Best guess on the forum so far is that a dev playing a blob got smashed so they managed to successfully lobby this change in.
15 year truces seem a bit long
- Thread starter Wookie1
- 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.
Best guess on the forum so far is that a dev playing a blob got smashed so they managed to successfully lobby this change in.
Yes, it's too much. It makes the game less dynamic and boring by increasing the watch-the-screen time.
A total mistake from the game design POV. It was envisioned under the erratic assumption that a trashed nation should be able to recover better increasing the truce timer, but they didn't consider once a country is trashed, vultures will finish the job for you. So rather than giving the trashed nation some manpower recovery bonus or money or whatever, they decided to increase truce timer. Isn't that brillant?
Some countries can handle it better, some others cannot, though. You won't notice the difference with Austria or France, for example, but you shall notice it with Russia or Manchu. The more isolated you are, the more watch-the-screen you will get.
Oh boy.
Man did you actually play AS Russia, in this patch? Between switching targets (Ottomans > Kazan > PLC > Ming > Sweden/Denmark) you can be doing war ALL the time, FFS. It´s NOT the truce timer that limits you as Russia... The only thing the timer does is forcing you to DOW someone else instead of the nation you just spanked, and that´s it.
Man did you actually play AS Russia, in this patch? Between switching targets (Ottomans > Kazan > PLC > Ming > Sweden/Denmark) you can be doing war ALL the time, FFS. It´s NOT the truce timer that limits you as Russia... The only thing the timer does is forcing you to DOW someone else instead of the nation you just spanked, and that´s it.
It seems as you actually didn't play Russia patches ago, or actually never played Russia at all. You keep Sweden opinion high to get western arms on. You won't DOW PLC (always allied to Autria) or Crimea (always allied to Ottomans) with you 20K stack or nomads in general (better pips, shock bonus) unless an opportunity shows up. By the time you reach Ming, you will have enough of watching the screen in the first 100 years.
Crimea is always allied to Nogai so if you don't border them directly no cb on Nogai and rip to shreds Crimea, annexing European hordes shouldn't be issue and they will keep you busy. Keeping Sweden for bonus is not worthy since penalty to tech is almost non existent to even be worthy to sacrifice diplo slot. Better to annex Scandinavia for yourself. Besides if you're worried about enemy armies make usage of Russian winter to annihilate them if you can't withstand them
Thanks to current mechanic with elective monarchy Poland always loses PU with Lithuania and they collapse to rebels, so no worries about Austria and co.
Last edited:
60MP is good enough to go for it. BTW, I was talking about the first 100 years. After that Russia is a snowball on the black sea and Asia. BTW, if you DOW Nogai with no CB, be sure Kazan will DOW you soon and restart. It is also likely that Timurids is allied with Nogai or Golden Horde.
So take care of Kazan first. Even if they're allied to Timmies(which are allied probably to GH as well) Uzbek Qara and Nogai will rival them so they won't march to get you. Get enough WS to annul treaties with Kazan since Timmies probably will take leadership in war and in next war take Kazan down.
I feel like this is a common problem or unsatisfactory game element, that is popularly explained as an in-house-MP session knee jerk fix? Why not just as I find myself often parroting to some extent, (TheMeInTeam) he often makes a lot of sense, suggested in terms of having a meaningful consensus, a poll or something. I believe there is somewhat of a precedence for this on one of the free patch changes, I believe automated cardinals.
I know that paradox also do those reddit Q&A's maybe hosting one around popular forum topics would be constructive? Granted I don't follow reddit but I feel they are probably currently more PR pieces than game improvement opportunities. Maybe I'm nuts but it seems like a useful outside tool.
I know that paradox also do those reddit Q&A's maybe hosting one around popular forum topics would be constructive? Granted I don't follow reddit but I feel they are probably currently more PR pieces than game improvement opportunities. Maybe I'm nuts but it seems like a useful outside tool.
Last edited:
And once again you successfully disregard the actual suggestion and put emphasis on the consequence, not the cause. Here, just for you:
Your other comments are irrelevant if you ignore this part. Why is it so hard for you to take your time to read what I wrote?
If thats the case, then breaking them should have far fewer consequences. I mean -2 Stab, +2 WE and 20 AE is pretty serious. Maybe make it -1 Stab, +4 WE and 30 AE or something. As is thats more or less half to 3/4's of a tech in lost Adm and you're fighting without allies because they don't want to lose stab. I really, really think truces should go back to 5 years, or if they have to be longer, make it 10 for 100% Wars.
A truce break is -5 stability, 50 AE, and 5 WE. With the diplomatic idea finisher, it is -3 stab, 30 AE, 3 WE. I don't know where you're getting just -2. Diplomatic ideas also has a -cost of reducing war exhaustion. Aristocratic has another. Horde traditions no longer have that, but you can still get sub-35 DIP to lower war exhaustion.
The problems are then AE and stability. AE if you manage it can be handled via adept use of alliances and target management. ADM and stability, however, are real bottlenecks. If you spam accept rebel demands (not even a plausible option in 1.8, but let's just go with 1.7 and before for now), you will tank prestige to the point where your troops are not effective (it kills your morale). Low stability will also damage your legitimacy and low prestige will compound that. So, your options are to either boost stab paying 100's of ADM to get back to the 0-1 range, or find a way to survive for long stretches at -2 stability (you need -2 to declare war). Theocracies, no-re-election republics, and nations with -RR decisions and NIs all get a boost here. Things that reduce stability cost are welcome also.
Just as important is getting a superiority CB and ensuring ticking war score. As coalitions grow, getting 100% stops being plausible and getting ticking + battles via conquest takes a long time. With superiority, if you can manage it, you get much more war score from battles and ticking almost immediately. By drawing WE up a bit on your target and farming their small stacks for war score, you can get to 70% or so WS and heavy WE on them pretty fast, able to take somewhere in the 80-90% war score range with nowhere near full occupation. This is important; the length of wars are a slowing factor just as the length of truces can be.
I really like this, actually, because it's relatively easy to implement technically (assuming truce timers aren't implemented badly in the game right now
) and it would both help with the problem of the truce timer, as well as give people a little more to do in peace time..png){kind=avatar}
Having truce duration based upon warscore conflicts with so many other mechanics in the game; conquest missions/claims, rivals/power projection, geographically isolated nations, coalitions.
It also falls into the classic bad design pitfall of punishing you for succeeding. (though many mechanics in EU4 exhibit this characteristic.....)
If truce duration were based upon something more than just warscore, I can see it working far better.
CB used, rival status, relative size of aggressor/defender nations, war exhaustion incurred during the war, cultural/religious differences, the list of potentially applicable modifiers is enormous.
Rivalry between nations in particular should play a big part (perhaps you should always get 5 year truces with a rival?), as it solves almost all the current problems. (missions/claims/power projection/geographic isolation)
It also falls into the classic bad design pitfall of punishing you for succeeding. (though many mechanics in EU4 exhibit this characteristic.....)
If truce duration were based upon something more than just warscore, I can see it working far better.
CB used, rival status, relative size of aggressor/defender nations, war exhaustion incurred during the war, cultural/religious differences, the list of potentially applicable modifiers is enormous.
Rivalry between nations in particular should play a big part (perhaps you should always get 5 year truces with a rival?), as it solves almost all the current problems. (missions/claims/power projection/geographic isolation)
I like the idea of truce penalties being dynamic if truce length is, e.g. going down by 1 STAB, WE, and 10 AE per 20% of the truce you wait out, but if you truce-break, then anyone who set you as their rival can be called in/gets a CB. Maybe some government forms should get a reduction to truce-breaking penalties as well; I don't think the people of a steppe horde would raise as much of a stink about waiting less than X years to attack someone again.
By "ditch the warscore cost" I assume you mean abolishing the admittedly arbitrary 100% warscore limit for what you can take in peace. This seems like a bad idea, being able to bring annex Austria at 100% warscore would be a nightmare for new players who don't yet understand how the game works. It doesn't seem like it would add more to the experience for veteran players either, unless you want to blob at lightspeed.
Lots of nations have blobbed at lightspeed. But they all have collapsed!
AE and vassal relations should fix that! Regardless if you vassalize austria or flat out annex and release austria as a vassal, they should have the same horrible opinion of you and rebel again and again and not help you out in any war.
That is my point. Flatly getting rid of warscore and truce timers unbalances the game horribly. Furthermore re-balancing the game, the most significant part of this would be to reprogram the AI, would be an absurd amount of effort and would create other situations that would probably be more painful than truce timers that some people think are too long.
No, I love these truce timers. There are nearly always enough possibilities for other wars (including Scotland and Novgorod) and most of the time you can enter a new war with the country in some other way after a few years.
And for those who say the game is balanced around MP: the devs said they do not balance it around MP, so who are you to contradict them?
And for those who say the game is balanced around MP: the devs said they do not balance it around MP, so who are you to contradict them?
It's a reach to claim the game is balanced now, though I realize you technically haven't. What criteria would you use to make such an assertion? In claiming that a mechanic change would make the game imbalanced, there's an implication of some presently balanced state that would be disrupted. I'm not seeing it. Where's the balance?
This game is, by design, imbalanced in the first place, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. France is supposed to be stronger than liege, and the colonial powers are supposed to have an advantage over the natives.
If you yank war score, it's "next bottleneck up". In this case you'd see overextension and enemy alliances/coalitions. To yank war score one would have to alter how releasing nations as vassals works though.
To use your argument in reverse, however, the alteration to truce timer max from 5 to 15 was an *enormous* impact on the game's balance, that most players don't even bother to articulate. Whereas before, pressing wars at the end of the truce strained the resource replenishment of both sides (and made an aggressor exposed to big dogpiles if something went wrong), now you can get up to 15 years where the AI will never, ever declare on you or use an offensive CTA. The change also did nothing to protect small nations, which can be destroyed in 1 war regardless, so you can look at it as a buff to large nations and blobs. If you want to start bringing up balance, the last thing that would seem rational is to buff blobs, but that's *exactly* what the truce time change did. It buffed blobs and it buffed the fake coalition war shield.
"I love this new mechanic partially because most of the time I can find away around it" --> top tier design right there :/. Make a mechanic that players constantly work around while enjoying the benefits of being immune to AI declaration for long stretches.
Actually, what the dev specifically said was that he designs and balances mechanics around MP first, and that the AI should be built within the framework of mechanics that are functional in MP. However, he said this in an unfortunate and abrasive way (not that I'm one to point fingers, mind you, but this is why people understood it wrongly) and it got dogpiled/misinterpreted/derailed my thread
. I do find it ironic that with someone I disagree with often especially with regards to mechanic implementation, I wind up being on the same philosophical side when it comes to whether the AIs are competitors or set pieces and the theoretical progression of balance design (and that it feels that such a position is in the minority)...but what can you do.And I do agree with the premise. The execution, however, does not match that reality. This was not a net positive change in MP, though in MP just as in SP you have players arguing both ways. However, it really falls short of doing anything useful to game balance, in SP or MP, because it's a straight buff to large nations that slows down the pacing. Without heavy work on the viability of limited war (something it was stated to encourage, but it doesn't do), it really does nothing at all aside from slow pacing. If you're going to introduce a variable truce element to alter pacing, the other mechanics around it need to be adjusted, especially the AI's stubbornness when it's lost a limited war. Absent that, it does nothing of significance to add to strategy.