Modifiers and policies,PDX go Forward not Backwards.

[BadOrc]

So when i first saw the changes coming with 1.30 i was excited, finally something new! something Fresh!
New religion HRE/remake TC changes etc etc.

However after a few runs, it left me with a disappointing vibe.

First of the Nerf's to Combat ability's

This actually hurts some nation a lot more than others, even do on paper 10% is 10 % its the same for every nation.
Well, this is incorrect. Example,look at Ethiopia they have 10% ICA as there military "Niche" They do not have Morale or Discipline in there set.

A player would probably consider going for the 20% ICA policies here.
so a Ethiopia Player would have 10% less ICA Fighting vs a Discipline Morale Heavy nation like lets say France in 1.30

In General a Nation that relies on its Combat ability took a Punch this patch.
A Nation that stacks Moral and Discipline really do not suffer as much in 1.30.

And then you have Poland/Prussia both of these two nations have amazing ides 10% less ICA/CCA do not really effect them in the same way it effects Ethiopia.

Do not remove the players tools add new ones instead

Nothing was wrong with the inno+Qual//Aristo+Esp policies, what was wrong was the lack of other good options!. instead of gutting two of the most loved and picked policies amongst your player base. Give them something just as good! i dont know be creative! +20 Land fire dmg? you have tons of modifiers and opportunists yet you chose the most lazy way to handle this.

The Game itself becomes stale and lacklustre when stacking Morale and Discipline its the only two modifiers a player actually can stack effectively. The Nerf to CA was a step in the wrong direction.

 

[grotaclas]

Why do you want to stack these modifiers in the first place? Stacking additive modifiers has diminishing returns. And because most of the combat modifiers are multiplied with each other it is better to have a little from every modifier instead of a lot from one modifier.
So countries which already have ICA are affected less by the nerf.

 

[BadOrc]

Why do you want to stack these modifiers in the first place? Stacking additive modifiers has diminishing returns. And because most of the combat modifiers are multiplied with each other it is better to have a little from every modifier instead of a lot from one modifier.
So countries which already have ICA are affected less by the nerf.

yes my good sir, stacking a lot CA has always been less effective. than for example Discipline and Morale. but that is the point of my post. if Combat abilities stack so bad why nerf it in the first place? it leaves room for less flexibility and a much more stale Meta. More Modifiers and options is a good thing. After a few thousand hours of gameplay playing nations that have bad mil ides or as a few nations have none.this will only leave the player with fewer options eco+qual+offensive will be the go to ides in every single game.unless you are going for a WC/one faith or a specific achievement then this topic is irrelevant

Why do you want to stack these modifiers in the first place?
Fun? and if you remove a part of an already lacklustre combat system. atleast replace it with something New.

 

[deathbypie]

yes my good sir, stacking a lot CA has always been less effective. than for example Discipline and Morale. but that is the point of my post. if Combat abilities stack so bad why nerf it in the first place? it leaves room for less flexibility and a much more stale Meta. More Modifiers and options is a good thing. After a few thousand hours of gameplay playing nations that have bad mil ides or as a few nations have none.this will only leave the player with fewer options eco+qual+offensive will be the go to ides in every single game.unless you are going for a WC/one faith or a specific achievement then this topic is irrelevant

Why do you want to stack these modifiers in the first place?
Fun? and if you remove a part of an already lacklustre combat system. atleast replace it with something New.

But in your first post you said stacking them was good, now you say stacking them has always been bad.

 

[Orkonkel]

It just means a new metagame for the peoples that play multiplayer. Nothing that broke the game in any way.

 

[Fiestinian]

It just means a new metagame for the peoples that play multiplayer. Nothing that broke the game in any way.

If they could balance the infantry vs cavalry non-game that would good.

 

[grommile]

Nothing was wrong with the inno+Qual//Aristo+Esp policies, what was wrong was the lack of other good options!

If one particular option is regarded as compulsory in competitive play, to the point that nobody can effectively engage their near peer in gameplay skill without it, then the baseline presumption is "that option is OP" and the only way to avoid the resulting nerfbat is to rebut that presumption with hard evidence.

Indiscriminate nerfbatting is bad, but so is unrestrained powercreeping.

 

[EarlKonrad]

If one particular option is regarded as compulsory in competitive play, to the point that nobody can effectively engage their near peer in gameplay skill without it, then the baseline presumption is "that option is OP" and the only way to avoid the resulting nerfbat is to rebut that presumption with hard evidence.

Indiscriminate nerfbatting is bad, but so is unrestrained powercreeping.

I'd say you analysis is incomplete. If something is regarded as the way to go than it can be either or both the following cases: It is the clear best option; nothing else can compete with that option. You failed to mention the second case.

It is untrue that the best way of creating a competitive environment is to nerf the apparent best option. Rather, it is sometimes healthier to, instead of nerfing the apparently best option, to buff the weaker ones so they cam compete.

Too often I see the devs nerfing options instead of buffing weaker options. This isn't a good long-term strategy, mind you.

After this nerf come out someone made the maths on a Thread discussing the ICA policy nerf and concluded that 20% ICA was on part with 5% Discipline and that, as a result if the bonus being addictive, this nerf created a bigger gap between nations that already have high ICA and nations that don't. I can't argue for or against this point, but I think it is important to take a look at how much of a impact this nerf truly is.

 

[Orkonkel]

Remember when the 5% discipline bonuses actually were 10% discipline bonuses (advisors, idea bonuses, national ideas - I think we even had 15% discipline national ideas)? Yeah, sometimes nerfing the best option is better than buffing the rest.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Remember when the 5% discipline bonuses actually were 10% discipline bonuses (advisors, idea bonuses, national ideas - I think we even had 15% discipline national ideas)? Yeah, sometimes nerfing the best option is better than buffing the rest.

However, at that point in time Westernisation was a thing and unit pips were wildly unbalanced. That's how you could get away from having Japan getting 10% discipline.

Additionally, back when discipline was 10% in some instances you also had a lot LESS modifiers that you could get. There was no coal, less trade goods, no Policy, etc.

 

[redshirt4life]

I was pretty sad to see the 20% cav bonus cut in half (winged hussars are crying) Was this really considered OP? To me, it feels like it just makes the 5% discipline policy even better.

 

[Orkonkel]

However, at that point in time Westernisation was a thing and unit pips were wildly unbalanced. That's how you could get away from having Japan getting 10% discipline.

Additionally, back when discipline was 10% in some instances you also had a lot LESS modifiers that you could get. There was no coal, less trade goods, no Policy, etc.

There's actually a leftover from those days: the skilled advisor event that gives either +1 stab or +50 prestige along with a bonus still gives 10% discipline instead of the 5.