|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Isnt that what artillery already is supposed to be doing? And now we are going to have to pay for it if we want it more quickly? The normal breaches are still there, the artillery bonuses are still there. This just adds a way to get a guaranteed breach for 50 mil points (which is a lot). I see it as something to be used late game against level 6+ forts and even then the price is restrictive.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
IMO it should scale to fort level. 50 mil is pretty steep for a mere level 1 fort. Still, it's better to have this feature than not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Mountaineer posted:IMO it should scale to fort level. 50 mil is pretty steep for a mere level 1 fort. if a level 1 fort is modern paying full price for it is only fair and if it's out-of-date it's gonna be pretty quick to siege down anyway (certainly nothing that Emperor Louis-Mehmet II von Habsburg would bother with overseeing himself) but at four years maintenance of a mil policy per use it's still pretty expensive. i could see using it for especially important up-to-date chokepoint forts maybe. i suppose that's what it's for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Now we just need a sortable list of tax/trade/mans for provinces that fits in the production window so I don't have to put up with the ledger's giant size and broken column sort when moving around estates
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Unless I'm working on a military idea set, I usually have more mil points than I know what to do with if I'm playing in Europe. I can definitely see myself spending some on speeding sieges along.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
A lot of people use spare mil points to reroll generals. The last expansion also introduced a button to get legitimacy for mil points. Not sure how useful this option really is, given the AI still has that "length of war" modifier anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
50 is really overkill, and I can only really see myself using it on something like an endgame mountain fort or something. I mean, I'd rather just roll another general and hope for siege pips. It should really probably be somewhere in the single digits, maybe a bit higher for late game forts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:50 is really overkill, and I can only really see myself using it on something like an endgame mountain fort or something. I mean, I'd rather just roll another general and hope for siege pips. It should really probably be somewhere in the single digits, maybe a bit higher for late game forts. You're obviously not meant to use it in every siege or even every other siege, it's just an option you can use in a pinch when you absolutely need to get one done faster. I think 50 is totally fine for that purpose, a single-digit cost would be absurd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:You're obviously not meant to use it in every siege or even every other siege, it's just an option you can use in a pinch when you absolutely need to get one done faster. I think 50 is totally fine for that purpose, a single-digit cost would be absurd. I think until we can use it to try I agree that it is too expensive and 25 may be more reasonable until it gets abused by the playerbase. Also, doesnt it cost Mil Points to initiate an assault in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Yeah, ten.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
why would you need to assault
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:The thing is that you still need to assault. Assaulting can be horrifyingly expensive in terms of the cost to your infantry numbers and therefore money and/or manpower, plus the opportunity cost of your morale and numbers being lowered in enemy territory. I pretty much never assault anymore because I have gotten burned too many times when I have tried. I will never be paying 50 Mil Points for the privilege. It'll speed up the siege no matter what though, you're not forced to assault just because you breached the walls. I still think it's totally fine as an emergency "This siege needs to end faster" -button and even 25 would probably be too low for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:It'll speed up the siege no matter what though, you're not forced to assault just because you breached the walls. I still think it's totally fine as an emergency "This siege needs to end faster" -button and even 25 would probably be too low for it. We just have a difference of opinions about the cost and I dont really have anything else to say about it so 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
a wall breach is a +3 to the siege roll or something. unless this doesn't actually cause a wall breach
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:To my understanding, there being a breach would not affect the speed of a surrender without assaulting; the breach simply allows assaults. Breaches add 1 to the siege roll for each breach iirc. Still not worth 50 mil considering there's a good chance of a breach occurring naturally if you wait out a difficult fort anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Italy has the best galley bonus I think, so I would go with tons of galleys with some heavies mixed in depending on how many can you afford (more heavies is always better but not cheap at all - try to have at least as many heavies as they have) I always wondered how low the chances of being able to snatch Constantinople from the Ottomans as Naples would be since I never really tried it. Obviously would take a really inept Ottoman AI that round as well as having success to gain independence early enough for it. Other than using the Ottomans to destroy Austria/HRE it seems like the best move if you get the chance if you're anywhere in the eastern Med. Italy is one of my favorite starts but still haven't tried Naples since the early years seem to be pretty boring unless you get pretty lucky. Still want to do a run of it since Two Sicilies in Vicky is by far my favorite. edit: a breach being expensive in MP seems fine since it seems like you're only meant to use it when it's going to help make a quick strategic advantage. I wouldn't mind spending even 100MP if I had the chance to smash a fort and spend a bunch of ducats just to be able to stackwipe an army and start carpet sieging (why is chrome marking this as an incorrect spelling  ).
aeglus fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:Johan posting the hot updates on his twitter. Macro builder improves: HALLELUJAH
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:Breaches add 1 to the siege roll for each breach iirc. Still not worth 50 mil considering there's a good chance of a breach occurring naturally if you wait out a difficult fort anyway. It's a super damaging phase % wise as well, I assume it'll still include that when you force a breach. I am glad those of you saying 50 isn't worth it aren't balancing EU4, this sounds potentially extremely powerful. It's not supposed to be something you do every time, but there are situations where cracking that mountain fortress more quickly will make or break a war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Just going to keep copying the good updates he posts (tell me if this is annoying). Filter in the ledger!! https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/846385930843901952
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Will the game tell us how much money we save on state maintenance by building court houses too? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Good to see Paradox making certain no one will ever play an earlier patch ever again. Time to hold off starting any new campaigns, I guess...Koramei posted:It's a super damaging phase % wise as well, I assume it'll still include that when you force a breach. Honestly, I was just hoping it would be something to speed up late game sieges as a whole, but you're probably right in that it's balanced for what it's actually supposed to be and it would be broken in the earlier game otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
oddium posted:why would you need to assault To reclaim the capital of an inept subject from pretender rebels 10 days before they can enforce demands aeglus posted:I always wondered how low the chances of being able to snatch Constantinople from the Ottomans as Naples would be since I never really tried it. Obviously would take a really inept Ottoman AI that round as well as having success to gain independence early enough for it. Other than using the Ottomans to destroy Austria/HRE it seems like the best move if you get the chance if you're anywhere in the eastern Med. Italy is one of my favorite starts but still haven't tried Naples since the early years seem to be pretty boring unless you get pretty lucky. Actually I had zero problems declaring independence as naples, just get support from france, Austria and/or Castille before the iberian wedding fires and they will gladly destroy Aragon for you. It was very easy in my run, might just be sheer luck
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:Honestly, I was just hoping it would be something to speed up late game sieges as a whole, but you're probably right in that it's balanced for what it's actually supposed to be and it would be broken in the earlier game otherwise. Oh they've actually got some stuff for all sieges now too, from the age abilities; they changed them up a bunch since they did the dev diaries. Age 3 (I think it's 3 anyway) has a thing to get +1 to siege progress if you're blockading them, so a blockade doesn't just nullify the coastal siege mallus, but actually speeds the siege along. And in Age 4 one of the things gives you +3 extra from cannons, so if you have enough cannons you can get a +8 bonus out of it. I'm not gonna search for timestamps but it's all in this video if you wanna check it out, there's some other stuff too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx42wPdgHDg I'm still not a fan of the railroad bonus nations or golden ages, but I've warmed up a lot on the ages mechanic since it was first announced, it seems like it might be kinda fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
All these tweets of "Look how good the next iteration of our games will be!" significantly demotivate me from playing the current version of EU4/Stellaris.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
wukkar posted:All these tweets of "Look how good the next iteration of our games will be!" significantly demotivate me from playing the current version of EU4/Stellaris. This is true, but if they motivate you to buy the next expansion then they've done their job, and eventually there will be no more DLC and you can abandon the game, unplayed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
wukkar posted:All these tweets of "Look how good the next iteration of our games will be!" significantly demotivate me from playing the current version of EU4/Stellaris. It makes that one week between release and when they start hyping the next patch all the more sweet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
I'm almost done with my current Mediterranean Cultural Genocide run.  Poor León got kicked out of Iberia, started conquering West Africa and now it's only them and Mali left but Mali broke their alliance and started eating them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Johan has said that they playtested the "create a breach" button at lower mil point costs, but people used it too often for their tastes even when it was at 25 mil points.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:The thing is that you still need to assault. Assaulting can be horrifyingly expensive in terms of the cost to your infantry numbers and therefore money and/or manpower, plus the opportunity cost of your morale and numbers being lowered in enemy territory. I pretty much never assault anymore because I have gotten burned too many times when I have tried. I will never be paying 50 Mil Points for the privilege. It's an even bigger incentive to run Mercs I think 50 is probably around the right cost and it's something that I will use in those specific situations where I have lots of spare manpower or lots of mercs to crack that single movement-blocking fortress that prevents me from sieging the rest of a nation. Creating an instant breach is powerful if you intend to bring down a fort extremely quickly
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
I've definitely been in situations where I need to take a fort yesterday. Like if a co-belligerent is besieging my capital and I'm besieging theirs. If I can get their fort down first I can white peace and keep my capital safe. I would definitely pay 50 MIL for that, maybe even 100.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
It will help a lot in blitzing opponents with mothballed forts you can't quite get to before they get a tick or two. Waiting around for a breach on a 300 strong fort you could just storm is really annoying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
I decided on a lark to go back to EU3 to remind myself of what that was like and oh boy. I wasn't ready for the shock to my senses that was EU3 In Nomine's art and interface. I remember at the time thinking it was a bit dated but not too bad, but it looks like a game from the '90s. Everything is about ten times more difficult to do than it has to be, too. The game itself is pretty rudimentary, though with the missions and decisions, it still has way more substance than vanilla EU3. I then installed Divine Wind 5.2 and christ, it's a whole different game. That's the game I remember sinking untold hundreds of hours into. It's still fun, too. Very different from what EU4 is now, but still not bad at all. I actually had to stop myself from playing otherwise I'd be at it all night. Having only played EU4 for the first several months after its release and jumping back on it this year, I can see just how far that has come as well. If Divine Wind was EU 3.5, then surely we are closing in on what is basically EU 4.5, if we aren't there already. Practically every feature has been overhauled in some way, except for combat itself. I'd say it's actually much more different from launch EU4 than DW5.2 was from launch EU3. With the way it's been evolving, I wonder if at some point they'll just release a new update that makes it EU5, and just keep building off of it. It seems strange to think about what an EU5 would have, when they seem perfectly content to do what are basically sequel-level overhauls in expansions and free patches. How do you make an actual sequel, when that's already what you have been doing for the last three years anyway? The only downside to this is the steep barrier to entry. It's already very difficult to recommend EU4 to people who are starting from scratch with the sheer number of DLCs that are essential, and that's only going to grow worse over time. They should create a bundle with every essential DLC, call it EU5, and sell it as a $50 product. Seriously. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
I think they will make EU5 once they want to move to a better engine and make large fundamental changes to the game, like combat and the current trade system. I imagine they will milk EU4 as long as they can OR they already have a plan in place for how far they will go. I also expect most of what is in the final version of EU4 to be in EU5, but what is in 5 will be optimized and streamlined to help address the feature bloat that we are currently dealing with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
I mean, how much bigger of a task would a trade system overhaul be than the addition of institutions or the fort system overhaul? That was kind of my point, they've been making a lot of changes you'd typically only see in a sequel. Compare with CK2 where with its patches and expansions, they keep bolting new misc features, regions, playable characters, etc to it, without actually changing the core of the game much. Meanwhile, EU4 has already been thoroughly gutted and replaced at this point. I guess if EU5 is just contemporary EU4 in a new engine and an expansion or two's worth of overhauls, I'd be okay with that as long as they offer a cheaper upgrade path from EU4. Then again, that would basically be my bundle suggestion dressed up in a different coat of paint.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I think they will make EU5 once they want to move to a better engine and make large fundamental changes to the game, like combat and the current trade system. I imagine they will milk EU4 as long as they can OR they already have a plan in place for how far they will go. The devs have stated before that they'll keep on releasing expansions so long as people keep buying them, that's basically Paradox's business model. I have no idea how this effects a hypothetical EU5 development schedule but I imagine that they're got to have some sort of obsolescence plan even if EU4 remains popular
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
I really only bring it up because of how expensive it is to get the "proper" EU4 experience right now. It feels like they really need to do something to make it easier to get into, whether that's a new $50 EU5 product or some kind of bundle, I'm not sure. I was serious about telling potential new players not to bother with EU4, though, because starting from scratch is currently a nightmare. Both from a price perspective, and also from a perspective of all the changes and new stuff not being tutorialized at all..
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:I really only bring it up because of how expensive it is to get the "proper" EU4 experience right now. It feels like they really need to do something to make it easier to get into, whether that's a new $50 EU5 product or some kind of bundle, I'm not sure. I was serious about telling potential new players not to bother with EU4, though, because starting from scratch is currently a nightmare. Both from a price perspective, and also from a perspective of all the changes and new stuff not being tutorialized at all.. On the other hand a new player could just start with the base game and maybe one or two of the best expansions and then get more expansions at whatever pace suits their budget and learning curve. Like most of us did as they came out. Steam seems to have relatively frequent sales on the Paradox catalog so a new player could grab one or two new expansions each time they're cheap. I don't understand why so many gamers think that if you buy a game post-DLC you have to get all the DLC at once or not get the game at all. See also: Total Warhammer e: the lack of tutorial updates is pretty slack though, I'm not defending it at all Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
I know EU4 is about abstraction not simulation (or something along those lines), but what exactly is spending 50 mil points to breach a fort an abstraction of?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Chin Strap posted:Johan posting the hot updates on his twitter. Macro builder improves: I'm stupid/blind and can't figure out what he is showing here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Vegetable posted:I know EU4 is about abstraction not simulation (or something along those lines), but what exactly is spending 50 mil points to breach a fort an abstraction of? Your head of state banging their fist on their desk in council, exclaiming "I want my wall breach, and I want it yesterday!" How that process actually carries out is as invisible to you as it is your monarch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 07:27
|
|
