So loading Ironman from the previous version of the game will make it lose its status?
1.6.2 Hotfixed - RELEASED - checksum: e98d
- Thread starter Besuchov
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It was a game with VeF mod activated.
Now it's impossible to load the savegame because "Game is not in Ironman Mode.", but the savegame still is.
Now it's impossible to load the savegame because "Game is not in Ironman Mode.", but the savegame still is.
No solution for the launcher not updating the mod list yet? Shame...
Also, I personally think the AE was fine.
Also, I personally think the AE was fine.
SO is the iron man bug finally squashed? i´d like to get back to EU4 with iron man enabled, but i don´t wanna loose all my progress again.
It's about time you fixed AE and coalitions into something sensible, PI. It should not be easy to avoid coalitions with France, Castile, and Ming, but struggle to avoid forming them with Ulm, Ceylon, and Arakan.
Hordes now have a base AE decay of 1/year. Joy when vassaling gives you 100 AE. The vassal 10 year limit is almost meaningless now too, since the decay rate will cap it instead in most cases.
AE is the kind of broken mechanic you come up with workarounds to avoid, because the way coalitions work is so stupid...or did you actually fix coalitions to scale in peace deal cost like patch 1.6 falsely claimed? And while we're on the topic, was the change in peace deal cost scaling for large countries intentional? We never got an answer to that and you never documented it in any capacity.
Hordes now have a base AE decay of 1/year. Joy when vassaling gives you 100 AE. The vassal 10 year limit is almost meaningless now too, since the decay rate will cap it instead in most cases.
AE is the kind of broken mechanic you come up with workarounds to avoid, because the way coalitions work is so stupid...or did you actually fix coalitions to scale in peace deal cost like patch 1.6 falsely claimed? And while we're on the topic, was the change in peace deal cost scaling for large countries intentional? We never got an answer to that and you never documented it in any capacity.
So what are the intended levels? Can we get some specific information?
1.6 levels. Bigger AE than 1.5 that extends further and will go over 100 with a single vassal deal, and with the same decay rate as before 1.6.1.
If you want to expand competently such that anything other than AE is a limiting factor, be prepared to start using tactics that people will complain are "gamey".
I'm glad 1.6.1.4. AE change was kept without a compromise. Uber-stong nations need more AE to keep their expansions on check, and so does a player. AE scaling that existed in 1.2 would be nicer, though. Larger nations should get bigger AE.
If only we were able to use a diplomat for decreasing AE anger with a specific country.
Have to try some games with the restored AE but I was hoping that while raising AE and lowering its decay Paradox at least also addressed the "wants your province" bug and the mindboggingly high AE for enforced PUs on big countries. Enforcing PUs now takes between 30 and 200 years to decay? Better hope your ruler lives long ...
AE does not keep strong nations (France, Russia, PLC, Ottomans) from expanding, not even IN THE SLIGHTEST. It literally does not phase them, and it definitely won't phase a player who is playing any major power, or a crafty player playing a medium-sized minor power. It only bothers the small nations who ahistorically form coalitions consisting of great powers just for annexing their OPM neighbors.
You like getting a coalition from fabricating a claim, then having it last 20 years????
Vassalize 3 provinces, gain 60 ae, wait 30 years. Oh yes, that will make the game soooo much fun.
Good luck with that, I'm going to go play EQ.
Hmm. Maybe I'll actually get some use out of that AE reduction Policy I wound up getting as my very first Policy option. It was a joke before, but now... Hmm.
In the 1.6.1.4 beta I have not seen it extend further, it only decays slower. The 1.6 thing where taking one province in the north of the HRE drawing Morocco into a coalition has not returned. If 1.6.2 is the same as 1.6.1.4 as mentioned, that portion of it should not be an issue.
Larger should get big AE, and smaller nations should get much less AE. Right now, the nations that can most readily avoid meaningful coalitions from day 0 in player hands are exactly the ones that SHOULD see coalition heat; major European powers. For example, as France ally Castile + Austria and beat on Portugal. Who cares? Aragon, who you probably used to fight Portugal, and not many others if you have enough prestige.
Now, as Tuscany fabricate a claim on Siena + get caught, then take it. Big coalition, and fewer ways to mitigate said coalition than as France, which can both keep major players out and stomp on the minors with impunity.
Asinine and backwards, just how PI likes it I guess, since this has been pointed out to them many times in the past also.
Further than 1.5, not further than 1.6.1.
All of this would bother me much less if they didn't bork the peace deal scaling with country size and lie in the 1.6 patch notes about peace deals vs large coalitions being significantly less costly (unless a coalition of Ottomans + most of India doesn't equate to a big nation).
I like to think Paradox doesn't play minors when they test mechanics. It'd definitely cement a lot of the reasoning behind some of their more nonsense changes, at least.
If this isn't a beta patch anymore, the beta massage in the launcher could be deleted 