If you're the emperor you'll lose the Imperial Liberation CB because of those damn 15 years truces.
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.
If you're the emperor you'll lose the Imperial Liberation CB because of those damn 15 years truces.
I only play ironman in sp, but my ssd is pretty fast. Speaking of that, time to optimise saves further.
IMO, war exhaustion is really easy to burn and it should be one of the most important things to consider when declaring a war or not.
Why can't we have a simple slider for the truce length at the start of the game?
As for changing stuff like manpower recovery speed - i would hate modding it back... well with the way it goes EU4 may become the first paradox game i dropped dbecause of the patches/changes =/
P.S. never played multiplayer for any paradox title i own
As for changing stuff like manpower recovery speed - i would hate modding it back... well with the way it goes EU4 may become the first paradox game i dropped dbecause of the patches/changes =/
P.S. never played multiplayer for any paradox title i own
You are probably the only one who views truces as a good thing. Not everyone is a hippy Johan
If you break a truce you'll receive a massive AE specially inside the HRE. I can be wrong but I think that you guys didn't thought about the Imperial Liberation CB when you change the truces to 15 years.
I view them as massive ae and -5 stab hits. I kinda need those admin points for other things.
I agree that I work to find creative ways around them as well, but you can't always do that. The penalty is too high to break them more than once or twice meaning you need a really high reward if you're going to do it. Additionally, if you don't play a strong nation like Russia, you have to watch out because high revolt risk = low income = a very fast snowball effect. A lot has been put in place to try to stop the snowball growth, but starting as a not overly rich area in money/resources/manpower can result in a downward spiral in the midgame where you have basically no control over it.
As Ayutthaya I'm in control of SE Asia, Zhou's cores, and part of India, yet I can only run 50% force limit if I want to have positive cash flow with military maintenance turned down. Nerfs to try to keep people from running away has resulted in a downward spiral effect that keeps growing nations from being able to catch up. Taking the massive stab hit + war exhaustion to add to your RR is not something you can take lightly.
Are you serious...? Because breaking a truce inside the HRE means 100 base AE. So yeah, good luck against that coalition spanning the entire continent. And if you don't care about a coalition of that size, you might as well stop playing because there is zero challenge and infinite tedium ahead.
I can't imagine he was referring to truce-breaking, since they increased the ceiling on truce timers and massively increasing the costs associated with a truce-break (the most direct way to make truce-timers "a suggestion") in the same patch. I still do it occasionally, but that cutesy reply would only be fitting if the costs of truce-breaking hadn't changed.
Perhaps he was referring to truce-bypassing.
"You have a 15 year truce with country X. You can wait 15 years for the truce to expire or find another way to draw that country into a war against you."
Why are the lead programmer receiving these type of questions
Its like were living in different worlds.
Because thankfully paradox devs aren't full of shit like the devs of many other companies. At least they listen, even if they disagree.Why are the lead programmer receiving these type of questions
So instead of the mechanics being changed, we should exploit the mechanics to ignore them? That doesn't make much sense.
50 AE, -5 stability and +5 war exhaustion is just a teeny bit more than a suggestion. Why does truce breaking even give a stability hit, anyway? If my nobles think that I can lead them to victory and secure more territory to reward them with, why are they upset that I backstabbed the people that presumably they'd just been fighting against with me, rather than cheering on my cunning wiles? I understand the massive AE hit - you are consciously breaking an agreement concerning your expansion you signed with another party. The stability hit just seems unnecessary, though.
EDIT: A year takes approximately 1 minute 30 seconds for me, in answer to your earlier question. That's speed 5, which is basically my default speed for peace-time. I play multiplayer at speed 2 because I get desynchs at anything above that, and I play wars in singleplayer also at speed 2.
Hello Balor,
To answer your question simply, for me some countries are focused on some direction expansions and others just has many possibilities.
For example Ottos has a natural expansion quest against mamluks, when any HRE member have 3/4 directions to fight in, some countries became uninteresting to play because of that i think.
Other little things were designed for a 5 year truce:
- The break relation still last 5 years, it's becoming uninteresting because you can't benefits it for your next war.
- Some CB/quests (imperial CB,...) were designed for 5 years truce.
I don't have an easy answer or solution about it but i think that a new design around war objectives/ claims/alliance is necessary.
Is it normal as a small country to use your bigggg ally (France
) to conquer into HRE? i think it isn't. i Mean the call to arm should be redesigned.using a trade CB to conquer? i think it's not normal or maybe only to get a strategic trading province.
Claiming a province and taking a completely different one? not normal, you should have to take the objective of the conquer first and then maybe other ones as bonuses.
Those are few ideas, don't know what other players might think of those
By the time you're willing to break truces, the difference between 50 AE and 2000 AE is of minimal concern, as if you can truly pull it off nations with hundreds of AE tend to stop existing. The problem is that to tolerate the damage, you need to come up with either a way to sit at -2 stab, a way to make it cost ~50 or less ADM to boost it, or 200-300 ADM plus core costs outright. DIP ideas helps substantially with the WE via lowering gain and cost to reduce it, as can Aristocratic.
To me, the ADM is the big bottleneck here, with the added problem of not being able to vassal feed effectively if you get bugged out by a fully-annexed nation still having max AE with you on release (no matter what I do, I can't get that to behave consistently, and releasing a big vassal with 500 AE versus 0 AE is an enormous difference). Otherwise even with ADM you're talking about a ~200 ADM price tag on breaking a truce (and comically, with over 50% reduction in DIP cost for -WE, trivial amounts there).
But it's been the paradox way for a while. Unless your CNs are rich you have to trick them into thinking they have income via subsidy just to get them to start a colony that, even after you cancel the subsidy, they can afford without issue.
Because some players are constrained by their manpower and money and thus need the time to recover, while others are not and get constrained by monarch points or timers.
For the most part I don't find much issue with variable truce times. One caveat however, mutual Rivalry, truce time between mutual rivals should always be the minimum 5 years no matter how much you take in your peace offer. Otherwise, what is the point of a rivalry if you're forever waiting to go to war with them again? War between mutual rivals should be vicious and near constant until one side comes out on top. After all, there are mechanics in place to keep nations from being rivals if there is enough of a power differential between them. So once the mutual rivalry is no longer valid, then those 15 year truces can start kicking in. I also don't think mutual rivals should be able to join or form a coalition against each other. If you're close enough in power to consider each other rivals, you shouldn't need a coalition, the power check in these cases should come from alliances. This would cut down on the ridiculous ease with which coalitions form since you cannot prevent a rival from forming a coalition due to relation malus. Once a nation starts a coalition, all bordering nations seem to be 10x as likely to join it if you go to war and take even a single province from a nation in the peace. Keeping relations high only mitigates this so much. If you're a heathen nation, pffft, forget about it.