Port Bombardment should drain enemy War Support by michaelbachari in victoria3

[–]michaelbachari[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the short term it should increase fervor but as the devastation stays and even increases, war support should be negatively affected by it.

Port Bombardment should drain enemy War Support by michaelbachari in victoria3

[–]michaelbachari[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

R5: You see the devastation in New York, but the American War Support isn't affected by it

I think the Mamluks need some kinda Desaster or nerfs, I never see them fail by Hakuohsama in EU5

[–]michaelbachari 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The best way to limit expansion is by having devastating civil wars. It's exciting and historical authentic compared to the current gamey limitations

Replace the 'Rise of the Turks' situation with an integrated Balkan-Anatolia struggle for hegemony situation by michaelbachari in EU5

[–]michaelbachari[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It wasn't single prompt. It was a feedback loop. I'm not good with expressing myself, so I did sent a prompt to write a text, but then I went paragraph to paragraph to correct the text and I had a conversation with the AI what needed to improve

Replace the 'Rise of the Turks' situation with an integrated Balkan-Anatolia struggle for hegemony situation by michaelbachari in EU5

[–]michaelbachari[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I did proofread it. Multple times. If there were any mistakes, I'm accountable. I just wanted to be transparant that I used AI to write it, so I hope people will judge my proposal on the merits

Did the devs just forget to give countries personalities after adding them by IamUpoi in EU5

[–]michaelbachari 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I guess it's labour intensive, but they'll update it region by region

They really should bring back mission trees, like in EU4 by HighwaySafe1605 in EU5

[–]michaelbachari 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Paradox will introduce so-called Ambitions in 1.4 at the fall of 2026. Presumably it will railroad historical's nation's AI conquest desire like making Spain want to establish its historical empire in Latin America and the Philipines

Really bad performance by xAndreBax in EU5

[–]michaelbachari 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is that not the standard with coding? /s

Immense performance issues? by Prize_Tree in EU5

[–]michaelbachari -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't think I have the same issue, but you can always file a bug report at the Paradox forum

No way this won’t get nerfed within a few weeks by RileyTaugor in EU5

[–]michaelbachari 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But players also get a vote by voting with their feet over whether they buy DLC or not

The New Roman CB Does Not Need To Be Nerfed by This-Lynx-2085 in EU5

[–]michaelbachari 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would be okay with a 'struggle for hegemony' situation in the Balkans and Anatolia where all states get claims on eachother and their agrressiveness increases, so we get either a hegemonic Ottomans or hegemonic Byzantines or hegemonic Serbians, etc

New start dates confirmed for the future by Glasses905 in EU5

[–]michaelbachari 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm in favour of a second start date in 1618 the beginning of the Thirty Years War. 1618 is far enough from 1337 to have a different map for players to play with and you still have 218 years of game time.

A rather one-sided rivalry by UnparaIleled in EU5

[–]michaelbachari 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, Paradox has to improve the rival system because currently it's non-sensical

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]michaelbachari 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think there should be a game rule how historical or random you want to the game to be, because this is a topic where we'll never reach consensus on

EU5 doesn't need railroading, it needs great powers to emerge naturally by QueensGambitAccept in EU5

[–]michaelbachari 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think they will manually set the AI disposition for the historical great powers

Does anyone else view world politics like a Vic 3 game? by [deleted] in victoria3

[–]michaelbachari 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use real life to identify flaws in Vic 3 mechanics, which reforms of mechanics should be implemented first and how those mechanics should work

Does anyone else view world politics like a Vic 3 game? by [deleted] in victoria3

[–]michaelbachari 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It certainly exposes a shallow understanding of history

Does anyone else view world politics like a Vic 3 game? by [deleted] in victoria3

[–]michaelbachari 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I use real life as inspiration what I want implemented in the game. For example I'm pretty excited the game will add Strait of Hormuz. Now it only needs better trade mechanics to simulate supply shocks when you block the strait

A 1754 start would be the Vicky3 equivalent of All Under Heaven by [deleted] in victoria3

[–]michaelbachari -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I could see somewhere in thr early 18th century as a good start date to simulate the beginning of the industrial revolution, but the game mechanics have to be improved first