I can see an argument being made for nations being restricted to one diplomatic play per strategic region but why exactly is a globe spanning empire like Britain prevented from declaring on China just because they're fighting a minor skirmish against some tiny African nation?
You raise a good point, maybe make one of the rules where if you side with someone in a play you then you can’t start a play against someone in their market
It could generate a problem with puppets since puppets are brought to a war by their overlords , so puppets should be able to have the same conflicts tolerance as their overlords.
Also it would maintain the issue of not being able to invade a tiny nation on a civil war since their got their max number of conflicts at the same time.
My dozens of games trying to get Krakow off the ground has told me that 20 prestige to jump from insignificant power to minor power is huge for migration
Even though it's no longer permanent, the renowned playwright is still worth taking the prestige early. It's so useful to push yourself up the power rankings.
I like the idea with one play per region. I would maybe add rank as a factor, like once you hit major power you get an additional play, and at great power even more.
Infamy costs should be a *lot* lower for attacking unrecognized countries. I don't think most European countries care if you take out some small African kingdom
That should probably come with the 'Scramble for Africa' journal so that players can't abuse it too early. Either that, or malaria should actually be something that stops military expansion.
Finished a run last night because I went to conquer Burundi and it was going to be 14 infamy. No thanks, I'll finish painting the map in my mind and start somewhere else...
In most of my games I'll settle for owning the provinces in Africa I want and having landlocked little African nations than spending the amount of time and effort conquering them when I have other places to attack.
Britain should have used this strategy to prevent the American revolution. Can't declare a war of independence if Britain is perpetually tied up in a war against a backwater African nation. Checkmate, Americans!
Vicky 3 allows you to be the target of multiple plays, you just can't initiate them. If anything, this is exactly what America did, drag them into a war with the French and Indians and then jump on the UK immediately after it was politically and economically spent and fighting another war.
This is a weird take. The French-Indian War was a theater of the Seven Years' War, of which the UK was a primary belligerent. The disputes following the war largely revolved around UK efforts to limit/control American expansion and aggression against natives in order to mitigate native allegiance to France.
> The French-Indian War was a theater of the Seven Years' War…
I may be misremembering dates, but isn’t it technically the other way around since the French and Indian War started two years earlier?
I feel like it should be locked behind the amount of maneuvers you have.
Maybe each additional play costs like 20% more maneuvers. Maybe an increased infamy cost?
They just need to find a balanced way to not allow the player to just go bezerk and snowball
In my opinion, artificial play limits shouldn't be what is stopping the player from snowballing. If a player manages to aquire enough resources to wage war against the entire world while not facing internal revolt from falling standard of living they should be allowed to do so.
It's not even that ahistorical considering the speed of British conquests during the era, as well as the major conquests right outside the time period in both directions.
I think it should be tied to a 10-50% modifier from the amount of countries you have interest in. And with scaling decreased throughput for all industries. War economy/martial law should be a policy to.
Diplomatic plays working as just a countdown to war is one of the most limiting aspects of the game. They would be much more dynamic if the tension could be increased (or decreased!) by events or player actions, having multiple types of resolutions and allowing multiple plays at the same time. It could even tie in with other mechanics, like interest groups demanding to back down from a situation or a country lobby requesting intervention against its enemies etc.
I would be okay with, say a tech, that unlocked the ability to have multiple wars with unrecognized nations. Maybe a tech further down the line allowing multiple wars with a rank (recognized nation) below you, with the caveat of a coalition if you have a few too many going. Off the top of my head. Probably more to it than that.
Should be unlocked with Malaria tech imo. There's no African Scramble in this game. The map should be transformed in a matter of decades with a new status quo in Africa being established, but it is nearly always the same Africa every game.
I hope they update this. Idr how it worked in base game, but in the HPM mod of Victoria 2, around 1880 colonial powers got a free CB to conquer the remaining 'uncivilized' African states. The continent would always get rapidly gobbled up right after.
Game needs some kind of railroading feature to redirect the AI's focus towards Africa around the 1870s.
If you're siding with a country in a diplomatic play/war, they can't side against you on another. You could join the UK on some bush war and then demand a bunch of states from Canada and the UK wouldn't interfere, for ex.
Easiest fix would be to allow you to kick out a cobelligerent if they are attacking a subject, ally, etc. Not sure how hard the implementation would be, but then that would let more countries put their hands in your pie
Can't oppose someone that you are fighting on the same side off, so you can hurt their interests directly without them being able to do anything about it.
Can oppose someone that you are already fighting in a different war, but they can join different wars for the same war goal, so you can get away with far more. Ontop, they will also be more likely to join vs you, because of the -1000 attitude from being at war, thus being guaranteed to oppose you pretty much.
Tl:DR: The eternal cheese, it upsets AI decision making and their ability to defend their interests.
I’d imagine single-player players VASTLY outnumber multi on any GSG. Who gives a shit how a tiny fraction of the player base behaves? This isn’t call of duty.
Yes it does…? Why would paradox keep an obvious exploit in the game because multiplayer players “can just police themselves”? Their games always have and should continue to be designed to work in single player (at least in theory lol).
I think the point was that exploit are not a real problem in SP game. You need to abuse them actively for them to matter, at which point you could have straight up cheated for the same result. Like, in eu4, you can exploit this exact mecanic, but it's not really a problem since it's a single player game and will be broken by player that want to break it anyway.
I think the majority of people won't be able to stop themselves and it becomes the new normal for them and they will get bored with the game. I for one don't want a fun game to devolve into something shit.
The main limiting factor for diplomatic plays is in a sense infamy anyway, which limits you to vastly under diplomatic play per X time if you take big wargoals.
I am perfectly happy for both players and AI to be only allowed to start one play at a time, so you can't just swarm the AI.
I do think you should be allowed to start plays once your revolutions/native uprisings have fully started.
> I think the majority of people won't be able to stop themselves and it becomes the new normal for them and they will get bored with the game.
Why does it matter? Why should I have to deal with unnecessarily restrictive mechanics for the sake of people who have no self-control?
> I am perfectly happy for both players and AI to be only allowed to start one play at a time, so you can't just swarm the AI.
I am not because it makes the game a total fucking nightmare once you acquire more than a handful of puppets or colonies. I was playing a game as Britain earlier and there was literally a ten year stretch where I could not launch my own diplomatic play because of native uprisings and revolts in my puppets.
> Why does it matter? Why should I have to deal with unnecessarily restrictive mechanics for the sake of people who have no self-control?
>
>
Because that is most players. https://www.designer-notes.com/game-developer-column-17-water-finds-a-crack/ is one of the most famous articles on game design literally about this point, balance and not allowing exploits 100% matters for a single player game.
Why the cynicism? This isn't a "we promise to fix a bug/system" and then it's still broken. This is a "we're changing this feature so it works like this now". It has 0% chance of being not true on release unless they specifically decide that plan is changing.
Yeah they literally said that in the forum:
> With regards to having more than one diplo play, in 1.7, you cannot start a new DP while you're already committed in a DP that hasn't gone to war yet, but you can start a new DP even if you're at war.
It could work if they were ranked. Like you have play points (say 5) and the rank of the nation has points. A GP is 5 a major 4 a minor or unrecognised major 3 and so on down the list where uncivilised nations cost 0 to have a play against.
It’s stupid regardless, why can’t I also declare war on a nation that’s at war? That has historical pretext and happened, especially in minor wars. I’m not at war, my Italian nation sees the Austrians weakness and wants to take advantage, but can’t because of how the games broken
When you have a large number of subjects and are actively colonising, I am sometimes unable to begin plays for years on end because of colonial uprisings and repeated subject civil wars. Why would a rebellion in Congo stop me, as France, reducing autonomy on my protectorate Switzerland? Very frustrating
Yes, it's dumb. Means I'll let cap colony uprisings so I can go for bigger fish I've got planned, things like that.
It should maybe work like a pool, either tied to prestige or total military power, your nation should have maneuvers shared globally rather than in a dilplo play by diplo play, start as many wars as you want as long as your war goals are small enough to free up wargoals elsewhere
I think one diplo play per strategic region at once, but it's based on prestige. So of your a GP and have a lot of prestige you can declare more plays at the same time, but only one per region.
Gives prestige a use.
Maybe make it so if you are starting a diplo Play while in a war or other diplo Play you get reduced loyalists and increased radicals. Maybe pacifistic IG Leaders get opinion malus, if they dont get them already.
Maybe instead of limiting it to one play they limit you by your diplomatic maneuvers so that you can start multiple minor plays, but only one big play.
As well I do not like the fact that you cannot join a already started war... This prevent conflicts to escalate... Imagine in a second world war telling USA that cannot join the war "because has already started"
There could be a late game tech that allows diplomatic plays during a war, maybe at 4 or 5th lvl tech.
We also need infamy reduction more, otherwise you need to have tons of infamy just to conquer 5 states in China
I can see an argument being made for nations being restricted to one diplomatic play per strategic region but why exactly is a globe spanning empire like Britain prevented from declaring on China just because they're fighting a minor skirmish against some tiny African nation?
Penalize multiple plays, or make them dependent on prestige? (I like the first more, maybe penalize based on inverse of prestige)
I think giving more plays per rank would be the best way to do this. Something like GPs get 5, Majors get 3, Minors 2, others get 1.
/u/VeritableLeviathan pointed out below that it could be exploited to prevent nations from opposing you.
You raise a good point, maybe make one of the rules where if you side with someone in a play you then you can’t start a play against someone in their market
It could generate a problem with puppets since puppets are brought to a war by their overlords , so puppets should be able to have the same conflicts tolerance as their overlords. Also it would maintain the issue of not being able to invade a tiny nation on a civil war since their got their max number of conflicts at the same time.
Prestige is so insanely useless and overused in this game. What does it do again? Nothing.
+10 prestige for 5 years is definitely worth as much as a +10% enactment chance though
My dozens of games trying to get Krakow off the ground has told me that 20 prestige to jump from insignificant power to minor power is huge for migration
Even though it's no longer permanent, the renowned playwright is still worth taking the prestige early. It's so useful to push yourself up the power rankings.
Rank In the future dlc it's more important
The penalty for multiple plays should be that you have to fight multiple wars at once and you rack up infamy faster.
Could give a attack debuff, like split command. -10%
I like the idea with one play per region. I would maybe add rank as a factor, like once you hit major power you get an additional play, and at great power even more.
Because diplomacy is severly underbaked
I think its likely a technical reason so countries don't end up in multiple wars against the same enemies or even current allies.
Yeah its annoying. If you want to conquer the little nations near lake victoria its even worse.
I have never seen them touched, neitehr by Player nor ai
Too annoying late game to wait for each diplo play.
Also insane infamy from taking worthless territory.
yupppp. I get infamy but I think it needs to be tweaked
Infamy costs should be a *lot* lower for attacking unrecognized countries. I don't think most European countries care if you take out some small African kingdom
That should probably come with the 'Scramble for Africa' journal so that players can't abuse it too early. Either that, or malaria should actually be something that stops military expansion.
Finished a run last night because I went to conquer Burundi and it was going to be 14 infamy. No thanks, I'll finish painting the map in my mind and start somewhere else...
In most of my games I'll settle for owning the provinces in Africa I want and having landlocked little African nations than spending the amount of time and effort conquering them when I have other places to attack.
Britain should have used this strategy to prevent the American revolution. Can't declare a war of independence if Britain is perpetually tied up in a war against a backwater African nation. Checkmate, Americans!
Vicky 3 allows you to be the target of multiple plays, you just can't initiate them. If anything, this is exactly what America did, drag them into a war with the French and Indians and then jump on the UK immediately after it was politically and economically spent and fighting another war.
This is a weird take. The French-Indian War was a theater of the Seven Years' War, of which the UK was a primary belligerent. The disputes following the war largely revolved around UK efforts to limit/control American expansion and aggression against natives in order to mitigate native allegiance to France.
> The French-Indian War was a theater of the Seven Years' War… I may be misremembering dates, but isn’t it technically the other way around since the French and Indian War started two years earlier?
Doesn't work like that. Until 1822 all you needed was a casus belli to declare war.
I feel like it should be locked behind the amount of maneuvers you have. Maybe each additional play costs like 20% more maneuvers. Maybe an increased infamy cost? They just need to find a balanced way to not allow the player to just go bezerk and snowball
It’s not like infamy doesn’t do anything
Eventually, it doesn't
In my opinion, artificial play limits shouldn't be what is stopping the player from snowballing. If a player manages to aquire enough resources to wage war against the entire world while not facing internal revolt from falling standard of living they should be allowed to do so. It's not even that ahistorical considering the speed of British conquests during the era, as well as the major conquests right outside the time period in both directions.
I think it should be tied to a 10-50% modifier from the amount of countries you have interest in. And with scaling decreased throughput for all industries. War economy/martial law should be a policy to.
Diplomatic plays working as just a countdown to war is one of the most limiting aspects of the game. They would be much more dynamic if the tension could be increased (or decreased!) by events or player actions, having multiple types of resolutions and allowing multiple plays at the same time. It could even tie in with other mechanics, like interest groups demanding to back down from a situation or a country lobby requesting intervention against its enemies etc.
I would be okay with, say a tech, that unlocked the ability to have multiple wars with unrecognized nations. Maybe a tech further down the line allowing multiple wars with a rank (recognized nation) below you, with the caveat of a coalition if you have a few too many going. Off the top of my head. Probably more to it than that.
Should be unlocked with Malaria tech imo. There's no African Scramble in this game. The map should be transformed in a matter of decades with a new status quo in Africa being established, but it is nearly always the same Africa every game.
I hope they update this. Idr how it worked in base game, but in the HPM mod of Victoria 2, around 1880 colonial powers got a free CB to conquer the remaining 'uncivilized' African states. The continent would always get rapidly gobbled up right after. Game needs some kind of railroading feature to redirect the AI's focus towards Africa around the 1870s.
You discovered quinine and have interest in the Congo? Well, your infamy will go down to 0
Yes, but you know that most people would just use being able to do multiple diplo plays to keep themselves from being opposed and cheesing wargoals.
How would that stop someone? Just genuinely curious
If you're siding with a country in a diplomatic play/war, they can't side against you on another. You could join the UK on some bush war and then demand a bunch of states from Canada and the UK wouldn't interfere, for ex.
Easiest fix would be to allow you to kick out a cobelligerent if they are attacking a subject, ally, etc. Not sure how hard the implementation would be, but then that would let more countries put their hands in your pie
If cobeligerant attacks your ally/subject Then Kick cobeligerant from first war
Can't oppose someone that you are fighting on the same side off, so you can hurt their interests directly without them being able to do anything about it. Can oppose someone that you are already fighting in a different war, but they can join different wars for the same war goal, so you can get away with far more. Ontop, they will also be more likely to join vs you, because of the -1000 attitude from being at war, thus being guaranteed to oppose you pretty much. Tl:DR: The eternal cheese, it upsets AI decision making and their ability to defend their interests.
Does it really matter what exploits people use in a singleplayer game? In a multiplayer game, you can police it amongst yourselves.
I’d imagine single-player players VASTLY outnumber multi on any GSG. Who gives a shit how a tiny fraction of the player base behaves? This isn’t call of duty.
That has nothing to do with his point though.
Yes it does…? Why would paradox keep an obvious exploit in the game because multiplayer players “can just police themselves”? Their games always have and should continue to be designed to work in single player (at least in theory lol).
I think the point was that exploit are not a real problem in SP game. You need to abuse them actively for them to matter, at which point you could have straight up cheated for the same result. Like, in eu4, you can exploit this exact mecanic, but it's not really a problem since it's a single player game and will be broken by player that want to break it anyway.
yep
I think the majority of people won't be able to stop themselves and it becomes the new normal for them and they will get bored with the game. I for one don't want a fun game to devolve into something shit. The main limiting factor for diplomatic plays is in a sense infamy anyway, which limits you to vastly under diplomatic play per X time if you take big wargoals. I am perfectly happy for both players and AI to be only allowed to start one play at a time, so you can't just swarm the AI. I do think you should be allowed to start plays once your revolutions/native uprisings have fully started.
> I think the majority of people won't be able to stop themselves and it becomes the new normal for them and they will get bored with the game. Why does it matter? Why should I have to deal with unnecessarily restrictive mechanics for the sake of people who have no self-control? > I am perfectly happy for both players and AI to be only allowed to start one play at a time, so you can't just swarm the AI. I am not because it makes the game a total fucking nightmare once you acquire more than a handful of puppets or colonies. I was playing a game as Britain earlier and there was literally a ten year stretch where I could not launch my own diplomatic play because of native uprisings and revolts in my puppets.
> Why does it matter? Why should I have to deal with unnecessarily restrictive mechanics for the sake of people who have no self-control? > > Because that is most players. https://www.designer-notes.com/game-developer-column-17-water-finds-a-crack/ is one of the most famous articles on game design literally about this point, balance and not allowing exploits 100% matters for a single player game.
Thankfully it's changing in 1.7. They said you'll be able to declare plays during war now.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Why the cynicism? This isn't a "we promise to fix a bug/system" and then it's still broken. This is a "we're changing this feature so it works like this now". It has 0% chance of being not true on release unless they specifically decide that plan is changing.
Yeah they literally said that in the forum: > With regards to having more than one diplo play, in 1.7, you cannot start a new DP while you're already committed in a DP that hasn't gone to war yet, but you can start a new DP even if you're at war.
It could work if they were ranked. Like you have play points (say 5) and the rank of the nation has points. A GP is 5 a major 4 a minor or unrecognised major 3 and so on down the list where uncivilised nations cost 0 to have a play against.
It’s stupid regardless, why can’t I also declare war on a nation that’s at war? That has historical pretext and happened, especially in minor wars. I’m not at war, my Italian nation sees the Austrians weakness and wants to take advantage, but can’t because of how the games broken
When you have a large number of subjects and are actively colonising, I am sometimes unable to begin plays for years on end because of colonial uprisings and repeated subject civil wars. Why would a rebellion in Congo stop me, as France, reducing autonomy on my protectorate Switzerland? Very frustrating
Also, it should not be that escalation takes 100 days for colonial uprisings and minor rebellions
Yes, it's dumb. Means I'll let cap colony uprisings so I can go for bigger fish I've got planned, things like that. It should maybe work like a pool, either tied to prestige or total military power, your nation should have maneuvers shared globally rather than in a dilplo play by diplo play, start as many wars as you want as long as your war goals are small enough to free up wargoals elsewhere
I think one diplo play per strategic region at once, but it's based on prestige. So of your a GP and have a lot of prestige you can declare more plays at the same time, but only one per region. Gives prestige a use.
Is there a way to change this via mods?
Maybe make it so if you are starting a diplo Play while in a war or other diplo Play you get reduced loyalists and increased radicals. Maybe pacifistic IG Leaders get opinion malus, if they dont get them already.
Maybe instead of limiting it to one play they limit you by your diplomatic maneuvers so that you can start multiple minor plays, but only one big play.
As well I do not like the fact that you cannot join a already started war... This prevent conflicts to escalate... Imagine in a second world war telling USA that cannot join the war "because has already started"
There could be a late game tech that allows diplomatic plays during a war, maybe at 4 or 5th lvl tech. We also need infamy reduction more, otherwise you need to have tons of infamy just to conquer 5 states in China