It sounds like another anti-simulation design decision. I'd much rather see emergent world evolution than railroad it for historicity. If a nation's army, economy and manpower are destroyed, then damn straight they better be torn apart by the vultures on their borders. Even the greatest empires eventually fall apart.
1.14 will destroy small countries
- Thread starter Politic Revolutionnaire
- 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.
It sounds like another anti-simulation design decision. I'd much rather see emergent world evolution than railroad it for historicity. If a nation's army, economy and manpower are destroyed, then damn straight they better be torn apart by the vultures on their borders. Even the greatest empires eventually fall apart.
So your idea of balance is one lost war = dead?
I have no problem with someone getting attacked by 3 alliances and loses 100% WS to each, but they shouldn't be able to do that again as soon as truce timers are up with barely a sign of resistance. Prussia was defeated by France, but they still came back and was instrumental in defeating Napoleon at Waterloo. They didn't just shrivel up and die and let France blob easier like many people here seem to want.
I guess what I want is for the situation to be more dynamic, where the losing side could still prevail or hold a stalemate.
The problem is that in EU4 it's far too easy for your army and manpower to be destroyed. In the real world you can always, bar an exceedingly destructive war, put more troops in the field if the prospect of defeat is awful enough. In EU4 though, once you're out of manpower you're fighting with mercenaries only, no matter whether it's the war for Neighborstan to reclaim the core you took from it five years ago or the war for Evilia to conquer you and convert all of your provinces' religions and cultures.
Really, revanchism might be better as a mechanic that happens during a war. Change it so at the start you list the peace you are willing to accept, and then you can pay diplomacy points to change it as the war goes on (probably at a discount determined by how much the war score has shifted for or against you since the previous demand was set). The worse a prospective peace gets for you, and the lower your manpower/higher your debt less your treasury, the faster your manpower regenerates and the more tax you collect.
I have actually seen multiple lets play (Quill18, Arumba and DDRJake) from The Cossacks, and I think i would go as far as saying that it became (A LOT) easier from smaller nations... Securing alliances became easier as long as you make sure to not be desiring same provinces, you can force set yourself to treathened to specific nations, granting a 20 bonus for alliance with rival nations and it's a lot easier to call people into war on your side (just promise them some land).
Sure, they want something in reward, but from what I saw from DDRJake, as long as they don't desire all the provinces from the person you are attacking, they will not get mad if you only give them like 1 province and take a shitload for yourself...
And there is no longer the 10 year wait time to call in again, so you can just do back to back wars and each time you just give them like 1 or 2 provinces while taking a lot more...
Wait for the expansion to actualy be available before already screaming stuff... It's just useless if you have not yet experienced the game..
Also, at last: Byzantium IS NOT SUPOSED to survive/be strong. It was a decadent nation at this point, at the verge of being whiped out...
Second: Most small nations DIDN'T grow huge, in general in this timeframe, for the western nations, the rule was: The big nations got bigger and the smaller stayed the same/got conquered. (of course there are some exceptions, but those are exceptions...)
- 1
Dead, you mean? ERE after 1204 had no real wealth to be decadent. By 1444 most of Constantinople was a kind of ghost town with only inner areas being occupied. They had no real army either, not one that could match Ottomans or Genoese. Their old trade network had collapsed alongside their navy, and and they were dead in all but name, waiting to be conquered.
Their situation is almost same as Delhi Sultanate of this era after the tragic Timurid sack of Delhi...only that Delhi Sultanate managed to rebuild itself to a certain point and survive nearly one more century.
Challenge starts will become even more difficult?
Call the President! We must invade Sweden... for FREEDOM!!!
Call the President! We must invade Sweden... for FREEDOM!!!
I see your point but losing twenty trust with a huge nation is not exactly beneficial...I agree with Byzantium the only way they survived was because of those insane walls a as for your last point is right though I was speaking fun a gameplay perspective
I just don't see the issue, why would you lose 20 trust? You can just give them like 1 province and they are fine... Poland will not desire any province they don't border, so they are not going to ask the entire Ottomans as reward (using the Byzantium as example again)... As long as they don't desire it you are not losing trust by not giving it.... Also, in general, with any smaller start, you only really need your allies in 1 offensive war (normaly) after that you only need them for defensive calls, and those they will still join...
The first part of your post ignores the point I've been making throughout this thread.
The second part supports my point. If that was your intention that's fine, but I want to make sure it's what you were intending.
On revanchism I wonder why they made it based on how much warscore from 0 to 100% the country conceded instead of how much the conceded warscore is relative to the total of the country. Seems to fit the stated intent of the mechanic a lot better.
Your point being it's a mechanic that helps bigger nation more so than smaller ones? I don't disagree with it, but it's mostly irrelevant for my games. I am merely pointing out this is an improvement so that a nation doesn't become all you can eat buffet after just one war. A Muscowy that goes into bankruptcy chains is less of a threat than separatist rebels in Albania, just a little more micro.
No. My point is that absent any baby hand-holding mechanics whatsoever, great powers *still* survive losing wars badly better than small nations. So, what is the justification for baby hand-holding great powers specifically?
You talk about bankruptcy chains like they're something the nation in question can't control. Rather than holding the hands of players on strong nations making terrible choices, the game should punish terrible choices. And yes, there should be at least some existential threat, some chance that a nation shatters to pieces with sufficiently inept decision making or a dedicated enough effort from multiple nations to partition it. People talk about the mid-late game and claim it's boring. Making it so that big nations are even *less* likely to lose is an active detriment to gameplay.
If Muscovy goes into bankruptcy chains despite its advantages, it deserves its fate. "The AI sucks" is not a valid reason to deliberately push unstable equilibrium and dumb down the game by design.
- 3
- 1
It's a given that stronger nations survive easier, this is a game that has unequal starts due to historical backgrounds. The reason they are providing mechanics that helps larger nations recover is because they are the ones that provide the most challenge to players.
Buffing small nations even more would only make it more likely for large AI nations to fail and become food for the player.
Picking apart a fully formed Russia can be difficult, or at least a resource drain. But fighting 3 separate wars against Kazan, Sibir, Ryazan to conquer the Russian lands is easy.
I agree they should have the chance to fail, but they should also have the chance to come back. And by "sufficiently inept decision making" do you mean things like get declared on by PLC when you are trying unite the Russian lands? Then get declared by GH, followed by everyone else? I'm using Muscovy as an example because they have consistently failed in my games.
Was this a perfect system? Hardly.
Does it make the game a little more challenging? Most likely.
Your first sentence is non-sequitur. As for the second, who spends more time from 1444-1821 being a strong nation, the AI or the player?
Strawman. I'm not arguing for buffing small nations. I'm arguing against all the ridiculous babying.
I have provided argumentative backing against this extra "chance to come back". You have that chance without any of the babying, if you don't keep choking. That was true even in the time of 5 year truces.
If you bankrupt losing a war, it means you took out that many loans making an estimation that you could win, and that estimation was (grossly) off-base. Nations did get partitioned in this period, PLC itself being an example. In-game, it's a misplay when it happens in SP and an unfortunately reality of getting short-sticked in crowded MP.
I don't see any reasonable case being made for why the game being more forgiving of player mistakes from 1520-1821 should lead to a conclusion that the game is more challenging as opposed to less.
- 1
I'm going to put on my apologist's hat and try to hazard a guess as to why playing large nations has become easier to play.
EU4 is pretty unapproachable to new players. New players tend to play bigger nations. Easier-to-play bigger nations means higher retention for new players. Ergo, developers buff larger nations.
EU4 is pretty unapproachable to new players. New players tend to play bigger nations. Easier-to-play bigger nations means higher retention for new players. Ergo, developers buff larger nations.
lost trust is based on war contribution if they did ninety percent of the work they expect ninety percent of the provinces taken in the peace deal
Nope, watch Jake's stream, he gave Mamluks one province as AQ and they were fine, no trust hit was done. If you promise land grab for ally but won't give while taking for yourself, they'll get -30 trust hit.
- 1
i was mistaken then thOugh it's out negative twenty or negaTive thirty still not optimal but better i suppose
I'm going to put on my apologist's hat and try to hazard a guess as to why playing large nations has become easier to play.
EU4 is pretty unapproachable to new players. New players tend to play bigger nations. Easier-to-play bigger nations means higher retention for new players. Ergo, developers buff larger nations.
It's not an unreasonable line of thinking to say this, but to me the biggest barrier to entry is that the game's rules and UI are still opaque coupled with the daunting nature of massed DLC slapped on top of that complexity.
Whether the rules are hard or easy, getting a bunch of "lol you died" moments because there's no reasonable way you could have known the rules prior to trial and error is more off-putting.
Does the AI care about trust hits?
It's big but for one time round like fighting Ottos to survive it's not that big deal though I guess you can bypass this by forcing country to release as many countries as possible so you can later eat them one by one without help from big brother.
AI is more willing to dissolve alliance if it's too low and probably less likely to accept again alliance or maybe but just maybe CtA, diplovassalizing etc.
- 1