1.6.1.1 Open Beta - checksum e2f7
- Thread starter Besuchov
- 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.
- Status
As a poster on the previous page said, AE and AE decay is fine now. Done test runs with Sweden, Brunswick and France. Inside the HRE you will get coalitions and AE is high, but outside it's all fine and dandy. For example after vassalizing a Wurzburg that had grown a bit, I took 71 AE. 13 countries in a coalition. I deleted my troops, sat back and watched France and Austria win the war for me. Inside the HRE you have to be a bit cheeky and opportunistic, and the current AE and AE decay makes the first 80 years very exciting and tense.
Agreed. Relatively high AE(in this open beta and 1.6) helps non-european country plays to be more interesting because with 1.61 AE, coalitions didn't exist outside of Europe.
Actually, altering HOW it functions as a game mechanic is precisely what it needs, and that has not happened since I started playing and probably hasn't happened since 1.0.
They just keep kicking it around up and down flopping like a fish, "tuning" a mechanic that is flawed at its core.
1. Large coalitions can and do form in 1.6.1 if you press your rate up. A big war where you take 100% WS (or even 80%) can easily dump 60 base AE that gets modified over 80. As such, it's still an actual constraint, just not as much of one as you like. Claiming coalitions are "completely out of the picture" is one of two things: 1) poor understanding of the actual mechanic in the current game or 2) dishonest. I chose to assume that you lacked an understanding of the mechanic, rather than that you were dishonest. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong however.
2. There has not been a single patch iteration from 1.3 until now where you couldn't become a superpower in 50 years, including release day 1.6.
3. AE in its present form is a mechanic that makes it somewhat more challenging for minor nations to get big, and is virtually useless against large nations. This is backwards in concept and balance. Frequently, it winds up protecting blobs outright.
4. I deem those who claim AE to add challenge to be casual players. Improving relations and fishing alliances is not challenging play, and for example when done with any semblance of competency even in 1.5 you could get the Papal state to run a force limit of 40-50 (probably more, that was my first attempt) by 1480, with a coalition of 4-6 minors, and that's WITHOUT the DDRJake burner.
5. What AE *does* constrain, however, is the player's ability to react to situations in a dynamic way. The way to handle coalitions is pretty static; avoid them constantly until you're ready to chain them. What are they really adding in terms of complexity to a player's thought process? How are they presenting more possible outcomes where different ones are optimal based on context, where the choice isn't consistently obvious to the player? The answer is that they do not. They do not provoke deep thought and are not a serious barrier to blobbing...in fact it is blobs that *most benefit* from AE --> coalitions, and with admin efficiency and speed coring late game that's more true than it ever has been.
Bahahahaha! The irony!
Can we please not prop up the farce that is ironman even further? Besides, the argument would then quickly shift towards what the best setup in ironman is.
Because the mechanic is not functional. It is not a serious detriment to blobbing, it actively helps blobs, it's a failure of a dogpile mechanic against runaways, and isn't a serious constraint unless you're a landlocked HRE minor. The way it functions right now is flat-out stupid and no amount of accumulation or decay tuning is going to change the reality that its conceptual implementation sucks in the first place.
So f you think it should scale upwards for large countries like it did in 1.3? That was optimal but people kept complaining until it was rendered useless. Late game coalitions in 1.3 were the best thing ever tbh
It needs to work differently. If it's much less for small nations and significantly larger for big ones, then it's a step in the right direction, but that wouldn't solve all of the issues with it.
But then again historically there are plenty of examples of coalitions against small countries, a primary example being Venice facing coaltions of the Papal State and France.
IMO coalition wars should primarily be containment wars, if the coalition wins the members should be able to get back only the provinces that were conquered and not dismember the whole country.
You've got to be kidding me.
League of Cambrai thing was rather unique, and Venice at the time was NOT a minor power!
Not only that, but that war ended in a way it ****ing can't in the game: with separate peace treaties.
There were no coalitions against nations like Tuscany or Ulm, and wouldn't have been if they took 4 provinces. Quite a few large powers in this time period took much more and saw no coalition at all.
Venice was a small country by EUIV standards LOL. And it does not matter how it ended, it happened. Italy was a prime example of balance of power where colaitions existed, same as HRE. But as I said, coalition wars should happene more oftenbut not destroy the attacked country, just at maximum asking the country to give back the cores it conquered.
What did Tuscany conquer to gather a coalition? Siena and Lucca? That's it
Honestly, I prefer the current live patch's AE decay. I am a relatively new player (only 700 hours and only since 1.4), so my experience with different values is not as wide as probably many of you. But just from a pure gameplay perspective, it's a lot more palatable to wait 15 years for an early-game coalition to dissolve than 30. This is because in their current form, they function only as an anti-fun mechanic; due to the "Wants your provinces" modifier, it's nearly impossible to diplomatically remove nations from the coalition now, so your only option is waiting it out. There's no gameplay there. There's no variance due to player knowledge or skill. Your original target nation is now "off limits" for as long as the AE lasts.
I agree that coalitions are in a weird place right now, where they punish medium-sized nations (3-5 provinces) much more harshly than 10+ province regional powers, since the ability to just expand in a different direction doesn't really apply unless your empire is large enough to have multiple independent areas for expansion. But even if this wasn't the case, there is still no incentive for wanting to face a coalition until you can chain declare. If the reward system for beating a coalition worked more like a standard war, maybe even allowing separate peace deals, then a coalition would be a fun challenge to overcome, instead of a pain in the rear to avoid at all costs.
I agree that coalitions are in a weird place right now, where they punish medium-sized nations (3-5 provinces) much more harshly than 10+ province regional powers, since the ability to just expand in a different direction doesn't really apply unless your empire is large enough to have multiple independent areas for expansion. But even if this wasn't the case, there is still no incentive for wanting to face a coalition until you can chain declare. If the reward system for beating a coalition worked more like a standard war, maybe even allowing separate peace deals, then a coalition would be a fun challenge to overcome, instead of a pain in the rear to avoid at all costs.
A coalition cannot demand conquest of unclaimed uncored provinces. The nature of EU4's warfare mechanics are such that they will probably have to occupy huge swathes of it to get a deal, and that occupation is likely to wreck the victim unless they had a huge pile of DIP points saved up to buy down the ensuing WE.
Wrong. By EU IV standards, it is completely impossible to annex Venice in a single war. Can you even do it in two wars? How is such a country with dozens of starting base tax and a top 20 military potential in the world "small" again? I know you don't actually play small nations ever, but Venice is not small. We're not talking about using Arakan here.
Claiming it doesn't matter how it ended is forfeiting your argument btw. If you're using realism as a basis for a mechanic's current function, you don't get to use it selectively in some kind of garbage argument. If coalitions allowed separate peace, the entire mechanic would function differently by necessity. Using history examples and conveniently ignoring parts that hinder your argument is bullcrap and I'm calling it out.
Lol. The territory that changed hands multiple times in this time period involved more than can even be done with 1 war in game, at least until way after it happened, and saw nothing like the game's current presentation of coalitions. You're only proving my point further.
In game, if you get caught fabricating a claim on Siena and then take it as Tuscany, you spring a 6 nation coalition as of 1.5. Where was that in history, lucaluca?
Oh right, you've been proving my points all along by citing examples that show just how unrealistic the mechanic is. My bad.
Ok another suggestion then: coalition wars should have a timer: who wins at the end of the timer, wins it all. If the coalition wins, the attacked country gives back its new lands, if the attacked country wins, he keeps them.
Lucca and Siena are all Tuscany conquered in 400 years... hardly a cause of concern for its neighbours.
Fine, I guess you could peace out separately in coalition wars, but you should not be able to claim any territory then.
Well, Venetian empire at its peak had a population in millions, about the same as England.
Venice was the biggest town in Europe after Paris so giving it a 10 base tax is almost funny.
36000 sailors over 3300 ships.
So saying Venice was a minor power it some kind of a joke.
Venice was the biggest town in Europe after Paris so giving it a 10 base tax is almost funny.
36000 sailors over 3300 ships.
So saying Venice was a minor power it some kind of a joke.
Actually I like the idea in this thread that suggest making coalitions behave like a single large country, so you could actually take some decent land for beating them all, but you still couldn't beat them one-by-one and peace them each out. I think this is less abusable while still allowing some reward proportional to the required effort.
I obvious agree since it's my suggestion, but I'd like to point out that 1.6 claims it does this, although I've seen screenshots showing that it doesn't happen.
Mhh England was a secondary power until later on. Compared to the Ottomans or Spain Venice was a minor power
- Status