MoLAoS
Guest
I believe in the new system if you control both parts of a strait you cannot be blocked by ships. It basically destroys the whole strategy because generally both areas are controlled by the same group.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Europa Universalis IV
- Thread starter Kane
- Start date
I believe in the new system if you control both parts of a strait you cannot be blocked by ships. It basically destroys the whole strategy because generally both areas are controlled by the same group.
Delterius
Arcane
Try playing as Byzantium and then realize that if the Ottomans get access all the way to Crimea (which is likely since most everyone is either muslim or afraid of them) they can go through Moldavia willy-nilly. Basically you get at least one free country as part of the (new?) military access rules.
kris
Arcane
Apart from the multiplayer game with prestigious posters here I pretty much played no EU4. That is until this week when I suddenly felt light playing a couple of iron man games.
I gotta say the AI is more competent than it ever been in the EU games.
In my Sweden game Denmark did the almost perfect declaration of war on me, while I was deeply in a conflict in the baltics. I was only saved by having best ally (Potato), but the war wrecked me for years with the high WE.
I mention that, because that is how you as player succed. Timing wars when the opponent is weak.
I gotta say the AI is more competent than it ever been in the EU games.
In my Sweden game Denmark did the almost perfect declaration of war on me, while I was deeply in a conflict in the baltics. I was only saved by having best ally (Potato), but the war wrecked me for years with the high WE.
I mention that, because that is how you as player succed. Timing wars when the opponent is weak.
Irenaeus II
Unwanted
Good points.
kris
Arcane
apparently I restarted this game at the wrong point in time. A patch must have made some changes to AE, which normally wouldn't been a problem as you as a player adapt to changes... Except the change was retroactive and suddenly several of my saves became unplayable of a sorts. My England game (which I hadn't looked at for a while) put me from some AE that been at 10-30 with major nations up to 60-120. Bang! Whole world in coalition against me.
Other bad thing about this is that the AE that you are shown in the peacedeal is less than the actual AE you will get with many nations.
Other bad thing about this is that the AE that you are shown in the peacedeal is less than the actual AE you will get with many nations.
Soph
Educated
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 62
I love the new patch making the AI more devious, they seem to check more often whether or not your allies defend you or not. I've been chaindeclared on by several neighbouring nations, just because my usual ally was having high war exhaustion and loans. I think it shouldn't autobreak the alliance though.
To explain: Say I play Mazovia bordering Hungary / Poland and Teutonic Order
I rivaled both Poland and Teutonic Order, while keeping relations with Hungary somewhat high
My ally is Austria who'se also rivalled to Teutons and Poland, she is in a war which hurts her a little, Austria has an alliance with Hungary as well,
If Poland attacks, Austria would jump in regardless of their second war, due to rivalry attitude
If Teutons attack, same
But Hungary attacked, resulting in Austria declining the call due to war exhaustion and "liking" Hungary, resulting into an autobreak of the alliance of my poor Mazovia with Austria
Now Poland and Teutons chaindeclare on me because Austrian alliance is gone.
I'd like some more player agency here, it's stupid we don't get a popup asking whether or not we want to keep this traitorous ally Austria as an ally because they didn't answer the call to arms.
As a sidenote, the new patch/expansion brought a memory leak into the game, which makes the UI do weird things like disappear and zoom, it can be fixed with an easy restart. Still very annoying.
To explain: Say I play Mazovia bordering Hungary / Poland and Teutonic Order
I rivaled both Poland and Teutonic Order, while keeping relations with Hungary somewhat high
My ally is Austria who'se also rivalled to Teutons and Poland, she is in a war which hurts her a little, Austria has an alliance with Hungary as well,
If Poland attacks, Austria would jump in regardless of their second war, due to rivalry attitude
If Teutons attack, same
But Hungary attacked, resulting in Austria declining the call due to war exhaustion and "liking" Hungary, resulting into an autobreak of the alliance of my poor Mazovia with Austria
Now Poland and Teutons chaindeclare on me because Austrian alliance is gone.
I'd like some more player agency here, it's stupid we don't get a popup asking whether or not we want to keep this traitorous ally Austria as an ally because they didn't answer the call to arms.
As a sidenote, the new patch/expansion brought a memory leak into the game, which makes the UI do weird things like disappear and zoom, it can be fixed with an easy restart. Still very annoying.
Irenaeus II
Unwanted
Nice, this is good news. Not the memory leak, the devious AI thing. Makes the game more strategical... Just a question, does the AI chacks the player's allies only or does it work for all countries? Agree that it shouldn't autobreak the alliance, particularly because losing an ally (even he can't help you at the time) makes you weaker!
Soph
Educated
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 62
It works for all countries, AI is definitely more aggressive against other AI who seem weak. Ottomans consolidate Anatolia faster for example.
When starting as a weak country close to a bigger neighbor that wants to conquer you, it's important to get any ally, even if it's another small country. It's doubtful you can get a great power to ally you in time for the incoming attack. Setting your status to threatened helps though!
Vaarna_Aarne
Notorious Internet Vandal
Given that I saw a gigantic Kazan in my last playthrough where I didn't get involved in European affairs (spirit of the buffalo needs only colonists and trade casinos), so I would guess that the AI is much better at pouncing and taking advantage of weakness.
Irenaeus II
Unwanted
What's this? It's been a long time (2 or 3 expansions) since I last played.
Soph
Educated
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 62
Diplomatic feedback, you can now set attitudes to specific countries just like the AI does, other AI's will react on your attitude. Previously you could only rival or not rival. You can also show which parts of the world you're interested in conquering, although I'd say it's not such a great idea. Possible allies get -20 to wanting to ally just because you share a province you both want in your enemy, better to just set nothing, ally them and occupy the land.
Other new things are a % war contribution, so allies who do all the work for you also expect all the spoils.
There's a fuckton more, hasn't someone listed the changes yet?
Irenaeus II
Unwanted
Cool, I'm from the time you could only rival or not rival. Seems like a have some learning to do before playing again.
Multiple Sarcasm
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 3,181
I'm guessing this new "fort blocking movement" mechanic is hard-coded and can't be modded away?
Vaarna_Aarne
Notorious Internet Vandal
Haven't investimagated, but part of that is that I greatly prefer the new fort system.
Multiple Sarcasm
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 3,181
Having fewer things to siege is great, but invisible walls is pure pants on head.
But it really fits the game, as most of the EU4 is pants on head.
Delterius
Arcane
But the forts are not invisible.
aleph
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,778
Multiple Sarcasm probably just cannot into zones of control.
Space Satan
Arcane
Some shit on 1.15
*******
Happy new 2016, everyone! With the holidays over, we now return to our regularly scheduled Thursday dev diaries. Today we'll be talking about some changes coming in the upcoming 1.15 bugfixing and balancing patch, which should come out sometime before the end of January.
Changes to Estates
The Estates feature represented a major shift in the EU4 development towards more internal mechanics. Such shifts rarely go entirely smoothly, and there was some controversy regarding the feature, with many players either loving or hating it. We consider the Estates mechanic a strong addition to the game and intend to continue to develop internal mechanics in EU4 (though it will always remain an empire building game at its core) but, as might be expected when going in an entirely new design direction, some of the Estates mechanics didn't end up working so well in practice. For this reason, Estates will be recieving a number of tweaks in 1.15 to make them more interesting and balanced.
First of all, all Estates will now be removed from provinces on conquest. This is one of those cases where it makes absolute perfect sense historically: The local nobility didn't just up and vanish when a new ruler took over, and nearly all conquerors had to depend on the same local elites that ruled in the territory before their conquest. However, gameplay wise this simply didn't work out, with players experiencing sudden Estate influence spikes they could not control or having to revoke a badly placed Estate to give the province to another Estate. The option to have Estates remain on conquest will stay for modders that want to emphasise history over gameplay.
Secondly, Loyalty is being reworked. Originally, Loyalty was all permanent effects, with the temporary modifiers added later because of the effects of interactions and the like simply ending up too strong. This however has created a bit of a weird hybrid system where it's difficult to predict where your Estates' loyalty will be in the future, and where you can get stuck at low loyalty waiting and praying for some event to fire. As such, we're going to change Loyatly to adopt a model more like prestige, where loyalty is a permanent value with no modifiers that decays slowly towards a middle point of 50, with the decay being faster the further from 50 it is. The disloyal threshold was changed to 40, while the loyal threshold remains at 60. The non-temporary modifiers for loyalty (such as high piety for the Ulema) were changed to modifiers on the decay speed, so disloyal nobles will cease being disloyal faster if the monarch has high legitimacy, for example.
Finally, the way Estates give autonomy in provinces is also being changed. While the autonomy itself isn't a problem, the fact that we changed autonomy to be multiplicative resulted in some undesirable results like Nobility provinces actually reducing manpower if the country also had quantity. For this reason, we've tweaked the different Estates to have special exceptions to their autonomy effects, which apply not only to autonomy given from the Estate but to all autonomy in the province, as follows:
In addition to these changes, there are also a number of minor tweaks, such as adjusting the province effects of Estates to work with the new autonomy exception and making it so that developing Estate provinces increases their loyalty.
Changes to Diplomatic Feedback
The second of the big two features in Cossacks, Diplomatic Feedback, suffered from some problems of its own on launch. Unlike Estates, the problem with Diplomatic Feedback was not with the feature design but rather the fact that we were a little too conservative in adapting the AI to the new system, resulting in things like one-province hordes laying claim to half of Eurasia or AI allies rivaling you at 100 trust because they had no other possible rivals to choose from. To address this, we're making the following changes:
While certainly not a Cossacks or 1.14 feature, Poland's Elective Monarchy from Res Publica has always been the source of complaints from people who do not feel that its representation of Jagellion legitimacy is, shall we say, strictly accurate. It's one of those things that has been on my personal todo list to revamp for a long time, and for 1.15 it is going to receive the following changes:
That's all for today! Next week we'll continue talking about patch 1.15, so stay tuned.
*******
Happy new 2016, everyone! With the holidays over, we now return to our regularly scheduled Thursday dev diaries. Today we'll be talking about some changes coming in the upcoming 1.15 bugfixing and balancing patch, which should come out sometime before the end of January.
Changes to Estates
The Estates feature represented a major shift in the EU4 development towards more internal mechanics. Such shifts rarely go entirely smoothly, and there was some controversy regarding the feature, with many players either loving or hating it. We consider the Estates mechanic a strong addition to the game and intend to continue to develop internal mechanics in EU4 (though it will always remain an empire building game at its core) but, as might be expected when going in an entirely new design direction, some of the Estates mechanics didn't end up working so well in practice. For this reason, Estates will be recieving a number of tweaks in 1.15 to make them more interesting and balanced.
First of all, all Estates will now be removed from provinces on conquest. This is one of those cases where it makes absolute perfect sense historically: The local nobility didn't just up and vanish when a new ruler took over, and nearly all conquerors had to depend on the same local elites that ruled in the territory before their conquest. However, gameplay wise this simply didn't work out, with players experiencing sudden Estate influence spikes they could not control or having to revoke a badly placed Estate to give the province to another Estate. The option to have Estates remain on conquest will stay for modders that want to emphasise history over gameplay.
Secondly, Loyalty is being reworked. Originally, Loyalty was all permanent effects, with the temporary modifiers added later because of the effects of interactions and the like simply ending up too strong. This however has created a bit of a weird hybrid system where it's difficult to predict where your Estates' loyalty will be in the future, and where you can get stuck at low loyalty waiting and praying for some event to fire. As such, we're going to change Loyatly to adopt a model more like prestige, where loyalty is a permanent value with no modifiers that decays slowly towards a middle point of 50, with the decay being faster the further from 50 it is. The disloyal threshold was changed to 40, while the loyal threshold remains at 60. The non-temporary modifiers for loyalty (such as high piety for the Ulema) were changed to modifiers on the decay speed, so disloyal nobles will cease being disloyal faster if the monarch has high legitimacy, for example.
Finally, the way Estates give autonomy in provinces is also being changed. While the autonomy itself isn't a problem, the fact that we changed autonomy to be multiplicative resulted in some undesirable results like Nobility provinces actually reducing manpower if the country also had quantity. For this reason, we've tweaked the different Estates to have special exceptions to their autonomy effects, which apply not only to autonomy given from the Estate but to all autonomy in the province, as follows:
- Provinces controlled by the Clergy and Dhimmi will no longer have the effects of autonomy applied to tax income.
- Provinces controlled by the Burghers will no longer have the effects of autonomy applied to production income and trade power.
- Provinces controlled by the Nobility, Cossacks and Tribes will no longer have the effects of autonomy applied to manpower and force limit.
In addition to these changes, there are also a number of minor tweaks, such as adjusting the province effects of Estates to work with the new autonomy exception and making it so that developing Estate provinces increases their loyalty.
Changes to Diplomatic Feedback
The second of the big two features in Cossacks, Diplomatic Feedback, suffered from some problems of its own on launch. Unlike Estates, the problem with Diplomatic Feedback was not with the feature design but rather the fact that we were a little too conservative in adapting the AI to the new system, resulting in things like one-province hordes laying claim to half of Eurasia or AI allies rivaling you at 100 trust because they had no other possible rivals to choose from. To address this, we're making the following changes:
- The AI will no longer rival a country they have 80+ trust with under any circumstances.
- Trust now has a much stronger effect on whether the AI desires your provinces, and will be the primary determinor when the AI has to choose between two mutually exclusive alliances (because of rivalries etc).
- The way AI claims provinces of vital interest has been reworked to be more sensible.
- When an alliance is about to break because of mutually vital territory, the game will now warn you via an alert that this is going to happen and give you a chance to adjust your own claims.
While certainly not a Cossacks or 1.14 feature, Poland's Elective Monarchy from Res Publica has always been the source of complaints from people who do not feel that its representation of Jagellion legitimacy is, shall we say, strictly accurate. It's one of those things that has been on my personal todo list to revamp for a long time, and for 1.15 it is going to receive the following changes:
- Local heirs will now have a claim strength of 80, same as foreign heirs, meaning they will no longer start their reign with low legitimacy.
- The stat boosts for local heirs were somewhat reduced, though they still get on average higher stats than foreign heirs.
- Boosting the support of a local heir now costs prestige (10 for 5 support) instead of legitimacy.
- When a foreign monarch holds the throne, there is now a small chance that another country of that dynasty will get a CB to enforce a union on the elective monarchy. If they successfully do so, the elective monarchy is abolished and replaced with a monarchy of the same type as their new overlord.
That's all for today! Next week we'll continue talking about patch 1.15, so stay tuned.
MoLAoS
Guest
Well on the one hand they massively improved Elective Monarchy. Holy shit. Those changes are amazing. On the other hand, estates are still an embarrassing example of internal gameplay. It is hilarious that Johan is going back on his previous claims that internal gameplay is stupid and will never be in EU4 though.
Irenaeus II
Unwanted
Internal gameplay? What is that?
Joined on the 4th of July
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2014
- Messages
- 1,563
They probably now have Stellaris for their in-house multiplayer sessions. Europa Universalis can be relegated to single-player use.
MoLAoS
Guest
I mean, Stellaris is more like Vicky2 than EU4. So it probably wouldn't be as good for multiplayer.
Multiple Sarcasm
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 3,181
Yep, it's all fixed now. Go forth and crojipjip:I guess i can finaly start playing this
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.