1.14 - Patch Note Excerpts - Part 3

[Tavior]

Yes that make much more sense now TMIT.

Personally I would have gone for a gradual penalty system going from a trivial penalty from -1% to 25% then gradually ramp upward until it get worst the higher warscore and peace deal difference is. But then again it wouldn't take into account other factor that would factor into AI's willingness to accept something.

I was also sad that espionage wasn't overhauled however at least we got MP bonus from studying.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There is no stealth change, the mechanic was overhauled as explained in the changelog. You jumping to conclusions does not mean anything was hidden.

- Peace demands now cause stability hit when declined if the negotiating country has at least 50% War Score and the AI would have accepted the demand.

Listing a new rule does not in any way, shape, or form imply the removal of other rule(s).

There is absolutely nothing in the patch note list that tells the player "in contrast to established gameplay over the past year, you can no longer stabhit people based on war score differential".

In the absence of a change log listing an actual change, which did occur, the rational assumption is that it was not changed. In this case, you made a change to how the rules work by removing a gameplay rule and did not document it. Maybe your definition of "stealth change" is different from mine and that's the source of a misunderstanding, but to me an undocumented change meets the criteria of a "stealth change", and I certainly don't see documentation of an explicit "mechanic overhaul" or "war score differential doesn't matter any longer" in the notes initially listed.

 

[Wizzington]

I can agree that it was not clear enough that it's replacing the old rule, but 'stealth change' implies intentionally hiding the change.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I can agree that it was not clear enough that it's replacing the old rule, but 'stealth change' implies intentionally hiding the change.

Ah I see, it is a misunderstanding then. That's not my intention when I say stealth change. I can't come up with a plausible reason you'd *intentionally* hide any significant gameplay rule change (what would the motivation be exactly?) so I wasn't thinking along those lines when using the "stealth change" terminology. I simply didn't consider intentional hiding a legitimate possibility.

Most commonly, it's an oversight and/or something that turned out to be more important than initially thought.

 

[ChildeR]

Listing a new rule does not in any way, shape, or form imply the removal of other rule(s).

My first reading of that line was that it, you know, tells you when stabhitting peace offers happen. I.e. replaces the old rules. Not very stealthy IMO.

That said, it has no effect on single player when you are winning wars and only make things work similarly for the AI winning as when you do. So from my (mainly SP) perspective it's a clearer rule.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

My first reading of that line was that it, you know, tells you when stabhitting peace offers happen. I.e. replaces the old rules. Not very stealthy IMO.

That said, it has no effect on single player when you are winning wars and only make things work similarly for the AI winning as when you do. So from my (mainly SP) perspective it's a clearer rule.

My hopes were up that it *would* have an impact when you're winning wars, particularly when you rack up huge WS quickly and the AI has an opportunity to get out without a lot of direct damage to its nation. Without that, as I said it's a lateral move in SP.

Especially in the context of separate-peace deals in MP, suddenly requiring 24% or more war score variance than previously to do stabhits is not insignificant, especially in tandem with a LoW modifier giving them extra resistance. It's the difference between getting a mothballed fort + cap fort jumped for 30% and spam sending 1 WS demands vs having to wait several years no matter what. That is a big, big difference.

There is no rational case you can make that the patch note language implies a full-on rule replacement. The context during which stabhits happen under the previous rules vs the 1.14 rules are sufficiently different that there is no apparent reason they couldn't co-exist, especially considering that they each apply in a context where the other one often would not (fast war score differential versus no differential whatsoever).

 

[ChildeR]

My hopes were up that it *would* have an impact when you're winning wars, particularly when you rack up huge WS quickly and the AI has an opportunity to get out without a lot of direct damage to its nation.

The "surrender AI" could do with some tweaking, but that should IMO happen through the normal means of acceptance modifiers.

There is no rational case you can make that the patch note language implies a full-on rule replacement.

No rational case? I can see how either interpretation is possible, but if a line says "things are now this way", I usually take it to imply "rather than how they were before". Anyway, doesn't really matter, I guess. Clear to all now.

 

[Quaade]

Yes it was a risky gamble but I have since gotten much better. I even manage to at a few point take on kazan and Timurid because nogai didn't want to share military access in the same situation since the introduction of rivals. I have learned much since then.

Allies, enemies and their allies share access now, and an AI interested and capable in joining the war will usually make access collectively to do so... However there are some cases where you have to help them on their way and ask for access

Yeah... been putting well over 2.000 hours into this black hole of time, still learn or adapt tactics and can succumb to arrogance when I´m used to rolling over the enemy... Suddenly you meet another major power, and while on paper your just stronger than him, in practice his armies devastates yours if not for some clever tactics, spending of loads of money and and a fall-back army that constantly were reinforcing and sending full regiments back to the front... Could just as well had dropped it all on the floor and started all over for the achievements... Missed one silly province for "budhist strikes back"

Personally I would have gone for a gradual penalty system going from a trivial penalty from -1% to 25% then gradually ramp upward until it get worst the higher warscore and peace deal difference is. But then again it wouldn't take into account other factor that would factor into AI's willingness to accept something.

Gradual, like how? like prestige loss for 40 % and stab at 70%? believe players would moan about that aswell but makes some sense... I think they should change the games mechanics so that accepting a loss wouldn´t be so devastating. In part it´s our fault, but it does seem like PDX does too little to make us accept such a loss since we know that nation will never lose again, leading to a string of defeats instead of the possibility to later strike at him in his weak moments...

Instead they choose to punish us for not making peace in our arrogance... They could make it more acceptable... Perhaps revanchism is a step in the right direction, though I would have liked it to trigger already when at 50 % instead to make mid-war more interesting instead of simply... mopping up but that´s just me... Love banging the head against the wall

That said, it has no effect on single player when you are winning wars and only make things work similarly for the AI winning as when you do. So from my (mainly SP) perspective it's a clearer rule.

It does have an effect on SP when you lose the war ;-) could see the issue @Tavior mentions as being frustrating when you know you are about to turn the war. But dislike the punishment for not doing so, instead of PDX actually make losing more acceptable and less of game over by the future string of defeats.

The "surrender AI" could do with some tweaking, but that should IMO happen through the normal means of acceptance modifiers.

In the regards of them signing a peace with substantial less than WS? Always disliked how the AI wouldn´t sign a peace well under the WS, demanding 1 or 2 provinces, because the fort 8-10 prov away was still intact, even though their armies were demolished and the province demanded would be in my FoC anyway. Understand why it´s there, don´t understand the strictness to all cases...

 

[Chamboozer]

- It is no longer possible to block a strait for an army whose war allies control both sides of that strait.

Yesssss!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No rational case? I can see how either interpretation is possible, but if a line says "things are now this way", I usually take it to imply "rather than how they were before". Anyway, doesn't really matter, I guess. Clear to all now.

As it's an issue that seems to crop of reasonably frequently (IE more patches than not), it's worth exploring a little.

A rational case would be one made based on evidence. If I were to put your model into practice, something like "Power Projection now gives a Prestige Bonus of up to +0.5." would then imply that power projection no longer can give monarch points, morale, or extra leaders...just a prestige bonus of up to +0.5.

We'd also have to conclude:

- that rebels don't do much other than relocating
- that protectorates don't base liberty desire based on anything other than relative power
- that having same dynasty is the only way to lower liberty desire on a march
- that there is only the -100 opinion modifier for force vassalization, replacing other opinion modifiers
- that karma is only from province development, replacing other things that change it

However, if you put my interpretation into practice, that these statements are used as amendments/alterations to the current state and do not imply "rather than how they were before", then the vast majority of them are accurate rather than inaccurate. These are comparable examples, for reasons I highlighted earlier in pointing out that both stabhits could easily exist concurrently.

In the regards of them signing a peace with substantial less than WS? Always disliked how the AI wouldn´t sign a peace well under the WS, demanding 1 or 2 provinces, because the fort 8-10 prov away was still intact, even though their armies were demolished and the province demanded would be in my FoC anyway. Understand why it´s there, don´t understand the strictness to all cases...

The forts are a quirk we live with (though forts occupied by a 3rd party should NOT count! Too abusable). When making this complaint, most people are referring to the garbage modifiers "length of war" and "relative strength of alliances". I have a picture showing these in practice, whereby an AI is refusing a deal asking for 1 WS worth of ducats while I have 44% war score. The target AI has a couple regiments, IE 10x less forces than me and has been stack wiped multiple times. Its allies have similarly landed and been shredded. The war has gone on several years.

Under the previous patch rules, the AI could have stabhit me for my demands if our situations were reversed, but was immune to stabhit demands itself. Forgive me for hoping, based on the comment wrt accepting stabhit demands and reporting the issue previously, for thinking that maybe this nonsense scenario had been addressed.

 

[Quaade]

A rational case would be one made based on evidence. If I were to put your model into practice, something like "Power Projection now gives a Prestige Bonus of up to +0.5." would then imply that power projection no longer can give monarch points, morale, or extra leaders...just a prestige bonus of up to +0.5.

However, if you put my interpretation into practice, that these statements are used as amendments/alterations to the current state and do not imply "rather than how they were before", then the vast majority of them are accurate rather than inaccurate. These are comparable examples, for reasons I highlighted earlier in pointing out that both stabhits could easily exist concurrently.

The interpretations doesn´t really counter each other out, and when interpreting text and rules it really begs the question whether the purpuse is the same. If it is, then the natural interpretation would be to replace it, lex posterior. So just because the rest of the effect isn´t cited, doesn´t mean they are cancelled, by interpretation it would mean that nothing had changed, else they would have mentioned it specificly.

By your arguments, they should post not 18 pages of patchnotes, but roughly 100 since they should post all those things that didn´t change aswell, making the purpose of patch notes redundant since we couldn´t see the changes over all the stuff that´s not been changed.

I do however see your point of confusion, as it was a bit unclear if it was meant to replace or add to it. Your arguments to why you should be allowed to be confused goes to far, and the conclusion you would draw from that would be, horrendous as the stated 100 pages patch notes.

The forts are a quirk we live with (though forts occupied by a 3rd party should NOT count! Too abusable). When making this complaint, most people are referring to the garbage modifiers "length of war" and "relative strength of alliances". I have a picture showing these in practice, whereby an AI is refusing a deal asking for 1 WS worth of ducats while I have 44% war score. The target AI has a couple regiments, IE 10x less forces than me and has been stack wiped multiple times. Its allies have similarly landed and been shredded. The war has gone on several years.

Totally agree that forts of 3rd parties not in this particular war (i.e. me and him, but him and 3rd) shouldn´t count and is nonsense when you can´t make peace with an enemy you clearly beaten, with no chance to get up and would only drag the war on unnecessarily.

I do get, that wars should be peace out easily, AI should be better at weighting their chances (I do believe they have improved) and I do get, that a province in ZoC or at least in the neighbourhood of a fort that you cannot demand it when that fort is not controlled. However, for easy rules to that matter and with the new ZoC rules, this might be possible.

A province can be demanded, when inside your ZoC but not in their ZoC, when WS is over 50% (or 40 or something)... Point is, you cannot demand many provinces this way if they are in a controlled ZoC and when they are not inside your ZoC, demanding other provinces would still require the normal rules. I´d weight the ZoC you have as a reasonable requirement and the reason why you simple can take land past that.

 

[happymix91]

Working as well hearing game developer is surely difficult job..

 

[omega20056]

Blockading nerf? So you did nerf BYZ...

The Ottomans and one of their allies would need to control both sides of the strait to ignore a Byzantine blockade, which isn't going to happen if you trap their entire army in Anatolia and destroy any allied fleets that show up with troops. In other words, build a big enough navy and it works as always.

 

[Golladan]

The Ottomans and one of their allies would need to control both sides of the strait to ignore a Byzantine blockade, which isn't going to happen if you trap their entire army in Anatolia and destroy any allied fleets that show up with troops. In other words, build a big enough navy and it works as always.

You're forgetting there's a strait over the same sea tile connecting Edirne to Anatolia. And Edirne starts with a fort.

 

[happymix91]

The Ottomans and one of their allies would need to control both sides of the strait to ignore a Byzantine blockade, which isn't going to happen if you trap their entire army in Anatolia and destroy any allied fleets that show up with troops. In other words, build a big enough navy and it works as always.

Great strait of Dardanelles will not allow you Greeks to do something wrong!!!!

 

[omega20056]

You're forgetting there's a strait over the same sea tile connecting Edirne to Anatolia. And Edirne starts with a fort.

Ah, well, then it doesn't make sense at all.

 

[PPolo]

The stab hit from peace offers come from EU3

 

[Tavior]

The stab hit from peace offers come from EU3

The -1 stab hit meant something totally different back then.

If you were a small OPM it didn't meant much at all as it would come back quickly. But as the more bigger you got it come back slower and furthermore there were no MP to spent to get stab back. I wouldn't compare them in any meaningful way except that where it came from.

 

[VampireBoot]

Is there at least a limit on how often you can send a stab hit peace offer? Getting a stab hit every month from a peace offer is just ridiculous, to the point that it's not really a strategic choice and acts as a huge noob trap (tooltip says you take a stab hit from declining, but not the fact that they'll just send the same offer again every month). I can accept taking a stab hit maybe every six months if I'm pushing to turn the tide in a war, but having it happen every month makes it not a real choice. Plus, the monthly offers issue encourages players to leave the diplomacy icon unanswered for as long as possible, which is a practice that really shouldn't be incentivized.

At the very least, it would be nice to have a defines which can modify or turn off that mechanic, so players can choose to mod it away if they wish.

 

[Quaade]

Is there at least a limit on how often you can send a stab hit peace offer? Getting a stab hit every month from a peace offer is just ridiculous, to the point that it's not really a strategic choice and acts as a huge noob trap (tooltip says you take a stab hit from declining, but not the fact that they'll just send the same offer again every month). I can accept taking a stab hit maybe every six months if I'm pushing to turn the tide in a war, but having it happen every month makes it not a real choice. Plus, the monthly offers issue encourages players to leave the diplomacy icon unanswered for as long as possible, which is a practice that really shouldn't be incentivized.

How else would you force players into accepting it, if the penalty isn´t severe enough?...