Are there any changes to 1.13's AE planned?

[riknap]

Thx for making it moddable and quick response.

well, Wiz is obviously half-AI. how else could he rise so quickly from modder to AI programmer to game lead developer in a span of months

Any chance you could tell us the (rough) formula? I'd like to get the England Industrial Revolution Achievement now if development becomes prohibitively expensive at ~30 development already.

well, if it's moddable, it'll be possible to infer it from the defines

still, I'm also curious. just how "nonlinear" would its slope be. something like
a) mana cost = (linear cost) + (current development)*(slope/factor)
or
b) mana cost = (linear cost)^(1 + slope/factor)
?

 

[Grimely]

Guys we're all forgetting the important thing here.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=475729714

There's a mod to make the Demon King your flag.

In all seriousness though, thanks for the quick response and feedback wiz. Now to just hope that the new formula doesn't break when implemented.

 

[Wizzington]

Extra cost for increasing at each level:

3-9 development: No extra cost
10-19 development: 3% per level between 10 and 19
20-29 development: 30% + 6% per level between 20 and 29
30-39 development: 90% + 9% per level between 30 and 39
40-49 development: 180% + 12% per level between 40 and 49
50-59 development: 300% + 15% per level between 50 and 59
etc

So increasing a province from 59 to 60 costs ~200 points (previously about 109), but increasing from 29 to 30 costs ~95 (previously about 79).

 

[riknap]

so tiered increase then. nice

 

[Dorevai]

that sounds pretty good

 

[Dark Kain]

Thank you, this sounds much better.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I approve of the new changes to development. I haven't played aggressively enough or played in the HRE yet, so I haven't been hit with coalitions, but the changes there sound good. I can't wait to play the new patch.

 

[vodkaholic]

Hooray, hope that curbs the crazy HRE development.

 

[Mattzey]

Wiz i belive that currently ae is too high from claiming thrones/restoring unions ect, i enforced a pu over austria and got ae of upto 120 with some hre princes, i had basically all the hre,Spain,France,Hungary,Sweden,Teutons ect all coalition me, i can understand getting a good amount of ae, but when literally everyone coalitions you from claiming the throne and winning 'which is already rare due to pu mechanics' it seems a bit extreme.

The only nation i had previous ae is France, and that was at about 5? from conquering the British isles as scotland

 

[Beagá]

Nice formula. Not perfect maybe but definitedly better.

Somehow not surprised by whom disliked lol.

 

[CassCD]

Honestly, what part of "don't take huge chunks out of Europe" do people not understand? So many complaints, not enough thinking about what you're doing.

Ottoman Empire, 1764. Much larger, less Europe, not a single coalition all game. Many have been eligible. None dared try. Honestly would be fine if AE was left as is, if you take enough to warrant 300 AE, then you probably deserve it, no matter how "small" of a chunk you took.

Spoiler

 

[Dorevai]

Coalitions are also determined by how strong you are. If they don't think they can win, they won't form it. i.e. you were probably far too godmode.

My Venice playthrough recently got where coalitions would form moments after I lost a battle in some random war because they were just itching to coalesce and didn't think they had the power to manage it, but the moment I recovered, the coalition would fall apart. They still hated my guts. I had people at 150 AE that wouldn't join the coalition. And it keeps getting easier to prevent them from joining coalitions against me as my power grows.

 

[Ratlegion]

Extra cost for increasing at each level:

3-9 development: No extra cost
10-19 development: 3% per level between 10 and 19
20-29 development: 30% + 6% per level between 20 and 29
30-39 development: 90% + 9% per level between 30 and 39
40-49 development: 180% + 12% per level between 40 and 49
50-59 development: 300% + 15% per level between 50 and 59
etc

So increasing a province from 59 to 60 costs ~200 points (previously about 109), but increasing from 29 to 30 costs ~95 (previously about 79).

Wiz, I know you're desperately trying to attack all these problems from every angle that you can, but I think the problem may be that you've linked too many mechanics together so now that when there's a problem, you are unable to find a fair fix across all the systems. An example would be linking too many things to base tax. Another would be too many random variables in the game and not enough MPs to fill every pocket, yet at the same time not enough sinks for dukats. This time it's about the wide vs tall.

I really like what you've done with CS, so I hope you won't take what I'm saying the wrong way, but it seemed to me that one of the major ideas behind the patch was to make playing tall somewhat more viable as opposed to playing wide. But, as it stands, there are already so many people saying that it's more cost effective and reasonable to conquer new territory rather than develop the provinces they already have: IF YOU DO THIS, THEN THE ELEMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE ENTIRE GAMEPLAY STYLE OF PLAYING TALL MAY BE LOST!

I don't have the solution on how to make this work, but I'd hate to see even more people turn against you for making another sweeping change. Maybe it will be better than how it was when it came out on release, but I doubt it will be by much. I mean, this is really going to hurt minors critically, if I'm seeing this right.

 

[PeterCorless]

The issue that I am seeing is this:

You play anywhere in Europe, and even with a massively expansive "take all the things!" strategy, you will still end up with years, even a decade+ more MPs than you need. (110% years ahead penalty...) Especially with the AE/Coalitions as they are in the Beta. So, regardless of the conversation rate, you'll be dumping MPs into province improvement. You won't have anything else to spend it on.

You play anywhere else ROTW, and even with a lot of advisors and god-kings, you will likely be scraping by to keep teching up with the Joneses. So you won't be getting a lot of province development. Maybe here-and-there you'll have an odd excess of Mil or Dip. But generally it'll all be needed for it's main utility: tech upgrades.

 

[Beagá]

Yes I get what you mean, as ROTW development is less viable... but thing is, except for military tech, you don´t really need to catch up ALL the time.

By expending a bit of ADM and DIP there you can make some provinces more useful, specially with buildings., and have long term return in the form of more money and thus easier conquest.

I´d rather see ROTW using few development than the current abomination we see now. The first is annoying, the later is broken.

The crux of the problem IMO is that wars don´t destroy development. If they did, then anyone everywhere in the world would have to think twice before developing too much.

 

[Jeggred86]

Yes. Development will have a nonlinear scaling so it's cheaper at low levels but unaffordable at very high levels. Development Efficiency will be nerfed too.

Will this be a beta hotfix (Tuesday maybe?) or is this for the real update after paradox holiday season?

Any chance we will get the old AE tooltip back? It's nice to see directly who may join a coalition, but I also want to see the low AE currently not shown when planning different peace deals so I don't get over the limit when they add.

 

[Bobby555nc]

Extra cost for increasing at each level:

3-9 development: No extra cost
10-19 development: 3% per level between 10 and 19
20-29 development: 30% + 6% per level between 20 and 29
30-39 development: 90% + 9% per level between 30 and 39
40-49 development: 180% + 12% per level between 40 and 49
50-59 development: 300% + 15% per level between 50 and 59
etc

So increasing a province from 59 to 60 costs ~200 points (previously about 109), but increasing from 29 to 30 costs ~95 (previously about 79).

Would it not be effective as well, to slightly decrease terrain penalties at certain amounts. Forest provinces, chop down tress. mountain Provinces, build roads and chop down trees, dry lands dig wells, cold provinces import furs and better building materials....My personal view is that developing 0 penalty provinces is too easy and developing terrain with penalties, too costly. Could this be addressed?

 

[hashinshin]

This is going to swing tall empires right back in to the useless category. They are STILL vastly inferior to wide empires, and this change will once again make it as bad (maybe even worse) than 1.12.

There has to be a better solution.

Surely we can attach a penalty for being in the HRE, or attach a gold cost so poor small countries can't spam development. Surely just putting the answer back to "develop to 20, forget development exists" isn't the way to go.

 

[Koivin]

This is not the correct place but since we are discussing 1.13, did anyone notice that more available mercenaries ideas don't give force limits anymore?

 

[Had a dad]

foul language scrubbed and infracted