battles are beyond ridiculous now

[Beagá]

And from this you gather what? That very few people like the change? You can't draw that conclusion from any evidence you can provide so rather it is you that is not doing anything productive. What I am saying is that he can't just make claims like that. Someone in another thread who actually did some research might be able to, bit his claims are just unfounded and therefor undefendable. You can't say something is broken untill you understand it and you can't understand it without data. So you go be productive and get this data. YOU claim something isn't working properly so YOU have to provide the evidence.

Pointing out that claims are made without the proper data to back it up is NEVER unproductive.

Lol no data?

Dozens of people complaining of the same issue? Year long battles with constant reinforcing?

Lol dude. Just lol.

If you like the change that´s your problem (there are people who like self-flagellation too, just saying) but stop distorting stuff. It´s beyong labelling stuff as broken or not. The current system is surreal and if you tell anyone about a game in the XVI century where battles take 3 years they will laugh in your face. It sucks from gameplay AND history perspective thus totally ruining immersion.

 

[Lakedaimon]

Lol no data?

Dozens of people complaining of the same issue? Year long battles with constant reinforcing?

Lol dude. Just lol.

If you like the change that´s your problem (there are people who like self-flagellation too, just saying) but stop distorting stuff. It´s beyong labelling stuff as broken or not. The current system is surreal and if you tell anyone about a game in the XVI century where battles take 3 years they will laugh in your face. It sucks from gameplay AND history perspective thus totally ruining immersion.

Yes that is no data, all it proves is that a large portion of the people that have posted in this forum recently are experiencing the game as broken.

THAT is all you can gather from what you are saying and NOTHING else.

On the historical part I can agree, it is ahistoric. That however does not constitute "broken", simply "ahistoric". We know for example that PI has made battles ahistorically long intentionally to improve playability, so ahistorical is not by definition broken.

 

[Saladin Osmanli]

@Lakedaimon: We already have data for at least one important part of diplomacy being almost certainly broken here, starting with getting -900 AE malus with one country alone after annexing a few vassals and PU juniors. And a massive AE malus from merely uniting the HRE.

 

[Lakedaimon]

That would be interesting to see, can you link me to it? I've annexed many vassals and not gottan that much AE ever so I'm curious as to how that happened, maybe the PU's. I did see something about the AE doubling when forming a nation.

 

[DarkThug]

One feature in diplomacy is bugged =\= Diplomacy system as a whole is broken.
A bunch of forum posters don't like the change =\= Nobody like the change.
Data =\= Opinion
Perfectly playable =\= Everything is working perfectly

Please don't mix things up. Thank you.

 

[Comes Imperii]

Although it' offtopic I would like to have your attention about this diplomacy bug: basically fabricate claim time idea does not work as intended:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?728088-50-Fabricate-claims-time-not-working

 

[Sickness_]

In the grim darkness of the near past, there is only war.

+1

 

[NapoleonI]

The reason some people haven´t noticed the forever ongoing battles with almost no casualties, is because it is mostly a late game problem.

Could it be that combat width doesn´t scale as it should?

 

[MiniaAr]

The reason some people haven´t noticed the forever ongoing battles with almost no casualties, is because it is mostly a late game problem.

Could it be that combat width doesn´t scale as it should?

There is indeed a scaling bug, not with combat width but with weapon damage modifier. link

 

[mozgriken]

Exactly, the thing one person dislikes about the game may be the thing that the other person likes about the game, or it may be that someone else understands the game better and therefor knows how to deal with it. That's why making claims like "it is beyond broken" are best not made at all. The only thing that you should claim is either "I don't understand it" or "I don't like it".

But in this case, IT'S BROKEN SON!!

 

[Saladin Osmanli]

That would be interesting to see, can you link me to it? I've annexed many vassals and not gottan that much AE ever so I'm curious as to how that happened, maybe the PU's. I did see something about the AE doubling when forming a nation.

I already provided a link. Some of the posters did some experiments, and at least one has provided a couple of images. HRE unification gave -160 AE relations malus with France, for the interested.

One feature in diplomacy is bugged =\= Diplomacy system as a whole is broken.

It's hardly one feature that is "bugged". It's been pointed out time and again that the coalition system works too well as an anti-blob measure -- to name just one problem, the Aztecs and Cherokee in North America should not be able to join England and other European countries in a coalition war against Spain in the 16th century, especially if the American nations only discovered Portugal and Castile due to first contact, while the other countries are still Terra Incognita to them.

Data =\= Opinion

Whoever implied that, instead of "data supports opinion"?

Perfectly playable =\= Everything is working perfectly

Problem: "perfectly playable" does very much imply "everything is working perfectly", even if it's not the only possible meaning for the phrase. You cannot really blame people for confusing the too when enough people use the first phrase to mean the second phrase that the implied equivalence become ingrained in the public consciousness despite its incorrectness.

 

[Lakedaimon]

I already provided a link. Some of the posters did some experiments, and at least one has provided a couple of images. HRE unification gave -160 AE relations malus with France, for the interested.

That actually makes perfect sense. If an "empire" of loosely affiliated nations turns into a single nation state don't you think everyone around you would feel incredibly threatened and would react as such towards you? A relations malus would actually be a GOOD thing rather than a BAD thing in that case, even if it is unintended it should become a feature.

It's hardly one feature that is "bugged". It's been pointed out time and again that the coalition system works too well as an anti-blob measure -- to name just one problem, the Aztecs and Cherokee in North America should not be able to join England and other European countries in a coalition war against Spain in the 16th century, especially if the American nations only discovered Portugal and Castile due to first contact, while the other countries are still Terra Incognita to them.

That does not mean broken it means overtuned. A broken coalition feature would for example be nations entering a coalition even though you have not waged a single war in the entire game.

Whoever implied that, instead of "data supports opinion"?

The problem is not people saying "I think this so it's a fact", it is people saying "This is a fact because I think it is a fact" without providing the required data to back up this "fact". People have given proof of bugs, but a bug is not automatically a broken feature. To prove the feature is broken you need additional proof, like the example I gave of a broken feature.

Problem: "perfectly playable" does very much imply "everything is working perfectly", even if it's not the only possible meaning for the phrase. You cannot really blame people for confusing the too when enough people use the first phrase to mean the second phrase that the implied equivalence become ingrained in the public consciousness despite its incorrectness.

It does not imply that everything works perfectly, it implies that the core features work to an extent where the game can be played when keeping the bugs in mind. For example the boosts from the quality idea not working doesn't mean the game is unplayable, the game is perfectly playable because you can avoid picking the idea. Therefor not everything has to work perfectly for the game to be perfectly playable.

 

[Saladin Osmanli]

That actually makes perfect sense. If an "empire" of loosely affiliated nations turns into a single nation state don't you think everyone around you would feel incredibly threatened and would react as such towards you? A relations malus would actually be a GOOD thing rather than a BAD thing in that case, even if it is unintended it should become a feature.

I agree on some form of "penalty" in relations -- whether in opinion or attitude -- but I do contest making it reflected via Aggressive Expansion, given that said malus by its own name is supposed to be limited to actual aggressive expansionism, and also that AE directly controls the probability of the country forming/joining a coalition against the target,i.e. such a high AE malus like the one I mentioned would mean that it would be all but impossible to get your neighbours to stop Coalitioning against you unless you remain absolutely peaceful for close to a century, what with the limited options for significantly improving relations with non-subjects. Additionally, HRE unification is much more comparable to a large-scale PU inheritance, e.g. the French-born King of Spain Philip V being also the next-in-line for the French throne. If it were for me, I'd represent the diplomatic penalty with a "threatens power balance" that has soft-capped to not go lower than -100.

That does not mean broken it means overtuned. A broken coalition feature would for example be nations entering a coalition even though you have not waged a single war in the entire game.

Actually, I think I've read of one such example somewhere around here. Don't remember where or the specifics, though.

It does not imply that everything works perfectly (...)

STOP. This part of your statement necessarily implies that you somehow know for a fact that what I just said about common use of the phrase confounding its actual meaning to the average person (and I am saying this out of first hand experience) is completely wrong, yet you have not given any evidence to corrobate that.

 

[Riidi]

Yes that is no data, all it proves is that a large portion of the people that have posted in this forum recently are experiencing the game as broken.

THAT is all you can gather from what you are saying and NOTHING else.

On the historical part I can agree, it is ahistoric. That however does not constitute "broken", simply "ahistoric". We know for example that PI has made battles ahistorically long intentionally to improve playability, so ahistorical is not by definition broken.

It turns out it is broken.

 

[Serbian Knight]

I kind of like this long battles. It adds more space for tactical maneuver, luring enemy into battle with smaller stacks and then bringing big ones in that were hiding in fog of war and such. It's good option to keep regiments out of the battle and send them in only if they are needed. With longer battles you have time to think it through.

Only problem is that AI doesn't really handle it well, so it's kind of too easy to defeat much superior armies with basic usage of human brain. So best solution would be to improve AI a bit.

 

[unmerged(795431)]

I have actually lost provinces to sieges waiting for battles to end. He doesn't even have to worry about me clearing them, all he has to do is engage my army, and keep sending reinforcements from every place in Europe

 

[lember]

the batlles aren't really broken and don't take that long when you aren't fighting in the mountains, but once you fight in the mountains it really becomes a disaster so I tend to avoid those

about the diplomacy the ae penalty for intigration is not broken it just factors in how strong you are in the AE calculations so the bigger you are the more ae you accrue from your actions. quite logical actually the more powerfull you are the more suspicious people get when you do something.
in this post(and a bit lower on the page the exact numbers are mentioned for taking provinces ae penalty so you can assume there is somthing similar going on for intigrating although the penalty is probably a bit steep if you get really big.

 

[Lessing]

Gotta love how stupid people look defending a bugged combat system.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

Completely agree, 1.2.2 is plain broken.

I play 1.2.1, and will continue to do so until we see some sense return to combat. (hopefully in 1.3)

 

[hauptman]

Completely agree, 1.2.2 is plain broken.

I play 1.2.1, and will continue to do so until we see some sense return to combat. (hopefully in 1.3)

For the love of god, this simple numbers bug isnt a break. IT DOES NOT CAUSE A CRASH TO DESKTOP. IT DOES NOT MAKE COMBAT DO NOTHING. It is very easily worked with and even used to your own advantage if you are smarter than a brick.