|
Tercio posted:Looks like the Johan symbiote found a new host body. To be fair, the dude is really dumb.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
axeil posted:Also, I know you said you're not gonna change the coring costs, but any thoughts on re-balancing MP gain to be 4/4/4 rather than 3/3/3? Seems like it'd make your MP pool a bit deeper and allow you to do more with them while still making it harder to expand like crazy and eat vassals the size of France for minimal cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Sindai posted:This is no different from just cutting all MP costs significantly so I don't see why they'd do it. Because one or the other needs to be done
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
I like forts but I wish the UI readability of it is better. Like I can't move to province Z but it is hard to see which province has a fort stopping me. The icons are tiny and the even tinier symbols differentiating the fort icons are washed out by all the other terrain and political colors around it. Also there should be some way to display hey if you move your guys out of this province it is going to get unoccupied,  even if it is a fort. And so I'm not being all negative about it, I do like the building change. Now all my garbage provinces with bad trade goods like grain and fish have a shipyard or a forcelimit improving building, stuff that I never would've built before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Sindai posted:This is no different from just cutting all MP costs significantly so I don't see why they'd do it. It's actually different because increasing the base gain means you are slightly less dependent on ruler stats for your MP. Which I am all for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Tercio posted:Looks like the Johan symbiote found a new host body. My policy is to try and be reasonable with anyone who offers genuine criticism but if you want to be a dumb babby it's not my job to coddle you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Gwyrgyn Blood posted:It's actually different because increasing the base gain means you are slightly less dependent on ruler stats for your MP. Which I am all for. It's also probably way easier to do than manually changing all the costs in the game. I'm guessing it's probably a one line change of code with much less testing required than changing the cost of everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
I think it's too early to be saying definitively that we need more monarch points or things should cost less or whatever. We've all been playing the game blobby for 2 years now; the day after the patch it's still gonna feel weird since it's so different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I think it's too early to be saying definitively that we need more monarch points or things should cost less or whatever. We've all been playing the game blobby for 2 years now; the day after the patch it's still gonna feel weird since it's so different. I've played 100 years as the Teutonic Order in two separate games now. The first I tried to grow wide, the second tall. Once you start methodically developing your provinces (especially if you do a few in one big jump) it will amaze you how much things change. I turned the TO into an uncrackable Baltic walnut.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
I guess throw my voice in with those saying the MP costs are too high. I actually mentioned it a few times in the other thread, but one of my big fears was that non-Western tech nations would get screwed with development. And that's partially true, but the bigger issue is that they're just screwed since dipannexing and coring costs also went up. I also don't seem to understand why a lot of the changes that come out seem so geared towards stopping blobbing. The entirety of the game is pretty much just war, with brief downtimes while you're consolidating gains/prepping for the next war. Increasing the downtime seems odd, since there's often little to do (for an example, see how much people hate regencies and how it's often just "speed 5 and go do something else"). Especially since it's tied to a random mechanic-getting a couple of long-lived 1/0/2 rulers is even more punishing than it was previously. I'll probably mess around a bit more, but my first impression is that I don't really wanna bother playing anymore until the costs have been changed. It's not that the AI is better, it's just more of a slog waiting on MP to generate so you can actually play. Also, has anyone noticed attrition rates being higher? I think part of it was my vassals & Lithuania always wanting to join in whatever castle siege I had going, but I was seeing attrition rates over 8% right at the start of the game in my war against the Teutonic Order.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
I encountered an unusual bug. I play EU4 on my laptop and if I pause the game, close my laptop, and then open the laptop again, it unpauses. That, and the building list is somehow hotkeyed to the volume buttons for some reason, which is really annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
The main reason diplo-annexing is expensive now is because diplo points are now actually worth a drat for other things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Tercio posted:I've played 100 years as the Teutonic Order in two separate games now. The first I tried to grow wide, the second tall. Once you start methodically developing your provinces (especially if you do a few in one big jump) it will amaze you how much things change. I turned the TO into an uncrackable Baltic walnut. What did you specifically do? I'd like to try a Poland game where I don't blob everywhere so I can try for the Poland tech achievement and I'm curious how strong you got. Could you go 1v1 against any of the traditional huge powers? I also saw the high attrition rates, but I think that's probably WAD. It should end up killing a lot of your soldiers if you sit around a castle for a year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
I'm reserving judgement till I've played more but I've done ~75 years with the Teutonic Order. Development actually seems quite good. No idea on balance issues yet but so far I've been able to develop my land while keeping a similar tech and idea speed to before the patch. I've tried specializing provinces and it seems like it could be really powerful, drop some military buildings and develop the military points bit and you can get a tonne of manpower and force limits. I can only assume the others work the same but I tend to only do it when I'm flush in points. Forts are cool, although could stand to be clearer. Attrition seems really harsh now, I'm normally good at conserving my manpower across multiple wars but its really easy to bottom out now, probably down to having to use huge siege stacks on forts, you'd think it'd balance out with all the 1 month sieges but it doesn't. Oddly the reformation seems really late, I haven't seen much in the way of +reform desire events compared to normal and Catholic Reform desire is really low for the date, could be a one off or maybe its something that's slipped by unnoticed. Europe Thunderdome harder is cool. Developments going to be a real bitch outside of Europe though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
axeil posted:What did you specifically do? I'd like to try a Poland game where I don't blob everywhere so I can try for the Poland tech achievement and I'm curious how strong you got. Could you go 1v1 against any of the traditional huge powers? All the buildings now are % based. When you add development that adds a solid number. So a barracks adds 50% manpower. Adding a point in development adds 250 manpower (I don't know the figures off hand). So you can start combining these together and come up with big numbers pretty quick compared to pre-common sense. There are similar ideas with income and production but I haven't played around with them yet due to not having an excess of admin or diplo points. But if its balanced in the same way you can certainly take say TO + 10 nearby provinces and match an unupgraded Austria in 100-150 years. How much the big AI's will develop though is another question. How this compares to taking new lands is also more complex based upon how developed they are and how much you'd get out of them based on culture and religion. What this does mean is you can spend your choice of points on getting bigger and better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
A development discount for everyone who isn't in Europe could work to make it at all worthwhile for the rest of the world. Especially the New World.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
OneTwentySix posted:The thing is, points only pile up if you're in Europe and you're not doing a lot of expanding. If you play anywhere else in the world, you don't have a surplus of monarch points. Over ten tech levels, not counting any modifiers to cost, you're going to spend 6,000 monarch points. An eastern nation will pay 1,200 more points over that time, Muslim 2,400, Indian 3,000, Chinese 3,600, and a North/South American will pay 15,000 more tech points. An Eastern nation might reach the cap in dip or military points a couple times each game if they have good leaders, but for the most part they're struggling to maintain tech parity. It sounds like your issue is more with the fact that diplomatic annexation is tied to the same pool of points as technology which somewhat unrealistically impacts non-western tech groups (something I'd be inclined to agree with) rather than sheer point scarcity or costs of specific actions now. The alternative situation, which your post kind of goes into, involves tech parity - historically this wasn't a thing between the West and the rest of the world during the game's time frame, so I don't see why it should be a thing in EU4 without serious player intervention. I'll throw a perhaps ill-devised solution into the ring: diplomatic annexation costs should be scaled based upon a nation's ability to generate diplomatic points. That way diplomatic annexation can remain tied to diplomatic points (thus keeping them relevant) but still be adjusted in a way which doesn't unreasonably impact non-western technology groups. Sheep fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
I do think there is a concern with monarch points being too tight if in a slow techgroup. Plan to do some brainstorming around it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, it costs 97 diplo points to annex Riga. With the -25% from Influence.  But it has been developed... twice? And that increases the price tag (makes sense). Brandenburg march is prepared and ready to be pointed at Bohemia. 
Poil fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
My Cuzco game is going great. I've got most of the Andes united and castile and great britain just showed up. A bit alarming england is GB in the 1500. How do those colonizers afford to develop so much? They seem to build their colonies up to at least development 10 upon colonizing while most of my provinces are under 10 and everything is so expensive to upgrade in mountains, 90% of my provinces are loving mountains. Also every tech I buy is about 1400 points, and I'm diplo-annexing people left and right. It's hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
I noticed something you might want to change. If you war and annex a OPM, you can forcibly convert their religion as well which instantly changes the province to your faith bypassing the whole missionary conversion. It only works for heretics but it's obviously not intended. Maybe make the conversion happen after a day or two or just disable it if you take ALL provinces.Baronjutter posted:It's hard. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Poil posted:I noticed something you might want to change. If you war and annex a OPM, you can forcibly convert their religion as well which instantly changes the province to your faith bypassing the whole missionary conversion. It only works for heretics but it's obviously not intended. Maybe make the conversion happen after a day or two or just disable it if you take ALL provinces. Yeah that's def a bug.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Been playing in India for a while now and it seems like the AI takes massive amounts of things in peace deals. If Bengal overruns Orissa they take half the coast, return some to Viji, and releases a nation next to Bahamanis. If Orissa wins they take 4-5 provinces off of Bengal. The game never looks the same after 20 years because some OPM managed to grab 5 territories off Gujurat and is one of the new big boys. I think nations desire to be in wars was tweaked. If I smack around an ally of who I am at war with they want out fast. But if we are just wandering around each other taking territory they are happy to continue, same for my allies. A good change if I'm not imagining it. Forts make playing a poor OPM really tough. I got one as Ceylon and ended up snagging 6 loans just to keep Viji from taking it back while I snagged what I needed. No more carpet sieging the big country down to keep more units from spawning. I also found out forts zone of control re-take capitals (because they don't really count as forts). Losing that war score sucked. Coring costs do seem really high but I agree that a higher baseline to get rid of some of the variance is a better solution than reducing costs. I haven't reached westernization yet but I feel like the changes give a big incentive to take it. I am dreading the Europeans arriving. Attrition is definitely up. Tropical is adding a lot to Indian conquest. If I try and piggyback on a Orissa stack to help siege anything down we are instantly eating 10% attrition. Separatism when a rebel stack sieges a non-fort province is really lovely but managable. I like the new changes and it definitely feels like a different, much harder, game. I want to do a WC even less now, and Rajput Reich and Gothic Invasion are probably out of reach now but I'll see how this Ceylon achievement goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
How does development interact with missionaries? Can you gently caress yourself over by improving them too much so you can never convert them after the reformation? Also the English Monarchy can be ignored after the first decision to get +1 base tax in two provinces, reroll starts until you get enough seats for increased autonomy to push that trough, then pretend the button went away. What this game still needs is a way to fix bad monarchs, there's just too much depending on their stats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
There are a lot of UI issues that are really frustrating me. The fort mapmode doesn't show zones of control, making it nearly useless. I can't sort the building manager by development cost, so I have to search for the cheapest province. The buildings tab of the ledger has been completely removed for some reason, so I can't use that anymore. Like, if I wanted to build a barracks, I'd like to be able to easily find which province has the highest military development. I thought I'd be able to do something like that in the ledger, but instead I have to search all over the map for which province gives me the biggest manpower increase. Things are just really tedious right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
axeil posted:What did you specifically do? I'd like to try a Poland game where I don't blob everywhere so I can try for the Poland tech achievement and I'm curious how strong you got. Could you go 1v1 against any of the traditional huge powers? Not by a long shot. Granted I just went around 100 years in. For TO specifics I had a ring of castles that held off P/L long enough in each war for me to retaliate - and having good allies (like Riga, amazingly) helped. I didn't follow any special trick in developing. I just focused certain provinces on certain kinds of development/building. For instance, I made some provinces production centers. After a time I starting going on sprees of admin development and noticed big jumps in my monthly income.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Some sort of "Support Coup" that trashes your Stability\Legitimacy\Prestige\Diplo Rep or some combination in some way but lets you re-roll for a randomly aged monarch would be nice. I'd also like to chime in and add that Rebels that have an effect on siege complete need to be looked at. Religious rebels that virtually insta convert half your country or separatists that add 10 years of whatever nationalism is called now seem overly harsh. I think some sort of sliding scale or siege and hold for X months would work better, especially as they are (or seem) reluctant to move now as that would lose them their siege.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Is it just me or has the AI not quite adjusted to the new warfare?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I think it's too early to be saying definitively that we need more monarch points or things should cost less or whatever. We've all been playing the game blobby for 2 years now; the day after the patch it's still gonna feel weird since it's so different. This sounds really on the money. It sounds like everybody is trying to conquer tons of stuff and improve development levels all the time, which was not the intention I gathered from the Dev diaries. Disclaimer: I haven't played since CS dropped.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:21
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Warring is so much better now I don't even know what to say, yeah expanding is a bit more restricted now but it's a lot more satisfying to beat people up and the new way looting works is fun. Other than reducing the cost of diplo annexing by maybe 1 or 2 points per development my only criticism so far other than bugs is that it's way too easy to keep super high PP because you can humiliate in every war and do poo poo like humiliate + vassal in a single war vs. low development targets. This probably works out OK in most regions but in the Indian Thunderdome it's easy to keep a constant 75+ PP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
I played about 100 years as Muscovy yesterday and fwiw I felt the increased costs and MP were fine. The only time I felt super strapped for MP and actually fell behind the AI In tech was when I had a couple of mediocre rulers in a row, rushed a couple of ideas because I needed some manpower (which could have been completely avoided with better play), and was expanding. And even then after I had actually gotten the provinces I wanted I just settled down for like a decade and caught back up in tech. Granted, Muscovy/Russia is obviously one of the easier nations to play as so I believe people when they say playing as an Asian country might be significantly more difficult, but so far I'm on the "Give it a week or two" side of these changes and seeing how people feel once they have a better handle on how much they can expand vs having to stabilize/tech up. Really love being able to take a capital though and not having to leave a little OPM when I'm trying to annex someone but they're just a tiny bit too big to take in one go. And the fort changes are awesome, but I agree with people that the UI could use some work to make it more clear about where you (and the AI for that matter) can move to. I feel like sometimes I should be able to move to a province but can't, and it isn't always obvious why. Overall though really, really liking Common Sense so far. Got way into my game yesterday (had the stereotypical "Oops it's 2am and I need to go to work tomorrow" moment) and haven't been into EU4 like this for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
I haven't played enough to really be sure but it feels like at the moment diplo-annexing is just strait up worse then coring. Diplo-annexing vs Coring + No separatism + Reconquering vessel cores gives less AE + Vassals can sometimes covert land you couldn't thanks to accepted cultures. - More expensive on average, same base cost but you don't get -10% for claims. You can get -25% from influence, but coring gets -20% from Admin. - 75% local autonomy instead of 40-50% - Takes longer, diplo is 1 year per 4-5 development (amusing 3 to 4 points per month on average) vs a flat 3 years for coring, less if its accepted culture or in your culture group. - Ties up a diplomat, probably the most overlooked downside, that's time your not spending fabricating claims to get you more land, or improving relations to keep people out of coalitions. Unless you have an extra diplomat from ideas or an embassy you really cant afford to tie one up for several decades in order to annex Brittany. I know it was way to good before, but I think its now gone too far in the other direction. I think a better solutions would be for Diplo-annexing to be more like 6 points per development, (which is still 50-80% more expensive then it use to be amusing 1 base tax equals about 2.5 to 3 development) but diplo-annexing now gives you 10-15 years of nationalism unless your the same culture. I mean just because the nobility agreed to become part of your glorious empire doesn't mean the rest of the population is happy about it. edit: If it seems like I'm being too negative, I am loving the rest of the expantion, the changes to forts are great It makes warfare way more interesting. Vorpal Cat fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
As to non western nations having too few MPs, why not make development cheaper, and then for the Americas, cut the development level in half a few years after contact with Western nations?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Got my game working, had to delete my Documents/Paradox folder and that did it. My early impressions sound like pretty much everyone else in the thread. MPs feel really tight, notably Imperial Integrity no longer exists, add to that the increased coring costs and points are much more precious in the HRE (I've been playing the TO and joined up). On the flip side, less AE and I've been able to conquer pretty rapidly through the HRE without being in much danger of coalitions. The changes to forts and zone of control seem to make wars shorter and bloodier, I really enjoy the strategic depth the new system adds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
I got targeted by a nation with espionage. Discontent is really annoying, since it tanks my legitimacy; which is really hard to recover early in the game. Any tips for ousting spies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:This sounds really on the money. It sounds like everybody is trying to conquer tons of stuff and improve development levels all the time, which was not the intention I gathered from the Dev diaries. I haven't improved a single province since I haven't played western yet, but I'd prefer my expansion to be limited by AE, stronger AIs, my vassals' liberty desire or my own fuckups. Monarch points just aren't very fun cause they're one resource you can't really control, as opposed to a bunch of different factors you have to juggle around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Nah it's literally found one bug of modest seriousness = unplayable mess of bugs. Some posters are highly invested in being hysterical about our releases. Wiz posted:Nope, you're just really dumb. Wiz posted:No, that one is obviously serious. It's just that there are a few posters (you know who you are) who sit and wait after every release until someonbe posts a bug (any bug) and then proclaim the game an unplayable mess. It's more cute than anything. Wiz posted:My policy is to try and be reasonable with anyone who offers genuine criticism but if you want to be a dumb babby it's not my job to coddle you. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
So... I can't play the game, it doesn't even start up for me. I've unsubscribed from all mods, not sure how to delete them though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Chipp Zanuff posted:So... I can't play the game, it doesn't even start up for me. I've unsubscribed from all mods, not sure how to delete them though. Delete them from your My Documents\Paradox Interactive\Europa Universalis IV\mod folder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
I like my England game, it's kind of easy to force the personal union over France, but literally all of Europe freaks out and coalitions against you. Anyway, how should I be building forts? I just survived a bitch of a punitive war and I'm wondering if I should sink all my loot into building 2 border forts or into building up the economy. Do forts add to military upkeep cost? Also, to contribute to the previous fort chat, I think you basically have to keep a force of 10-15k mercenaries just to deal with fort sieges cause they can eat manpower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2015 21:57
|
|
