1.5 Fan here
- Thread starter Pugman
- 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.
The main issue in the patch is the great nation fluctuations, which can make diplomacy very random. Your neighbor may go back and forth rapidly between loving you and hating you for no apparent reason because of your relative overall rank.
The only issue I have with AE is that you get the full 15 for every province, despite vassalisation only taking 15 for taking an entire country and only cause it's wierd that I can get 15 AE for taking 7 provinces via vassal but get 60 for taking 4 directly.
The only issue I have with AE is that you get the full 15 for every province, despite vassalisation only taking 15 for taking an entire country and only cause it's wierd that I can get 15 AE for taking 7 provinces via vassal but get 60 for taking 4 directly.
It'd be nice to be able to do that regarding literally any mechanic, yes. It's pretty difficult to do, however, when someone expresses that a given mechanic needs improvement and why, and then most responses instead talk about that player's skill, attitude, the game overall, biased non-statistics (IE "vocal minority" assertions, which even the mods asked people not to do), difficulty, or personal experience.
However, the stated purpose of this thread is to simply praise the game...until you read the OP. Then, it becomes readily apparent that it's also being used as a pot-shot against people who have problems with 1-2 really bad mechanics, without addressing them. These posts addressing my "attitude" are kind of comical actually, as they serve yet another attempt to duck the actual points brought up and constitute a direct logical fallacy. In practice, they're a basic (and weak) attempt to attack the credibility of a person when incapable of attacking the credibility of the person's arguments.
Also, it's the OP that brought up coalitions, not me, so it's rather sad to pin them being mentioned here in this thread on me. With a few exceptions that I'm not proud of, I keep my discussion of mechanics to threads intended for them or related to them. This is such a thread however, so it's ludicrous to complain that I address a game mechanic in a thread that specifically mentions it in the OP.
I wasn't specifically directing anything at you. I was appealing to both sides. But it does take two to tango
Yeah, they need to fix the report post button. Right now though you can private message a moderator to report a post.
The main problem is that the people complaining about 1.5 aren't willing to actually adjust their strategy when things are balanced, and their current playstyle doesn't work as well so clearly it must be a problem with the game and not them.
+1
You aren't entitled for form Germany in 1460, Germany wasn't formed in the EU time period.
I'm enjoying the patch for the most part. I did lose some major naval battles due to the new mechanics, but the challenge of rebuilding my fleet and re-evaluating my strategic situation is the type of thing I enjoy about this game anyway.
The main problem with people making statements like this is that they are generalizing an entire population without so much as acknowledging the points made that directly suggest that it is false. Thus, you wind up with an all-inclusive and by-definition inaccurate generalization that insults players who complain and yet do not fit that category, while also appearing to be ignorant of the game mechanics being called into question to the extent that the advice to "adapt" rings hollow, in part because the mechanic changes themselves actually require less adaptation and more linear play than before...which is a core facet of some of the complaints.
In short, making statements like yours here shows a gross lack of actual will to discuss anything at all.
Who claimed such entitlement? Certainly not everyone, and possibly nobody.
What are you talking about? There are many posts by people who don't agree with mechanics (regardless of whether I agree with their opinions or not) who also talk about how to deal with them. Not least of which in terms of coalitions, is TheMeInTeam talking about how to take advantage of coalitions by using them to chain war. So he HAS adjusted his playstyle, and instead of saying "Yay, I can blob now, so it doesn't matter." he's still disagreeing with coalitions because he thinks they're inherently flawed seperate to the issue of difficulty.
I too this morning decided that I might encourage coalitions to form in India so I can carpet seige it instead of taking it one at a time. As long as there is a large country around that will take over as warleader the coalition warscore should allow me to take a lot. I think it will be faster in the end, and being able to restart war at any time might open up new options in terms of what provinces to take and what vassals to release. It's an untested theory, but clearly I am adjusting my strategy. I guess after saying this people will still think I disagree with coalitions because they're too hard (did I mention the thing about buffing coalitions?).
Hmm, according to Paradox, people complaining against coalitions changes would be reactionaries and that people supporting it must be liberals!
Or is it that people unhappy and wanting to change the current coalition mechanics liberals/anarcho-liberals and that people who want things to remain largely the way they are conservatives?
Depending on this answer, we may have to manage our militancy and consciousness...
Or is it that people unhappy and wanting to change the current coalition mechanics liberals/anarcho-liberals and that people who want things to remain largely the way they are conservatives?
Depending on this answer, we may have to manage our militancy and consciousness...
The way the patch history has gone, it's like we've quad westernized. Somehow.
That's the wrong game man, we don't get to manage our consciousness for another 400 years
Agree with OP. I'm realy amazed at how good this game is actually. It is quite a bit more restrictive than previous versions of EU, but for me that increases the enjoyment greatly.
played a game with brunswick last night...after a few years i decided to fabricate a claim. my guy was discovered and every german minor around me joined in a coalition and declared war xD
Naval combat is much improved, but I think morale damage should be upped. Or maybe the AI just needs to learn to retreat? As it stands, health is lower than morale, so entire fleets are destroyed. Be nice to get a chance to capture some ships a littttle bit more regularly.
I'm on the fence regarding whether it was an improvement or not. On the one hand, naval battles are now more decisive and you actually risk losing your ships/entire fleets if caught off guard. But on the other hand, naval battles are too decisive, often ending with one side completely obliterated and the AI really struggles with rebuilding its losses which often results in complete naval superiority for the player after just one battle.
It just kinda dawned on me... everyone complaining about how AE needs to be nerfed/removed because there's nothing else to do?
Either they're just upset that its more difficult to expand through pure military might, or they don't possess much in the way of vision/imagination. Because yeah, it'd be nice to have more to do than warfare (though I personally enjoy colonizing, trying to fiddle with trade, and otherwise managing my empire in peacetime), but that doesn't mean we should just return to 1.4 blob-for-all. I do think AE and coalitions need to be tweaked (maybe a return of a more balanced and once loathed "the bigger you are, the more AE you get" system?), but for the most part I'm still happy with them. So I can't add a dozen HRE provinces in a decade as East Frisia, is it really such a horrifying thought that hyper-aggression in the HRE will bring the world down on your head?
And it is hyper-aggression, because I have in 1.5 expanded pretty successfully as a OPM in the HRE. It'd be nice if certain folks, instead of continuing the "OMG AE is so broken and it happened to you to, you should quit EUIV for now" spiel they seem intent on, would either stop spreading their skewed view on current gameplay or actually learn how to avoid a massive coalition and then tell others how to avoid it.
Still unhappy you can't be a warmongering Ulm right off the bat? Well, the hell did you expect, you started off as Ulm.
Either they're just upset that its more difficult to expand through pure military might, or they don't possess much in the way of vision/imagination. Because yeah, it'd be nice to have more to do than warfare (though I personally enjoy colonizing, trying to fiddle with trade, and otherwise managing my empire in peacetime), but that doesn't mean we should just return to 1.4 blob-for-all. I do think AE and coalitions need to be tweaked (maybe a return of a more balanced and once loathed "the bigger you are, the more AE you get" system?), but for the most part I'm still happy with them. So I can't add a dozen HRE provinces in a decade as East Frisia, is it really such a horrifying thought that hyper-aggression in the HRE will bring the world down on your head?
And it is hyper-aggression, because I have in 1.5 expanded pretty successfully as a OPM in the HRE. It'd be nice if certain folks, instead of continuing the "OMG AE is so broken and it happened to you to, you should quit EUIV for now" spiel they seem intent on, would either stop spreading their skewed view on current gameplay or actually learn how to avoid a massive coalition and then tell others how to avoid it.
Still unhappy you can't be a warmongering Ulm right off the bat? Well, the hell did you expect, you started off as Ulm.