris, I hate you."

Paradox logic.

[WealthyRadish]

Muscovy/Russia seems particularly bad about that with wanting all of asia.

With every update, I have a sweeping number of changes I make to smooth out the more annoying random events, which is to basically # out all the ones with '-1 stability' as the only option and make some other crazy ones more reasonable. Otherwise I just find it too irritating to go above 1 stability, since you'll otherwise always eventually just get lolcomet'd. I'll still choose the -1 stability sometimes if it's part of a close choice, though, it's just the straight up "screw you" events I hate.

I also reduce AE across the board by like 30% and do some other defines tweaks (like building MP cost, combat randomness, and some peace offer stuff). That's the great thing about EU really, is that you can always just change anything you don't like (well, almost anything) with a text file edit.

Edit: Oh, I also straight up removed that truce scaling thing. Has anyone played with it? It sounds awful.

[EnigmaticHat]

"I love you France"
"I love you too Portgual"
"Wait, I think I actually want to own Paris, I hate you."

Paradox logic.

Its especially stupid because of how realpolitik the rest of the game is.  Just because one country's government wants another country's land doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing to ally with them in the short term...

Granted, this is game where alliances can last for hundreds of years, so I guess it was already a little cheesy.

[lijacote]

They really, honestly should play more single player. Yes, yes, the multiplayer is amazing, it's fantastic, it's some of the best fun you can have in 2014, but still. These things are not rocket surgery. AI that doesn't outright murder suspension of disbelief is always a bonus, Paradox!

*shake fist*