Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Patch 1.2: Wot Johan said

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 81902 EUIV: Bug Reports 449 EUIV: Suggestions 19149 EUIV: Technical Support 6720 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Show only dev responses
Lessing said:
Which is exactly what I am afraid of. I don't think the game will be fun for me if that happens. AI will just stick themselves into a coalition against me, and I have to fight all of them for each province.

The only way this is not going to be a clusterfuck is if I can make separate peace wiith each coalition member in order to take something from each war participant.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I think you're forgetting to include that AI coalition members will no longer be able to say the war leader can't negotiate for them. As long as you build up quality vassals with strong militaries of their own instead of using them as province containers, it would actually make coalition wars a lot more fun and rewarding, since it'll be more "you and your dudes against your target and their dudes" rather than "you against everyone whose territory you want to seize." I have an Ottomans game going where I've built up 8 strong vassals, and I'm definitely going to have to return to that game in ~1650-1700 or so and have a big ol' world war with all of continental Europe after the patch. I'm pretty sure I can actually seize Europe faster if I don't have to work with the current war negotiation bug.
 
Lessing said:
That is fair. What is not fair is that only the coalition leader pays the price while everybody else on the losing coalition side goes scot-free.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I found myself in the same situation in a coalition against Muscowy as Sweden this morning, wherein to placate ENORMOUS Muscovy and its ally Norway I would have had to have given nigh-everything to them, while my southern coalition allies should have taken the brunt of the beating.
 
Lessing said:
That is fair. What is not fair is that only the coalition leader pays the price while everybody else on the losing coalition side goes scot-free (apart from the war goal country, ofc).
Click to expand...
I don't think they're supposed to be able to, though. I think the AI is supposed to be unable to disallow the warleader to negotiate for them, just like what applies to humans.
 
Johan said:
You can now add provinces to the empire, if they border a seazone bordering the empire.
Click to expand...

Oh jeez. Make Austria more OP why dont you.
 
CyaN said:
Oh s**t. So now from 1600 you will fight the same war against the same guys every five years (which adds up to... 45 coalition wars until the game ends, assuming a late date for the "so much AE no one will ever leave the coalition" defining moment)? You can't even split them anymore, to add some variation? Not too excited, honestly.

The other fixes are great.
Click to expand...

I always let my OE decrease before starting a new war so that most counrties leave the coalition. This is a problem only if you keep your OE > 100 %, I never go over 70 % and coalitions are very easy to manage...
 
Johan said:
You can now add provinces to the empire, if they border a seazone bordering the empire.
Click to expand...

So, we can now get pretty much everything but the Americas and a few Pacific islands in the HRE.

Will the Falklands/South Georgia be split into the Falklands and South Georgia as separate provinces?
 
Coalitions often break up on their own......unless your really trying for WC. I would like for more ways to breakup coalitions or them having ahistorical partners. (I know it is a sandbox) What I mean is Why should I be fighting half of Europe and/or Asia for a some provinces in America/Africa. or Viceversa. If Coalitions could be regionalized except those in your Home area. (Since your European rivals will have territory all over the place) It would make for more realistic gameplay.

Also Most powerful Nation should be nominated War Leader, but AI MUST pay more attention to the War Goal and a little less to Hunting and Killing all the little 1k armies. I often see large Doomstacks running in circles trying to catch all the little armies and or sieging province next to goal but never occupying goal.

I often see AI wars sputter because no one bothers to capture the province needed. It is not so bad with the Show Superiority War Goals.

If Provinces on another continent can be considered "overseas" for provinces with a land connection to the capital. (To Help Russians/Ottomans) OE and coring times for provinces in Siberia and Africa/India can become unbelievable. 12-14 years as a Russian.....for one province on pacific coast.
 
lucaluca said:
I always let my OE decrease before starting a new war so that most counrties leave the coalition. This is a problem only if you keep your OE > 100 %, I never go over 70 % and coalitions are very easy to manage...
Click to expand...

You can let your AE (Aggressive Expansion, not OE = Overextension, which is unrelated to coalitions) decrease if it's 30, or 40, or 50, but if it's 250, you're going to fight that country for the rest of the game, or until you fully annex them (which is not a possibility in many cases).

And I'm not talking about an extreme case where the player makes really bad decisions. That's what Ottomans get with the Mamluks and neighboring countries, after a couple wars, if they try to conquer Egypt (given there are no good casus bellis to use there and you must stick with Conquest, after ReleaseSyria-cheese and MamlukColonies-cheese end), which is... exactly what they did in real life.
 
Regionalized coalitions is something I would also really like to see. Ideally, anyone with a >60 day diplomat range from the closest coalition member should constitute a different coalition, since continental conditions are too easy to exploit. It's just silly that Najd, a small isolated country entirely surrounded by Ottoman territory, can maintain any meaningful communications, let alone rapid-response defensive military coalitions, with the nearest coalition member in the middle of continental Europe, in the year of our Lord 1699. They siege 2-3 provinces every war, which I soundly ignore every war, before I blanket the warleader with units and demand whatever I want anyway.

CyaN said:
You can let your AE (Aggressive Expansion, not OE = Overextension, which is unrelated to coalitions) decrease if it's 30, or 40, or 50, but if it's 250, you're going to fight that country for the rest of the game, or until you fully annex them (which is not a possibility in many cases).

And I'm not talking about an extreme case where the player makes really bad decisions. That's what Ottomans get with the Mamluks and neighboring countries, after a couple wars, if they try to conquer Egypt (given there are no good casus bellis to use there and you must stick with Conquest, after ReleaseSyria-cheese and MamlukColonies-cheese end), which is... exactly what they did in real life.
Click to expand...

With Religious ideas, you will get, what, 5.4 AE decay per year? That's less than a hundred years to get from 500 AE to zero AE (so about 45 for 250 AE), and 500 AE isn't something you work up in the space of a decade to begin with. Any time I play a country that isn't based out of continental Europe, it's not been too difficult to keep my AE low enough that coalitions don't form simply by expanding in a diffuse, circular manner.
 
balmung60 said:
I don't think they're supposed to be able to, though. I think the AI is supposed to be unable to disallow the warleader to negotiate for them, just like what applies to humans.
Click to expand...

That bug is fixed in 1.2 according to what Wiz has told me.
 
Raliks said:
If you're constantly fighting coalitions then you're playing the game way too aggressively IMO.
Click to expand...

And then I should be punished for that. But the punishment consists in mechanically taking away the possibility to harm my enemies by taking their land. It simply can't be done if you can only take one 100% war score peace at a time.

Johan said:
That bug is fixed in 1.2 according to what Wiz has told me.
Click to expand...

Well apparently this changes 2 ways then.

Gotta check out how that plays before saying more, I guess.
 
CyaN said:
You can let your AE decrease if it's 30, or 40, or 50, but if it's 250, you're going to fight that country for the rest of the game, or until you fully annex them (which is not a possibility in many cases).

And I'm not talking about an extreme case where the player makes really bad decisions. That's what Ottomans get with the Mamluks and neighboring countries, after a couple wars, if they try to conquer Egypt (given there are no good casus bellis to use there and you must stick with Conquest, after ReleaseSyria-cheese and MamlukColonies-cheese end), which is... exactly what they did in real life.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about overextension or aggressive expansion? How do you even get +250 aggressive expansion?
 
Lessing said:
Taking a single province can cause more than 60 AE. Take 4, +240 AE.
Click to expand...

I don't recall ever seeing a 60 AE province unless I was using a terrible CB like fabricate claim or mission conquest, even for ridiculous provinces like Ile de France and Lombardia. What gives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back