When we choose to oppose the IMRO, it´s not possible to fully eliminate the IMRO modifier in the country. When we decide to eliminate the IMRO, the national spirit never goes away, and still inflicts us with a 10% stability penalty for the rest of the game.
Bug in Bulgaria Focus tree
- Thread starter reciclan28
- 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.
Well, I suppose it is not a bug. Historically bulgarians indeed condemned IMRO, but in fact they just did it on paper, and continued their cooperation secretly, which helped them during their occupation of Macedonia and Old Serbia during the war. This focus just reduces the debuff and gives you the possibility to gain british approval for your rearmament.
Have you completed all the decisions that appear when you take that focus, that reduce the malus?
why must you embarrass yourself like this? he literally says exactly what i claimed to be the case. this is a bug and a well known one. the fact that you think it is not a bug and then as evidence provide someone else showcasing that same bug is asinine.
Showcasing the bug:
with only 2,4,4 divisions in the selected provinces, you can select the decision, but will automatically fail it because in order to progress the mission you require 3,5,2 divisions in those same states.
when the decision is selected in this case, the mission immediately fails,
and you are saddled with skirmishes against the IMRO in those states for the rest of the game
without ever being able to get rid of the IMRO national spirit for the rest of the game
when the decision is selected in this case, the mission immediately fails,
and you are saddled with skirmishes against the IMRO in those states for the rest of the game
without ever being able to get rid of the IMRO national spirit for the rest of the game
if, instead, we were to place the divisions, not as directed by the decision requirements, but rather in order to not fail the resulting mission:
the mission proceeds as it should have been designed to do in the first place
and upon completion of the mission, both the IMRO national spirit
and the clashes against the IMRO state modifiers are removed
the mission proceeds as it should have been designed to do in the first place
and upon completion of the mission, both the IMRO national spirit
and the clashes against the IMRO state modifiers are removed
Attachments
- 1
I would ask the same of you, adding too why are you acting so aggresive and superior.
When I first asked OP if he had gone for the decisions, I wanted to make sure if he had indeed seen those, and if he had issues with them, I would've explained what the problem was.
You then decide to come with all your superiority and entitlement claiming I'm gaslighting someone (quite a serious allegation, as it is listed as a form of psychological abuse), that have no idea what I'm talking about, and calling it a bug.
And I simply show you a video where it is explained it is not a bug, but rather not reading correctly the requirements. If you follow the info shown there, you have no issues removing it, explaining I indeed know what the issue is (if that was the problem).
If you knew this, as you show now, you would know too it wasn't a bug and wouldn't call it that, and simply explain it. OP would've gotten his doubt resolved, anyone else reading this thread would too, and that would be the end of it.
But no, you wanted to appear superior and insult others. Maybe that makes you feel better, maybe it doesn't, but what it sure does make you is an idiot.
- 2
- 1
I didn't imply anything, I simply asked a follow up question to get clarification on what OP did to better address the question and not be condescending or assume what he did or didn't do. If you see asking a question as psychollogical abuse you have a very serious problem, and I'm afraid I cannot help you with it.
In that video you can quite clearly hear "This is not because of a bug", which is why I pointed it out to you, who were indeed calling it a bug. A bug would be doing what the tooltip says and not getting the expected result, which is not the case.
Simply, the requirements to access the decision, and the requirements to not fail it, are different. This is similar to other decisions in the game, an example would be the "Explot errata in the Schatplan" decision with Greece. The requirements to access the decision, and the requirements to get a positive outcome, are different.
But hey, you do you, good luck with that.
- 1
It still is a ui tip error though, and one that can ruin a Bulgaria campaign without prior knowledge.
- 1
If I may, I think your definition of "bug" is incorrect. A bug is simply an unwanted behavior in a program. I have great difficulties believing paradox intentionally wished for the decision to work as it does now.
I will grant you that the cancelling of the decision itself, is not a bug, but rather a catastrophically poor UI choice combined with the illogical - but possibly intended, although I cannot imagine why - fact that the start conditions and reverse of the instantly cancelled conditions don't match allowing them to be both fulfiled at the same time which shouldn't be possible.
However, the fact that upon cancellation, the skirmishes modifiers aren't removed, in spite of the fact that they represent your divisions - that you could have all removed - fighting there, and additionally, the fact that the decision cannot be attempted again if it cancels - I am quite confident these can be considered a bug, for it makes no sense for paradox devs to have wanted such a behavior.
In short, the decision itself isn't bugged, nor is its cancellation itself ; but the consequences of its cancellation are, indeed, a bug. The fact that the decision can be completed without being cancelled and thus without encountering the bug doesn't remove the fact that a player may wish, for whatever reason, to move a division away at any time, cancelling the decision, and thus running into the bug.
- 3
- 1
What an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of this decision. There is no legitimate reason for this decision to be possible to take without the correct number of troops in the area, if you do you will instantly fail. Moreover, if you fail the mission for any reason it is impossible to take again. This is clearly not working as intended and to claim otherwise is obtuse. I have no idea what you think the relevance of the Schachtplan is to this decision, unless you're under the apprehension that the differing numbers of required troops is somehow down to something the AI is doing (which is, broadly, the deciding factor in the outcome of the Schachtplan decision) and not simply the developers putting a different set of numbers in the fail state than in the start state.
This mission needs to be altered so that the conditions to begin do not automatically lead to failure, and also so that failure does not result in an unremovable malus in the affected provinces and an inability to further progress. No amount of pedantry over whether this qualifies as a bug (which, for the record, it absolutely does) will change this.
- 4
- 1
I think you make a good point.
Just pure speculation, but I think Paradox may have designed that intentionally just to test out the concept in-game of differentiating between required to active, and required to succeed. There's other examples of this concept with Bulgaria, such as failing to interact in time with the Zveno, the event with the Fatherland Front later in the game, or the capital injections, relations and army size when trying to unify the Balkans to name a few. For instance, you can go for the focus Unification of the Balkans, but if you don't take the right steps, it will fail, and you won't get a second chance.
In most of these, failing to get the requirements for a desired outcome can lead to a restart. Although I tend to agree with you that for this particular decision it might be a bit extreme, or poor UI.
However, since this is something that is remarkably easy to fix (just change the 3 numbers so they match and you're done), and they haven't, it could actually be them experimenting with the concept. It could also be them failing to fix a bug, which is definitely not unheard of.
On the opposite side you have Turkey experimenting a different concept, one of pure RNG where nothing you do affects the outcome, such as the decisions to pacify the Kurds, or subjugating Bulgaria, or demanding Syria, or the Chester Concession, or requesting Middle East land to the UK while democratic. This DLC may have been just to test different concepts and see how people react to them.
There's only 1 thing I'm certain of: discussing different points of view in an educated and civilized manner as you have is a lot more productive.
- 1
- 1
To put it simply:
This decision used to work perfectly before the update. The .03 if I recall correctly.
The decision was broken after the update.
Therefore: a bug.
Personally, I suggest to avoid that decision. Take the first two ones to get the relations boost and leave it at that. If you play correctly, you will be swimming in stability and not caring at all about some -10%.
This decision used to work perfectly before the update. The .03 if I recall correctly.
The decision was broken after the update.
Therefore: a bug.
Personally, I suggest to avoid that decision. Take the first two ones to get the relations boost and leave it at that. If you play correctly, you will be swimming in stability and not caring at all about some -10%.
Not necessarily. It is impossible to get 100% stability in war time with the penalty due to the way base stability works (yes, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church focus doesn't matter)
Wait, are you saying your point here was "because someone on youtube did not explicitly call it a bug, it's not a bug"?
- 2
- 1