I'm sorry you're going to have to explain those costs to me, because from what I see the only consideration added is "have I waited long enough yet?"
Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations - Dev Diary 10: Balance Changes
- Thread starter Wizzington
- 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.
I'm sorry you're going to have to explain those costs to me, because from what I see the only consideration added is "have I waited long enough yet?"
That is referring to the Europa Universalis (I), the one published in 2000...
he was saying, EU was risk on crack and now with EUIV you have much more control...
I'm actually relieved to hear you guys say that, despite me being primarily an MP player. I just remember a thread near release that prompted a fair amount of reaction with a comment regarding how balancing was done. Apologies on my part. :laugh:
Even with the 25% neighbor bonus when behind enough, it's still less as you close the gap, so natives + sub-Saharans both have weaker late game units and take longer to catch up than before. I would not consider them serious candidates given that. Ottomans and Ming are the non-horde winners in terms of viability, but given that ROTW just got production nerfed to high hell it's dubious how they'll perform in practice aside from Ottos. Hordes aside from European ones had trash goods to start with though so it'll be less noticeable.
Balancing isn't done. At first I thought ROTW got a buff in this patch, but they had their money pulled out from under them and their rate of catch-up post westernization neutered, all with a weaker end-game should they actually do so.
Like almost every other patch, ROTW got nerfed down yet again...even more so now with the AdE effect being primarily available in Europe.
On DIP cost to annex vs longer time:
1. Diplomat time and relations slots are resources.
2. Unlike monarch point luck-****s, these resources are consistently available and controllable by player choices. To some extend, diprep is also.
3. The importance of these resources and their uses/alternative uses has been reduced, in favor of DIP income, which for most nations is randomized.
4. As a result, player choice matters less in 1.6 than 1.5, because more of his progress is dependent on luck than in previous patches.
The extent of random that governs monarch points for most starts in the game coupled with increasing reliance on it is a terrible design choice. Were people playing too well for Paradox? Why the skill equalization?
1. Diplomat time and relations slots are resources.
2. Unlike monarch point luck-****s, these resources are consistently available and controllable by player choices. To some extend, diprep is also.
3. The importance of these resources and their uses/alternative uses has been reduced, in favor of DIP income, which for most nations is randomized.
4. As a result, player choice matters less in 1.6 than 1.5, because more of his progress is dependent on luck than in previous patches.
The extent of random that governs monarch points for most starts in the game coupled with increasing reliance on it is a terrible design choice. Were people playing too well for Paradox? Why the skill equalization?
Not to nitpick too much, but heir-death events could result in going from max legitimacy to 20, forcing you to choose between diploannex and not having to spend all your time fighting rebels. I think someone else has already mentioned availability of an affordable statesman. Diploannex wasn't really free from the constraints of RNG.
I think what he is trying to say is that it is going to be even worse now. Once more the player is losing agency in favor of hoping for luck to get a decent MP accrual rate.
Granted, legitimacy and statesmen (which I wasn't a fan of their relative importance) dependence were issues. However, the current model definitely shifts us more towards luck.
Legitimacy often gets lost in the shuffle when discussing monarchy luck vs republic choice, even by me, but it shouldn't be. I haven't seen any definitive evidence on what influences claim strength, so it winds up being just an extra layer of luck stacked on luck...just what we need to use "strategy"...decisions mattering less :/.
But in no way does that equate to the boom/bust nature of being cursed with a low stat ruler in 1.6. Diprep mattered very much, but was more fluid and could be influenced heavily via diplomatic + expansion ideas, as well as advisor pool. Not perfectly mind, but what does the player do to prop up a bad ruler? Buy advisors, which have far less impact, and are not even viable past +1 in many cases where this consideration is still most relevant.
Don't forget about the Timurids. They also have -coring from the start and an instant reform button (also changing unit groups, which I imagine will effectively give them two unit peak periods).
Edit: I almost forgot to mention, breaking Hinduism/Sihkism into its own religious group is new bonus too. Because different religious group has a much bigger -scalar to AE than different religion in-group, Asian players can expand more without generating coalitions.
Last edited:
Mostly I was nitpicking, as I would agree that the v1.6 model definitely adds a luck element to indirect expansion.
For small countries in v1.5, where coring times weren't an issue, having no direct MP cost to diploannex helped solve issues with low-adm rulers. Once you get big enough to afford +3 advisors (slightly reducing the affect of luck on your ability to core), however, coring wasn't really dependent on your adm, but on how much OE you could stomach. Diploannex was your only real option to expand beyond a snails pace. The removal of coring times means that you actually have a choice between direct and indirect expansion. Even if there's luck involved, actually giving you options is definitely an improvement from v1.5.
Typically, unless you got an event-based heir ("Hello my lady"...), heirs appear to be dependent on your rulers legitimacy at the time you gain the heir. In several recent play-throughs, I only received "moderate" claim heirs when my ruler had low legitimacy (not scientific/definitive evidence). So death without an heir or a 20 legitimacy heir could screw you for a century during which you had to do no/little diploannex. Much longer than a single bad ruler.
I'd say a player has more agency in v1.6 as a whole (with the removal of scaled coring times).
Now you can expand based on AMP or DIP points, whcih makes it dependent partially on luck (MP) and partially on the decisions you make (Idea groups, need to be current in tech). Additionally, you can make decisions during periods of plenty (ideas/buildings that give you more income to afford better advisors) to partially make up for periods of MP scarcity.
In v1.5 none of that was really there. Once you got past a certain size, MP didn't really matter for expansion. Even with 0 ADM ruler, a western tech country could afford to core more than they actually could (Hungary with Aristocracy as an exception) because of long coring times and OE. If you wanted to do anything, you had to play the vassal game. Having no options isn't really indicative of player agency.
Yes, and both dipannex and coring have been rate-increased as a result of the changes. The patch changes are really only bad insofar as they emphasize one of the games greatest design flaws, the luck-based nature of a key resource. Remove that skill equalization, and the current expenditure model could actually work much better than our previous iterations.
I've seen 0 legitimacy rulers pull 100 legitimacy heirs (not even uncommon as a horde, given how often you can get low legitimacy...note that less reliance on it to DIP annex also buffed them further, as they usually trade legitimacy for great ruler stats and can do so readily). I have never seen any evidence to substantiate the legitimacy affects claim theory.
I've seen people try to link it to rep, #royal marriages, and prestige...but have seen precisely 0 substantial evidence to support anything but "random", just like ruler stats. Granted, hordes can just keep killing heirs until they get a strong claim too, though that doesn't mean their ruler will live long enough for that to matter
.
Also hordes will lost a bit of manpower due to the goods produced changed.
From what I have counted from here, if I have counted it correctly and they will not change basetax/manpower values:
It is manpower per year (additional to base 1000) without modifiers and buildings:
It seems that buildings will be vital.
From what I have counted from here, if I have counted it correctly and they will not change basetax/manpower values:
Code:
function findMp(country) {
var sumBt = 0;
var sumMp = 0;
var sumPr = 0;
$.each($("tr"), function() {
if ($(this).find("td:nth-child(6)").text().indexOf(country) !== -1) {
sumBt += parseInt($(this).find("td:nth-child(7)").text(), 10);
sumMp += parseInt($(this).find("td:nth-child(8)").text(), 10);
sumPr++;
}
});
var oldM = Math.round((sumMp*1000) / (sumPr * 40) * (sumPr + (sumBt * 0.01)));
var newM = Math.round((sumMp*1000) / (sumPr * 40) * (sumBt * 0.2));
var diff = Math.round((newM / oldM * 100) - 100) + "%";
return (country + ": " + oldM + " / " + newM + " / " + diff);
}It seems that buildings will be vital.
Again, I really think you're conflating your main issue with EU3 (Monarch Points), and the changes in this patch. As long as Monarch Points are going to be important in the game, it's sensible and proper to make every kind important (not just ADM). Your issue is really with how random the gaining of those points are, and this patch isn't changing that much.
(I do agree the neighbor bonus nerf DOES highlight the concerns you raise, but I really think the diploannex changes don't.)
Hordes don't have the MP to spare on them in most cases (aside from using military ones to help with maintenance costs, manufactories, and specials). More like mercs and looting will be vital.
Sorta. The problem is that changes don't exist in a vacuum; a change that shoves a design flaw to the fore in a way it hasn't quite been in the past makes that flaw relevant in addition to the change itself. They might have thought about it at least slightly (which is more than I can say for nerfing ROTW goods produced massively), because of the MP from power projection.
I don't want to go back to the way it was so much as I want a finally-competent monarch point model such that this patch's changes feel more competent than they're going to feel with it being a total luck cluser-****.
The neighbor bonus is more like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I can't fathom that nonsense. It has sweeping impacts everywhere, and the only nations the change doesn't hurt are the ones that luck into good monarchs. How is that good design again?
What people seem to be missing by the point of monarch points is that it was never supposed to be a RNG factor to balance skill or whatever. What it's supposed to be is you taking a good or bad situation and making the most of it. Taking the game away from the direction of always constantly conquering, and making you re-evaluate whether you should slow down or keep expanding and risk the loss of all those extra points because of shitty monarch. It makes the game MORE strategic than constant conquest, because you're now evaluating the risks. It turns it more into a country simulation, then a straight up map painter that ends with super unrealistic WC borders every game (EU3).
If you're looking at it as a constant conquest, then yeah the RNG monarchs would seem like a skill hamper. But what its meant for is simulation and strategic choice reasons. Which honestly is much nicer then every single grand strategy being about total conquest, while still being heavy on war and conquest, it at least is trying to give consequence where there wouldn't really be any. So it isn't meant to balance skills, it's meant to use other skills than just war. It's dealing with the limitations you've been given, or using the advantages you've gotten appropriately. So you cant paint the map? Big deal this isn't total war series. Make strategic gains when you can, don't take everything everywhere just because.
If you're looking at it as a constant conquest, then yeah the RNG monarchs would seem like a skill hamper. But what its meant for is simulation and strategic choice reasons. Which honestly is much nicer then every single grand strategy being about total conquest, while still being heavy on war and conquest, it at least is trying to give consequence where there wouldn't really be any. So it isn't meant to balance skills, it's meant to use other skills than just war. It's dealing with the limitations you've been given, or using the advantages you've gotten appropriately. So you cant paint the map? Big deal this isn't total war series. Make strategic gains when you can, don't take everything everywhere just because.
I just think worry that you're "the way you earn monarch points needs to change" posts are going to get conflated with the "vassal feeding needs to remain the best way of expanding" posts, when (so far as I can tell) the latter is not particularly your agenda at all.
Again, my opinion is that ALL of the types of monarch points should be made roughly evenly useful (MIL isn't there yet), and also that more can be done to even out the potential for earning them. (Though I don't think I'd go as far in that direction as you would, I agree that it's too far in one direction right now.)
But I don't think the diploannex changes make it worse. In fact, arguably they're a wash, as someone who got a bad ADM monarch could "make up for it" with a good DIP.
Er, no Coring always depend on your ADM. Even with +3 advisor and max PP, you can easily get in to a half century of 0 ADM ruler, and you only have 840 ADM per decade, barely enough to upgrade your tech and boost stab twice. There is no choice between direct and indirect expansion. You have good rulers, you gonna expand super fast, and poor ruler means no expand at all.
+4 Revolt risk in total and -2.5 Dip-rep is nothing. A Statesman and a Theologian will solve all your problem. However, nothing can save you from triple stab cost. In English start date, you expand twice as fast if War of the Rose fires early. Revolt risk is something a skilled player can handle. Low MP, you gonna stuck with it matter how well you play.