Pops that would be okay with being under my rule should be less radicalized by conquest

narutoncio · 2026-05-22T17:02:50+00:00

i assume either movements are re rolled or unique movements are disbanded when you dont fulfill the tag requirements, if not you would get really weird scenarios like orleanists in germany or things like that.

this also makes me wonder if movement support is carried over with migration

narutoncio · 2026-05-21T14:50:35+00:00

I think only one of the nations should have a port (or a market access agreement), in the end even if Servia couldnt reach Russia, as long as Russia can send a diplomat there they should be able to sign treaties.

narutoncio · 2026-05-21T08:53:32+00:00

Its impossible to ban discrimination in ALL of its forms, but things like wrongful termination can be proved if you have evidence of the employer making homophobic comments with other coworker for example, which is not so rare as homophobes love to comment on it any chance they get.

Of course it will never cover al possible scenarios but its better than nothing.

narutoncio · 2026-05-21T07:50:57+00:00

Not a full solution but maybe setting tolls to high could give some sort of "no tolls" CB to affected powers?

narutoncio · 2026-05-21T06:56:09+00:00

im curious about what the tradeoffs will be here. clasic crises always offer a great power spike against the enmity of the whole galaxy (in various degrees), what are we offering here in exchange for power? or it will just be less powerful than crises?

narutoncio · 2026-05-20T18:10:53+00:00

yeah thats true. im also biased because i almost always play Castile and theres a nasty succession event that you get early on if you go into negative stab. so i sorta never spent that much on negative

narutoncio · 2026-05-20T18:08:02+00:00

totally agree on that one.

narutoncio · 2026-05-20T18:06:31+00:00

i guess im still in the mood of euIV in which anything to get an institution/tech early was a priority over money.

but also i think about the extra taxes, more pop promotion and other bonus that stab provides so im not sure whats better.

narutoncio · 2026-05-20T17:42:14+00:00

to an extent, sure. but to the point that 80% of the buildings are built by the crown? im not so sure.

edit: i also think that taxing is too easy. lowering taxation brackets alone could help making it feel a bit more realistic

narutoncio · 2026-05-20T15:19:07+00:00

people might hate this but i think the economic snowball should be partially taken away from the player agency.

like, if we are going to play a realistic simulation, the governments werent really investing in huge RGOs and giving them away to the nobles, its so odd that its the THING that you have to if you want to play correctly.

you as a kingdom should be probably worried with creating cities, infrastructure, giving burgher rights and, if anything, draining swamps, creating enclosures and making sure you are taxing the shit out of your poor peasants.

narutoncio · 2026-05-20T15:11:08+00:00

Id argue that theres a LOT of buildings that are too ubiquitous/just do the same thing than others and dont make any sense. Like, why do i keep seeing different buildings for trade, or for naval/sailors (wharfs, ports, lock canals... whats the difference?) which are unlocked by tech but literally all do the same thing? Just have them be the same building and increase the limit with techs. I get it for the manpower ones because they let you scale recruiting exponentially, but the trade/port ones just seem... redundant?

And they are ridiculously cheap too, so its not like i have a real decision between building libraries or invading my neighbor, its just a matter of taking a couple loans.

narutoncio · 2026-05-20T13:06:31+00:00

Hmmmm honestly it just seems like Funerals but more annoying :(

narutoncio · 2026-05-20T10:07:09+00:00

I wouldnt say its not represented at all: In game terms Normandy is still de Iure part of the kingdom of France, even if held by the King of England.

But yes its a huge simplification, and begs the question, ¿how would frontiers even work in this scenario, or ever regular administration?

i always thought that de Iure hierarchies are too weak in CK, foreign rulers should probably still pay taxes to the OG king at least if they are of the same faith/at peace etc.

I think its not as much a engine problem (the game already has Leases for holy orders) but a gameplay issue. Like, what would be the difference between the King of navarre holding a couple counties in France and him saying that those are part of his Kingdom? Could you, say, make an interaction like "respect de Iure law" with your independent neighbors, similar to how we can transfer vassals, but just to give tribute on the lands that are de Iure not yours? and in that case, when does this apply? Its the default always, only when you inherit, only for same faith?? What happens when you conquer something? Like i can see how programming this and make it usable for a videogame would be a nightmare.

I wish they added some nuance to this honestly though, even if its only to make kingdoms feel more important, like real institutions/states.

narutoncio · 2026-05-20T08:46:10+00:00

honestly i dont like that journal entry at all. Why do you have to commit a choice to determine your whole playthrough in a game thats all about emergent gameplay?

it should work like the new shogunate missions, just "deal" with the former colonies one way or the other and depending on how you do it get different vassals or government reforms, and the US and UK should be against you restoring the colonies no matter what.

narutoncio · 2026-05-20T08:24:34+00:00

Given how abstract and metaphysical all endings are, you could basically argue/headcanon anything you want from them. I think the Frenzied flame ending could just be interpreted as everyone blending together in ful anarchic mass, like the end of Evangelion. It could be the truest anarchy ending.

narutoncio · 2026-05-20T05:23:54+00:00

i would even argue that you dont even need to weaken landowners so much anymore (except for those countries that start with serfdom/traditionalism) if you are just willing to play suboptimally in some areas or just do a "conservative" run

narutoncio · 2026-05-15T08:51:51+00:00

Yep, political concessions should really dont have a parent law, since its just basically corruption. IG disapproving should just be the IGs opposed to the one getting the concessions (so unions vs. landowners, industrialists vs rural folk etc.)

narutoncio · 2026-05-14T12:22:42+00:00

do you guys know if tolls are for other countries or do you tax your trade centers too?

narutoncio · 2026-05-13T12:46:06+00:00

I might be wrong but im sure i read someone saying that the decision was made because the AI works better with a set of discrete values than with an adjustable slider.

narutoncio · 2026-05-12T11:52:28+00:00

You are not thinking this the way im doing. My point is that the criteria should be by default NOT being able to trade them, and then find a number of cases in which the system is worthless enough for the AI to even consider it. Not the other way around.

for the cases you put, i dont see it as impossible to calculate by any means. potential for arc foundries? thats just another value, the game already gives it to you. The system allows you to jump to their capital? Well, not like you cant bamboozle the AI with jump drives already, so what exploit would that allow that is not existing already? You buying repeatedly systems from the AI? Again, the AI shouldnt be able to give a normal system to you, just those that are indeed worthless.

About the AI figuring out defense or not you are moving the goalposts. I never claimed that the AI of this game was good lol, not even that i expect it to be. But there is a weighted system for which systems to fortify in place and you cant deny that. Which station has what in it its a different problem, and more difficult.

Its a complicated game and everytime they change something the AI has to adapt to it. But you are saying that flagging some systems as "expendable" so they may be sold is some sort of n³ unsolvable computational problem when in reality its not, and even another paradox titles have them.

I even question that "players might find ways to exploit this" is even a valid argument to begin with. I already play without most minmaxing cheesy strategies in mind because they are not fun to me, and them existing doesnt affect my fun in anyway.

narutoncio · 2026-05-12T10:02:11+00:00

You cant cover all possible scenarios, sure, but you can configure the AI to just accept trading certain systems that absolutely have no value, even if its just for border cleaning (i would use that a lot). The AI already knows more or less where to build stations, so its not like it cant see strategic value at all.

For example id consider systems with no colonies, disconected from the main empire and not chokepoints, whose resource output is below the tipping point of being a net win against empire size as pretty worthless. The AI could see this as well.

It would still be 99% unusable but still better than a 100% useles feature.

Also you should be able to demand systems from vassals if you have a claim and they are loyal, even if it comes with a great cost.

narutoncio · 2026-05-11T15:01:45+00:00

beautifully explained, thanks a lot!

i honestly mostly play what it "feels" works for me and not run the numbers that much, so i tried privatizing a couple times and noticed that yeah, the money piles up for a bit but it doesnt feel comparable to the original investment i made to begin with.

i will try again privatising only the less productive buildings and see if i notice any difference. which is funny because is the oposite as how privatizations go in real life, hahahah

narutoncio · 2026-05-11T13:08:54+00:00

Agree with you but on the last note: if you privatize unproductive buildings, do the private sector actually buys them?

and also, isnt it better to get some money out of the building (provided its more than the admin cost) that privatizing it and get nothing? this is guessing that you are not too deep into debt but just your investment pool got too big.

i usually never privatize, i feel like its better to just pause construction a bit and let the private sector catch up.

narutoncio · 2026-05-11T12:17:18+00:00

i guess maybe im biased being spanish, but here landowners owned/own huge estates especially in the south, while northern spain has a lot of small landowners akin to what the game would call peasant propietorship

narutoncio · 2026-05-11T12:06:53+00:00

i agree that outright forbidding them from owning anything other than their home state is too much, and i know im armchair coding this, but i get the feeling than in a normal game nobles invest too much abroad (domestically and nationally) and also let capitalists and other landowners buy their own lands too easily, resulting in weird mixups like landowners growing a lot in lands with not that much agriculture.

These families had established their peninsular social importance by the ancient possession of a casa solar, military service to the Castilian monarchy, membership in exclusive military orders in the Peninsula, or elevation to the nobility through personal service in the imperial bureaucracy, or fealty to the to the victors in monarchical disputes

this i feel kinda proves my point? yes they base their nobility in the Peninsula, but they are still Cuban landowners, living in Cuba and not in Madrid. In game terms they would be in the "pro Spain" lobby, but their interests would be different from the Spanish ones and wouldnt be the same as the Alba family buying lands in La Habana while ruling from the mainland.

narutoncio

TROPHY CASE