1.14 will destroy small countries

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

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.

force releasing nations with ottoman it's no go but you could Declare watt and just waIt to accumulate enough favors whole occupying territory and ruining ottoman economy and war exhaustion

 

[LastSalian]

Yes, it makes small nations harder. Probably some exploit will remain, though. I see this new change, once again, as a fully-MP oriented change.

I don't like it as it, once again, slows down the game pace AND removes a strategy mechanic out of the game to make it more noob-friendly.

Just to clarify that not all the changes PDX did to "improve" the MP experience made the game more noon-friendly. Probably it's just a side effect they didn't actually targeted.

 

[Quaade]

Come to think of it, why do big powers in EU4 ally weaker ones anyway? You could just as easily guarantee their independence, or if it's one person's expansion you're worried about you could just warn them. I know when I'm looking for a dance partner, I pay the small powers next door to my enemy no mind; all I'm interested in are great powers.

Would fit the theory somewhat back then, "balance of power". To secure freedom, be as strong as your rival or ally to surpass him. It was employed by Italian states in 15th and was used to paint the politics of England in regards to Spain and France, hence their shift back and forth from loving one and hating the other, then backwards and then back again

OPM may not benefit so much from revanchism, but it's also really easy to revive minors when you win a war against those who annexed them. On the other hand it's nearly impossible to beat Muscovy out of a blobbed Novgorod Russia, or get Austria to release Hungary after they get inherited.

Would like to see more ease of the free nations... However dislike how you cannot free as a vassal, makes more sense historically in areas that were difficult to control.

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.

I agree, if the circumstances are right even the mightiest will fall. Really dislike how some nations, and lucky in particular, are super stable even after losing their 3rd or 4th war in short succession.

So your idea of balance is one lost war = dead?

I believe his idea was, that it´s not game over but simply weakening... Would enjoy losing more (should be nerf at the amount) if I knew they were at risk of imploding. It might not happen, but at least the chance are there, instead of losing war upon war while I know he only gets stronger and I get weaker.

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.

Mercenaries as infantry were the majority in large scales war back then, it was later when the professional armies evolved that infantry were more based on population than hired men. Hence the success of Prussia, since they managed to organize and make their army professionals, in that they didn´t have to get back to their crops or workshops in autumn they were able to be ordered around wherever the monarch pleased making Prussia able to push the war in winter time where other monarchs armies were smaller and made up of mercenaries and those subjects that were paid for fighting away from their local area.

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.

Have been making that argument for awhile, would also help with actually making mid-war more interesting and make peace-dealing at 50 % more lucrative, since you´d risk strenghtening your enemy by pushing on. When the first battles and sieges have been won, it´s more a matter of cleaning up and clearing the table, meaning go for 100 % so you can have as much you´d like.

Would like the modifier to stay for a while though, like presented by the devs

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...)

Both cases are somewhat wrong... Yes small nations didn´t grow huge, but they did band together in leagues to better balance their power against larger nations, like the italian league or holy league (largely the same), Switzerland, Hanseatic league and Kalmar union (in response to Hansa), so they wasn´t simply waiting to be swallowed. It was only quite late in the time-frame that big nations became a thing, mainly around Napoleon.

But it wasn´t an exception that there were small nations for most of the period, it was very common. Lassa Oppenheimer argues that in 1648 there were about 355 states inside HRE, other small states existed outside aswell

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.

If not linked to WS during the war, they should at least had made this the case... Would balance out the smaller nations compared to larger too

 

[Quaade]

I don't like it as it, once again, slows down the game pace AND removes a strategy mechanic out of the game to make it more noob-friendly.

And what´s the problem of slowing down the pace and making more time out of playing it ;-)

 

[LastSalian]

And what´s the problem of slowing down the pace and making more time out of playing it ;-)

Well, from a SP point of view, the slower the game pace is, the less you can achieve in the game time frame.

From a MP point of view, the slower the game pace is, the less tactics and strategies the game offers.

 

[Quaade]

Well, from a SP point of view, the slower the game pace is, the less you can achieve in the game time frame.

From a MP point of view, the slower the game pace is, the less tactics and strategies the game offers.

I regard both as being false... From my point of view
Slowing down the pace in MP helps balance the powers, hence it´s harder for one to get a huge advantage. I play large-scale wars (SP) on a slower speed to gain more use of tactics and strategies and I regularly play on speed 2, since I use the time to check up on nations, weight my options and see the evolution of things. Sometimes a theater might open up that in a place you didn´t expect, which you discover and are able to react to, like your rivals ally being in a large war and you keep and eye on him to see if he becomes weak enough to stay out of the war you so desperately want

As of SP... Is it bad that you can´t "achieve" as much? i don´t view this game as being WC, nor does it seems to be the intentions from the devs. The most fun and enjoyable games I had, wasn´t when I spent most years blobbing (yes I do blob, sadly) but when I´m challenged throughout the game. As Najd I was challenged and never really was secure enough the whole time, I only realized how much I had played when the game prompted that it was over... I was sure I had at least 100 years more to play... Many games as of lately, has actually been played past 1700-1750 and not only had they been fun I had the feeling of achieving more than I did as Russia, Ottoman, Spain or England

 

[doktorstick]

As of SP... Is it bad that you can´t "achieve" as much? i don´t view this game as being WC, nor does it seems to be the intentions from the devs. The most fun and enjoyable games I had, wasn´t when I spent most years blobbing (yes I do blob, sadly) but when I´m challenged throughout the game.

This game has much to offer by the way of countries and their events, religions, placement in the world, etc.. By slowing the game down, you experience less as you can't play all the varying types of starts with as many self-designed or achievement-designed goals. Regencies are one bad slow play as are pointless truce timers. Just because someone doesn't like "slow" play doesn't mean they are world conquering blobmeisters.

So yes, yes it is bad if you can't achieve as much. (I'm not sure this change will affect the rate of games, though. I don't like it from a strategy standpoint.)

 

[qwertzuiop]

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...

I watched his stream too and I had exactly the same thought. It's only possible to desire bordering provinces and the AI will only expect you to give them the provinces they desire. Ergo they will only expect one province if that's the only one they border. At the same time, the player doesn't need to stick to any limitations of this kind and is free to demand any non-bordering province from the enemy as long as they are in coring range.

EDIT: I just checked it again and it seems the AI does desire more than just border provinces, e.g. in DDRJake's stream Qara Qoyunlu wants a lot of border provinces + the Turkmenistan area from the Timurids (probably because of same culture group, right?). So it all depends on how exactly the AI is going to determine its provinces of interest.

 

[ywxiao]

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.

You are entirely missing the point, and creating a straw man argument that a player needs the crutch.
I am not arguing for player advantages, this is entirely for the benefit of the AI so they don't just roll over and die in mid to late game.

 

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

From patch changes you can see now that Byzantium is completely screwed in patch 1.14 because changes to blocking straight crossing. ..

 

[Sousuke123]

From patch changes you can see now that Byzantium is completely screwed in patch 1.14 because changes to blocking straight crossing. ..

It's not screwed and I'm pretty sure today we will even see Byzzies screenshots how "impossible" this nation is. The only difference is you need to ally Poland(and if you want anyone rival of Ottos) and DoW Turks while pigybacking Poland dealing with them. That's strategy i used with Knights to get Jerusalem achievement while using Ottos and worked wonders with getting in 1474 achievement so the same can be done with OP Byzzies.

 

[ChildeR]

From patch changes you can see now that Byzantium is completely screwed in patch 1.14 because changes to blocking straight crossing. ..

In my 1.13 BYZ game I didn't block the strait at all.

 

[celethiel]

Well 1.12 was a massive boost to small nations. So maybe just see this as a re-balance?
Less exploiting of the AI is always good in my book.
And why is it always Byz that gets mentioned? Its supposed to be impossible!

No not impossible, highly improbable...
the one that near impossible is Granada, or that little Goth Nation...
But then Luck Hates me, Horrible Dice Rolls, and Worse AI Decisions...(against me not for me)
Actually on this particular Debate... My thoughts are WAIT UNTIL the patch comes out and play it before you go screaming to the closest Authority that it's going to be impossible to play a small nations. But then I am a person that believes in Figuring stuff out for yourself before letting others do your thinking for you, or as the case may be, panicking.

 

[Maldazar]

From patch changes you can see now that Byzantium is completely screwed in patch 1.14 because changes to blocking straight crossing. ..

I see your issue is really not with 'small nations' but with 1 specific nation: Byzantium.

It's the nation you quote in all your examples... and yeah, they probably got harder because of the straight blocking not working.. but then again, THEY ARE NOT SUPOSED TO SURVIVE. It's not at all suposed to be a nation which can consistently work. Just accept that it's a nation that even in player hands is not suposed to survive more then like 1 every 10-20 games (and i know that good players can make it more often).. once you accept that, and accept that not all nations in the game are 'balanced equaly' or even suposed to be possible to play 100% consistantly, you will end up being less butthurt with every patch and just accept that this is no Starcraft or something like that where all nations need to be balanced evenly.

 

[Politic Revolutionnaire]

I see your issue is really not with 'small nations' but with 1 specific nation: Byzantium.

It's the nation you quote in all your examples... and yeah, they probably got harder because of the straight blocking not working.. but then again, THEY ARE NOT SUPOSED TO SURVIVE. It's not at all suposed to be a nation which can consistently work. Just accept that it's a nation that even in player hands is not suposed to survive more then like 1 every 10-20 games (and i know that good players can make it more often).. once you accept that, and accept that not all nations in the game are 'balanced equaly' or even suposed to be possible to play 100% consistantly, you will end up being less butthurt with every patch and just accept that this is no Starcraft or something like that where all nations need to be balanced evenly.

not really im just using them as an example ive already got the acheievemnt with them you see and they are quite a potent example and yes they are not supposed to survive i was just making note of recent changes

 

[Destinyfaker]

Hello!

1.14 won't destroy countries. I will.

Riga...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You are entirely missing the point, and creating a straw man argument that a player needs the crutch.
I am not arguing for player advantages, this is entirely for the benefit of the AI so they don't just roll over and die in mid to late game.

You're kidding. The only thing that gives the AI a chance in "mid to late" game territory is a severe nerf to large nations. Revanchism isn't going to help 600 vs 80, and realistically a player might very well have two of those 600's, with more FL available.