|
Playerbase: The AI is a loving moron and turns every border conflict into an epic total war for survival, AI allies happily throw away masses of troops and manpower fighting halfway around the globe and you're practically forced to get an 80%+ peacedeal every time you go to war with every single war participant. Paradox: Hmm, sounds like the problem here is wars being too profitable, let's fix that.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
I'd be fine with it if they also made it so that when you annex a country, you just get all of their money regardless of war score rather than it vanishing into thin air for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
as a European nation you don't get crippling military penalties that literally only depend on the name of your country, don't get invaded by every colonizing nation on ten year intervals, and every war doesn't consist of sinking all the enemy transports and then sitting on your rear end for five years waiting for them to accept a peace deal for a war they cannot possibly win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
ah i love being a horde. oh but i also love being the strongest nation in the game 7 years after the start.... hmm.... oh, ah !! ironman too
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
HOw have you done this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
Eh, I'm provisionally on-board with the war score change. It really was too easy to run a huge deficit and make it up through peacing out minor nobodies who weren't even your war targets. Even if you want to make the argument that some countries balanced their budgets through warmongering, that wasn't really the way they did it. Though maybe it would be nice if your main war targets/co-belligerents could be peaced out for more gold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
super haixi-ming transplant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3R8tkvlAlk 1) as ming, get haixi down to an opm vassal 2) build a fort in every single korea province except the island 3) position units in every single korea province except the island 4) a day before the forts finish, declare war on korea 5) start to move units off, wait a day for the forts to finish, cancel movement 6) as you occupy the garrisonless forts in a single siege phase, transfer them to haixi 7) this will tank haixi and cause them to take out megaloans every month, which is really only 20 ducats 8) continue to pay off their loans until they hit -1400% liberty desire, then peace out korea for money or whatever 9) grant literally all of your provinces to haixi, which will give them a core on them 10) seize literally all of the provinces back 11) declare on haixi and full annex them, then release as vassal because you're ditching ming anyway you can also take out mad loans and get +5 advisors to pay for all the stability and war exhaustion and rebel suppression. you'll definitely start to go up in flames at step 10) when you hit 1150% overextenstion 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:The Fixed that for you. From experience, AI is way more lenient on peacing as time goes on than Players ever are since they have a literal modifier to make sure they do. But players usually just get more and more emotionally invested in a war the further it goes. Groogy fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 10:14
|
|
|
Gotta do like Stellaris and just not let you take something you didn't claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
I don't disagree that would be a potentially good thing but not really looking to add that to EU4 at this stage at least. But I do have some future ideas at least to promote a kind of more limitation or restraint to wars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 10:26
|
|
|
Anything that makes it less of a steamroll for the player after mid game would be very dope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 10:30
|
|
|
I like knowing that I have the breathing room if I happen to wanna play another 50 years but realistically from the 1444 start by 1700 there's nothing left that I particularly want to do. I think if you wanted to make an 18th century great power fun to play you'd have to throw in some automation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 12:00
|
|
|
oddium posted:ducats in peace deals are limited to 25% of warscore..... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 12:54
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Fixed that for you. Tell that to that dumbfuck OPM without military access who wont peace out for 5 years. If that rear end in a top hat forces me to stay in the war until I can get access to him, I want something in exchange. Basically, add some more modifiers to wars, "no access", "not my war", "suicidal" that makes people peace out sooner. Simply limiting ducats to 25% of warscore without any other changes is bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Fixed that for you. It is 1460. The Ottomans declare war on Ragusa, who is in a trade league with Bremen and is not allied or in a trade league with anyone else. The Ottomans are forced to march an army to Bremen to end the war otherwise they have to endure five years of little 5k armies to march from the North Sea to a random Ottoman border province in the Balkans or near the Caucasus OR little Bremen navies sailing 2k dudes to any Ottoman coastal province. Its annoying and stupid that allies so distant are so "emotionally invested" in the war and refuse to surrender unless their capital, a continent away, is occupied. If one side of the war has no army or navy to speak of, and an allies' capital is under siege, they should want to surrender rather than their One And Only Province being ransacked by a pillaging Ottoman horde that hiked to enjoy spring on the North Sea. It is really that simple - AI allies are too invested in wars that are being lost. If the wartarget has zero armies and is 90%+ occupied, the allies should be more willing to white peace *IF* they are outnumbered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
Let's not forget Ming allying with some random European power and being able to freely march armies across the entire continent to fight a war where you've completely crushed your original target and now have to wait years for them to finally maybe decide white peace is okay. Or some random overseas country who can't even send armies. Or that country in the middle of Africa you can't get to. Or many other instances of insanity where a moment of thought and a tiny sliver of effort could fix - with even something as simple as modifiers. But no, it's the player's faults.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
The 25% ducat thing is their lazy fix for being able to peace out coalition wars on day 1 for just money. Also, the 5 year modifier for being able to peace out allies is fine the way it is. Being able to win the war just because you 100% the goal is insanely exploitable Firebatgyro fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
I thought the AI had a massive negative modifier against making peace for cash? "We would never betray our allies for gold" or similar. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Poil posted:I thought the AI had a massive negative modifier against making peace for cash? "We would never betray our allies for gold" or similar. It does but if you crank it up to 100% they'll accept
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
Firebatgyro posted:Also, the 5 year modifier for being able to peace out allies is fine the way it is. Being able to win the war just because you 100% the goal is insanely exploitable edit: Oh and the two allies that were separate peaced lost a ton of money and some land because their capital HAD TO be sieged in order to kick them out of the war, which means their opponent had all that warscore so they might as well take something. The AI should have sort of self preservation "My allies are all losing badly, let me peace out now before I lose something, too". Their commitment to the war could even be tied into their current Relations and Trust! AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Firebatgyro posted:It does but if you crank it up to 100% they'll accept I'm pretty sure they changed that a while ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:I'm pretty sure they changed that a while ago. Nah you can still peace out any coalition for 100% in ducats
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
How much money is that? Like, 100 individual clicks of the ducat button on the peace screen? That doesn't scale for the player like the AI I'm guessing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
Moonshine Rhyme posted:How much money is that? Like, 100 individual clicks of the ducat button on the peace screen? That doesn't scale for the player like the AI I'm guessing? It scales with your income but its capped at 10k, same as demanding ducats in wars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Bring back stronger countries taking over warleader 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
patch notes: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/eu4-development-diary-19th-of-march-2018.1080437/
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I dont think anyone is saying this is the solution....I definitely am not saying that. I am saying the situations where two years have passed, the wartarget is 100% occupied and has no standing forces, plus their allies have all lost several battles trying to retake their land and two of said allies have been separate peaced-out, and two more allies stay in the war from their isolated position on the other side of the planet keeping the war going for another 3 years is loving stupid. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Firebatgyro posted:Nah you can still peace out any coalition for 100% in ducats I guess I can't say this is wrong because I never tried it, but every other war type in the game prevents you from doing this. This is something that is already fixed for every other war type and could probably be applied to coalition wars if this was the reason for the change. I feel like that wasn't the reason and that they probably just felt like war was too profitable in general. War was very situationally profitable for some countries in some circumstances, not always profitable all the time, like it currently is in EU4. Looking at the patch notes, it seems like they're trying to rebalance the economy and this might be a part of that effort. Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:Looking at the patch notes, it seems like they're trying to rebalance the economy and this might be a part of that effort. The first thing that crossed my mind when I read about the coal and furnace manufactory being added to the game was "who even needs more money at that stage in the game?". I guess it makes more sense now that they are reducing income and upping expenses elsewhere, but they still comes so late in the game that I wonder if there will be any point to them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Fixed that for you. Long wars are fine, long wars where the losing side is incredibly transparently not going to win aren't. If the overwhelming balance of probability is against you and the person you're losing against only wants a fairly minor concession why the hell would you throw more and more resources down the drain, forcing the attacking force to gain a more decisive victory and taking even more punitive measures against you in a peace treaty? The fact that in practical terms it's only very slightly more difficult to take an 80% peace deal from the AI than a 20-30% one is rediculous, and this isn't just a problem that makes the player experience frustrating, it also makes the AI fight epic wars amongst themselves which never seem to come to any kind of reasonable resolution because they rarely manage to get such a decisive win. The AI goes from "we're at -30% warscore but we won't give up anything" then suddenly you take a couple more forts and crush their new all merc army and they're willing to give you everything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
To me it feels like the problem is that AI countries aren't concerned with their own long-term survival, but rather as being a speed bump for the player by trying to make the player's victory as pyrrhic as possible. Like, if I roll up to an OPM's level 1 fort with thousands of soldiers and a ton of artillery, they should be sending me peace offers before even the first siege tic. They should have a vested interest in not being totally defeated, not having to give me 100 war score worth of concessions, not having their sole province devastated by a year-long siege, and not having their citizens slaughtered by my troops (even though that's not modeled at all). Instead they sail their 3,000 strong army around Africa to occupy an undefended province in Mesopotamia. "I'm helping!" Limiting the amount of gold you can take in a peace deal doesn't fix this. It just makes it even more annoying when you have to siege down all those OPMs to end a war in a timely manner. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Mar 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
I'm relatively new to EUIV ; I think this is my first DLC to come out while I've at leas understood the basics. I assume the patch is gonna break save compatibility like any other paradox game, so it's not worth messing around with it today?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Wolfechu posted:I'm relatively new to EUIV ; I think this is my first DLC to come out while I've at leas understood the basics. I assume the patch is gonna break save compatibility like any other paradox game, so it's not worth messing around with it today? You can always load up the old patch in Steam. It's in properties and then a subtab for beta's or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:You can always load up the old patch in Steam. It's in properties and then a subtab for beta's or something. I'll probably just wait. Got the Britannia stuff pre-ordered, and been wanting to do an England game for a while.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Speaking of save compatibility, I am playing my first ever multiplayer game with a friend, will we still be able to play it on the new patch or would we both have to do that roll back thing to continue our game? Been quite fun helping my old college roommate learn the ropes as the Ottomans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Is there anything you can do about a center of reformation that is in your own personal union's territory? Am I forced to integrate them to make it go away? Their state religion is already Catholic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Is there anything you can do about a center of reformation that is in your own personal union's territory? Am I forced to integrate them to make it go away? Can't you use your missionaries on vassal territory now? That should get rid of it if you have the conversion strength for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:Can't you use your missionaries on vassal territory now? That should get rid of it if you have the conversion strength for it. I believe that's a CoC feature that I won't have until tomorrow if it's on sale hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
Yeah, speaking as someone who just came from CK2, it felt really weird that I could just demand all the gold from all of my enemies most of the time, especially when war reps were already in. Like, keeping a lil country around as a piggybank to hit over every now and then was strange and unrealistic Also really hoping for a sale and that their website works this time or that the sale extends to HB
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:It is really that simple - AI allies are too invested in wars that are being lost. If the wartarget has zero armies and is 90%+ occupied, the allies should be more willing to white peace *IF* they are outnumbered. but AI allies refusing to peace out of a lost war seems like the same problem as Spain fighting a 15 year hellwar with some Indonesians over Cocos Island, so you might as well fix that too while you're at it
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2018 04:40
|
|