Magna Mundi Info

[Vaarna_Aarne]

All this stuff sounds really good, ubik.

What about domestic politics and government types? Will these be more indepth as well? And what about the number of national decisions?

You are going to use the building system from Divine Wind, or a similar one, right? I mean, the provincial decision building system was a workaround, right?

What about monarch stats and personalities? Are these more detailed, and can we influence the upbringing and stats of a future monarch?

What are the eight unit types for land forces?

 

[Furious Flaming Faggot]

Are non Europeans going to be more capable of resisting Europeans? In EU3 during the mid and especially late game the technology gap becomes so large that European armies easily trash non European armies.

Are you going to expand provincial actions for armies? In EU3 you had scorched earth, so are you going to add any more strategic options like that?

 

[Monocause]

I'd suggest to think about making temples more useful. As it is right now the investment just isn't worthwhile - the conversion bonus is rather situational and the bonus to stability is negligible - come on, a five point cost reduction? Even if you appreciate the conversion bonus it just isn't really worth the expense.

Perhaps temples are more useful for Euro countries and influence the papacy somehow but I play catholic countries very rarely. Recently I've played as Malacca and now az Aztlan and in both cases found temples to be just expensive and useless.

 

[Serious_Business]

Are non Europeans going to be more capable of resisting Europeans? In EU3 during the mid and especially late game the technology gap becomes so large that European armies easily trash non European armies.

Why is that a problem?

 

[Calem Ravenna]

What about technological progress? Are you going to stick with the EU system or design something different?

 

[Furious Flaming Faggot]

Why is that a problem?

I dislike that there isn't much difficulty in conquering a colonial Empire in the far east. Europeans should have a technology advantage, but I think it should be more difficult to conquer natives.

 

[Monocause]

Why is that a problem?

I dislike that there isn't much difficulty in conquering a colonial Empire in the far east. Europeans should have a technology advantage, but I think it should be more difficult to conquer natives.

How about a "defending our heritage" event? Say that a country from Europe attacks an Asian or African country (excluding the ones with a "major" or "great power" flag). The country that's attacked gets a +0,5 bonus to land and naval morale, a bonus to manpower and forcelimits, a sizeable reduction in stability cost - the bonus lasts until the war ends.

That way the Euro tech advantage would be lessened somewhat and mass Euro conqests would start at a more historically feasible date.

 

[Serious_Business]

Why is that a problem?

I dislike that there isn't much difficulty in conquering a colonial Empire in the far east. Europeans should have a technology advantage, but I think it should be more difficult to conquer natives.

Perhaps so, but then I'd say the better idea would be to make colonial ventures (especially in the east) something more than just all-out military invasion. The religious element should be more predominant at first, and then perhaps some kind of trade / political intimidation that you could exploit, something a bit more involved. I don't know so much about the history of this process, but I doubt colonies were established by waging all-out wars on eastern armies. If anything, it was probably making deals with the leading aristocratic forces, so the domination wasn't always clearly military even if there was a show of force. But then this is mostly speculation on my part, but then I think we'd agree that everything to avoid map painting is a good idea

 

[SCO]

It was almost always economic at first:
The slave trading cities on the ivory coast.
The east india company opium trade to china and elsewhere
Hong Kong and Macau and other Indian cities as trading enclaves
The slave plantations in Haiti (transplanted slaves)

Etc. It was a give and take with local rulers, but ofcourse, divide and conquer.

The famed (and remembered now) religious figures opposed much of this, but - bullshitting here - at the time the religious focus was on conversions (and it worked too).
Ex: Jesuits of all stripes, Franciscans - the political orders.

 

[Drakron]

I don't know so much about the history of this process, but I doubt colonies were established by waging all-out wars on eastern armies. If anything, it was probably making deals with the leading aristocratic forces, so the domination wasn't always clearly military even if there was a show of force.

A bit of both, the Incas were wiped out because their allied tribes were sick and tired of them and would rather join the Spanish in wiping then out.

It was like that pretty much in every other place but the issue is European just out-tech them so hard it was not even funny, look at the Opium Wars were Qing China could not beat the British troops.

Giving natives the same tech levels or advantages in case of invasion is simply historical incorrect, even in the more advanced nations.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

But there should be a chance to westernise and then defend yourself. Even in vanilla, westernising is a gigantic pain in the ass, but it's worse if it's entirely absent in any form.

Playing as the Aztec the most important thing should be just surviving the initial encounter with Europeans, and then westernising (and none of that three-step bullshit either, since that's the same as never getting a chance at success).

 

[thesheeep]

Out of pure interest:
In the latest version of the MM mod, there was so much stuff going on that the game was really slow on my machine.

Since you will be able to put many things into the game itself, instead of having to use scripting, how do you expect the game to run on "medium sized" machines, such as mine?

By then I will have a newer PC, but I'm still curious

 

[Drakron]

But there should be a chance to westernise and then defend yourself.

It sounds you want to try having "balance" were none existed, the reason why Europeans powers usually tried to win diplomatic was because fielding a Army across the globe was very difficult at that time, not to mention some countries did not exactly had the manpower to attempt to do so.

Playing as the Aztec the most important thing should be just surviving the initial encounter with Europeans, and then westernising (and none of that three-step bullshit either, since that's the same as never getting a chance at success).

The issue is the Aztec were pretty much fucked, look at the size of their Empire and now look at Spain ... that is even before tech levels go into the equation.

Also the Spaniards entered into a Alliance with the Tlaxcala.

Also I do not think "westernizing" is the answer, its how European initial contacts are were its unlikely they would commit a significant force (the Tlaxcala even defeated the Spaniards) and how difficult it is for to cross troops across the oceans.

That forces diplomacy were they have to ally with someone in the area before they try to conquer since they cannot really field their main armies in the area.

Another thing, if you make Natives "harder" then you really fuck up some nations, like Portugal, from forming the Colonial Empire they had.

 

[Malakal]

Simply adding attrition based on difference between the current area and the area where troops were recruited would suffice - for example French troops in India: India is tropical in the south while France is temperate or warm, we add few levels between (like temperate-warm-hot-arid-tropical-desert) and troops suffer 50% attrition monthly. This solution would allow colonial nations to field huge armies as they did (as it wouldn't penalize them like arbitrary supply limit does) but would also correctly represent difficulties in invading frozen or tropical areas. This penalty would be lowered with techs and NIs. It could also be applied to colonization.

 

[commie]

Yeah, natives should be pretty much fodder and the real challenge for a European colonist/imperial power should be how to take advantage of this weakness without leaving itself exposed to other European powers who would have the same designs.

Rather than making natives tougher, why not make other European rivals more aggressive against your expansionism? It would give a similar effect in making colonizing and conquering harder and encourage the very divide and conquer model of dealing with local warlords that happened.

 

[Destroid]

Simply adding attrition based on difference between the current area and the area where troops were recruited would suffice - for example French troops in India: India is tropical in the south while France is temperate or warm, we add few levels between (like temperate-warm-hot-arid-tropical-desert) and troops suffer 50% attrition monthly. This solution would allow colonial nations to field huge armies as they did (as it wouldn't penalize them like arbitrary supply limit does) but would also correctly represent difficulties in invading frozen or tropical areas. This penalty would be lowered with techs and NIs. It could also be applied to colonization.

Tropical provinces already exist. You get a colonisation % penalty for trying to colonise in a tropical province (I think it's 20%) and I believe you troops take more attrition in such provinces. The penalty for colonisation is negated if you have a tropical capital, not 100% sure on the attrition.

 

[Malakal]

Yes I know they are already in but they hardly matter. Growth penalty is barely noticeable in vanilla and even in MMU I had no problems with marching my armies from Poland to Malaysia on foot due to military access... A more severe and realistic system should be implemented.

 

[Drakron]

You still run into problems, the British had the Indian Army that was composed by natives so attrition cannot be explained in that case.

 

[Malakal]

You still run into problems, the British had the Indian Army that was composed by natives so attrition cannot be explained in that case.

As I wrote it would be based on troop home province. So troops raised in Britain would die by the thousands in tropics (unless high tech) while troops raised in India would die like flies in Russia etc.

 

[Destroid]

Also remember that attrition represents all non-combat losses to your armies - in this time period this included a large amount of desertion. Perhaps a foreign legion mechanic could be in place to let you draw troops from vassals manpower, but with higher attrition because they are less loyal to you.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

But there should be a chance to westernise and then defend yourself.

It sounds you want to try having "balance" were none existed, the reason why Europeans powers usually tried to win diplomatic was because fielding a Army across the globe was very difficult at that time, not to mention some countries did not exactly had the manpower to attempt to do so.

Playing as the Aztec the most important thing should be just surviving the initial encounter with Europeans, and then westernising (and none of that three-step bullshit either, since that's the same as never getting a chance at success).

The issue is the Aztec were pretty much fucked, look at the size of their Empire and now look at Spain ... that is even before tech levels go into the equation.

Also the Spaniards entered into a Alliance with the Tlaxcala.

Also I do not think "westernizing" is the answer, its how European initial contacts are were its unlikely they would commit a significant force (the Tlaxcala even defeated the Spaniards) and how difficult it is for to cross troops across the oceans.

That forces diplomacy were they have to ally with someone in the area before they try to conquer since they cannot really field their main armies in the area.

Another thing, if you make Natives "harder" then you really fuck up some nations, like Portugal, from forming the Colonial Empire they had.

Actually, what I wanted was to make the natives and other non-Europeans more playable. Naturally the AI native nations should exist to be pwned, but the player should be given potential tools by which to survive.

 

[ubik-magnamundi]

1) What's MM's relation to the newly released Divine Wind expansion? Are the main features of Divine Wind integrated into MM and built upwards from there, or did you guys already address most of DW's improvements yourselves from scratch? If I remember correctly, MMU already brought many improvements to the Asian theatres without the need for DW, so I'm ok with both options.

NO relation whatsoever.

2) Is the game priced as a full, new release, or is it going to be more expansion-priced?

That's for the publisher to decide.

Certainly we are making a full effort to bring a new full game, but we know very little of this market other than how to make very good games.

 

[ubik-magnamundi]

All this stuff sounds really good, ubik.

What about domestic politics and government types? Will these be more indepth as well? And what about the number of national decisions?

Much more indepth. Factions will play a major role in gameplay.

You are going to use the building system from Divine Wind, or a similar one, right? I mean, the provincial decision building system was a workaround, right?

We are not using anything from DW. Obviously, we are not going to keep decisions to build buildings.

What about monarch stats and personalities? Are these more detailed, and can we influence the upbringing and stats of a future monarch?

Four Stats... some 20 personalities. No influence at all over the stats of future monarchs.

What are the eight unit types for land forces?

With close to 600 different units right now, the basic types are: Militia/Feudal Levies, Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry, Artillery, Archers, Mercenaries.

 

[ubik-magnamundi]

Are non Europeans going to be more capable of resisting Europeans? In EU3 during the mid and especially late game the technology gap becomes so large that European armies easily trash non European armies.

Yes, but mostly due to other types of limitations in power projection.

Are you going to expand provincial actions for armies? In EU3 you had scorched earth, so are you going to add any more strategic options like that?

No, you'll have your hands full waging war.

 

[ubik-magnamundi]

A question: Is it possible, at least in theory, for one to conquer the world in MM?

Don't think so... It would be an interesting experience to code an event to place all provinces under the same owner and then check how long can he keep it...