Beta of 5.1 - 21st June 2011 - Discussion Thread

[RobRoy3]

I don't notice anything like that. There must be something wrong with your install.
My checksum is: FSCV

Yeah, you must be right; another fresh install attempt seems to work.

Thought I did a clean install the first time, but I guess I did something wrong. Weird, though, that I was still getting FSCV; if I'd skipped a file, or corrupted one, or had an extra, or whatever, you'd think the checksum would have been different...

 

[George LeS]

Obviously, the 2 big improvements are the map cache issues and AI buildings. I am pleased to see them.

I am not, however, pleased to see no mention of naval combat issues. (Surprise!). At a minimum, I'd expected to see the troop transporting bug eliminated, where a beaten fleet continues on its mission to it's target seazone, and lands troops. This is such an obvious flaw that I'm really amazed it's not addressed.

And it is only slightly less disappointing to see no attention given to the naval annihilation problem. It is truly absurd to see such a high percentage of combats result in the total loss of one side, often with minor damage to the other. The game simply needs more retreats, and fewer crushing defeats.

I am beginning to think that this is another area where the company's position is: "That's WAD". If so, all I can say is, it's a crappy design.

 

[HiddenWolf]

I am not, however, pleased to see no mention of naval combat issues. (Surprise!). At a minimum, I'd expected to see the troop transporting bug eliminated, where a beaten fleet continues on its mission to it's target seazone, and lands troops. This is such an obvious flaw that I'm really amazed it's not addressed.

And it is only slightly less disappointing to see no attention given to the naval annihilation problem. It is truly absurd to see such a high percentage of combats result in the total loss of one side, often with minor damage to the other. The game simply needs more retreats, and fewer crushing defeats.

I am beginning to think that this is another area where the company's position is: "That's WAD". If so, all I can say is, it's a crappy design.

+1

Then again, naval combat in both HoI3 and V2 is similarly challenged, so I won't hold my breath.

 

[George LeS]

6-21 patch

1. I'd like someone to explain to me, in terms fit for an idiot (me, not you), exactly what the cache value of the new moddir is. How does it make mods work differently now? I've correctly installed the patch (right checksum). Now, do I still have to copy the mod cache into the vanilla map folder, or can I just use the replace command in the .mod file? (If it's any help, I'm using a mod built from SRI, with no changes by me, in the map folder).

2. Is there any other thing we need to be aware of, pitfalls to avoid?

Thanks.

 

[17blue17]

1. I'd like someone to explain to me, in terms fit for an idiot (me, not you), exactly what the cache value of the new moddir is. How does it make mods work differently now? I've correctly installed the patch (right checksum). Now, do I still have to copy the mod cache into the vanilla map folder, or can I just use the replace command in the .mod file? (If it's any help, I'm using a mod built from SRI, with no changes by me, in the map folder).

2. Is there any other thing we need to be aware of, pitfalls to avoid?

Thanks.

As you are aware - there are two options for a mod using custom files in the map directory.

1) use extend = map. The game is supposed to replace the files on a file by file basis in the main game with those in the mods map folder and then correctly calculate the paths / quads. DW has a bug that causes this not to work with extend resulting in a CTD and people have been forced to copy their mods map folder into the main game instead of using extend.

The new patch may have partially fixed this as jdrou reports the cache correctly calculates when the mod's map directory only has something simple like regions.txt. However, if the mod's map directory has a full custom map using extend = map still results in a CTD. The work around is not to use extend and continue copying the mods map files in to the main game OR (new with this patch) use the fixed replace = map - see next item.

2) use replace = map. The game is supposed to replace the entire main game map directory with the mods map directory. DW had a bug that custom terrain would not display correctly when doing this and the map cache would not calculate correctly.
Like extend - up to this point people were having to copy all the mods map files in to the main game to get things to work.

The new patch apparently fixes these things. Downside is that you have to copy all of the map terrain files in to the mod which increase the mods size.

 

[unmerged(313479)]

Obviously, the 2 big improvements are the map cache issues and AI buildings. I am pleased to see them.

I am not, however, pleased to see no mention of naval combat issues. (Surprise!). At a minimum, I'd expected to see the troop transporting bug eliminated, where a beaten fleet continues on its mission to it's target seazone, and lands troops. This is such an obvious flaw that I'm really amazed it's not addressed.

And it is only slightly less disappointing to see no attention given to the naval annihilation problem. It is truly absurd to see such a high percentage of combats result in the total loss of one side, often with minor damage to the other. The game simply needs more retreats, and fewer crushing defeats.

I am beginning to think that this is another area where the company's position is: "That's WAD". If so, all I can say is, it's a crappy design.

In cases like this, "That's WAD" should actually read: We have no idea how to do it/are lazy but can't admit it.

 

[jdrou]

In cases like this, "That's WAD" should actually read: We have no idea how to do it/are lazy.

It isn't 'lazy' if the devs have decided it isn't worth the time to improve a feature when compared with other things they need to do. Maybe they just don't consider the naval issues to be a high priority right now.

 

[jdrou]

as Jordu reports

That's an interesting typo.

 

[unmerged(313479)]

It isn't 'lazy' if the devs have decided it isn't worth the time to improve a feature when compared with other things they need to do. Maybe they just don't consider the naval issues to be a high priority right now.

Take a good look at the changes made in this patch. Then come here and say they're more important than fixing naval combat or Japan.

 

[safferli]

Take a good look at the changes made in this patch. Then come here and say they're more important than fixing naval combat or Japan.

Personally, yes, I believe so. AI building priorities and the mapdir working for mods for me personally is more important than an overhaul of the naval combat, which works from a gameplay perspective "well enough".

 

[jdrou]

Take a good look at the changes made in this patch. Then come here and say they're more important than fixing naval combat or Japan.

I'm not a dev though. That's a choice they make. It certainly has nothing to do with being lazy. I doubt very much they allocated 8 hours to work on the patch and then sat around watching TV or something. It's pretty obvious they aren't devoting a huge amount of time to EU3 right now; they fixed a few significant bugs in the exe (which we don't know how long it took to figure out) but most of the scripting fixes were posted in the bug forum and just had to be copied and (hopefully) tested. They have a bunch of other games that are either in development or need patches too.

 

[6354201]

Personally, yes, I believe so. AI building priorities and the mapdir working for mods for me personally is more important than an overhaul of the naval combat, which works from a gameplay perspective "well enough".

For most EU players, even those that mod a bit like myself, the mapdir issue doesn't matter at all. Problems like the horde system, naval combat and interacting with Japan affect everyone.

 

[RobRoy3]

Take a good look at the changes made in this patch. Then come here and say they're more important than fixing naval combat or Japan.

They're more important than fixing naval combat or Japan.

Seriously. Japan?! Really!? People want to spend time on "fixing" that? It may be a lame design; it may screw up achievements; but how is the ability to conquer Japan, more easily, central to the smooth operation or balance of this game? Frankly, I'd much rather see mechanisms making many places extremely difficult to conquer, rather than making them easier to conquer because perceived inconsistencies in the mechanics offend some people. Sure it'd be nice if such obstacles were elegantly inter-woven with the game mechanics, but lame artificial roadblocks would be better than seeing outsiders regularly dominate North Africa, Anatolia, Russia, Ethiopia, and Central Asia. If I'm disappointed in anything it's that few people seem to be railing about the much more central issue that projecting power abroad is far too easy, far too early.

I'll grant that naval combat has some legitimate issues. But I think that these are over-stated, and that it's likely to be far more complicated to "fix" than it's worth. Naval combat has never been great, and, let's face it, it's a bit of a sideshow. The current model IS a slight improvement over the immediately preceding model, in many ways, even if it suffers in other ways. I don't find it game-breaking and I suspect it's a prime candidate for "good enough", even if that reaction would disappoint me.

If I read Paradox's human resource model correctly, I suspect that many of the smaller "fixes" that made it into this patch are the result of some of the non-programming resources (be they community or employees) being able to implement easily agreed upon fixes to problems, however minor, in a manner that doesn't suck up extended amounts of Johan-like resources.

The attempt to fix things that are problematic for modders, frankly, should rightly be one of the highest priorities. Previous versions of this game were never perfect or even acceptably balanced. Modders could and did improve things in the past and will hopefully be able to do so in the future, if Paradox would release a relatively stable version from which they could work. Not sure how central the mapdir issue really is, either, but I'd think having a functional, relatively stable base, rather than a moving target, would be kind of useful. If you know the horde mechanism is going to stay pretty much as it is, then you can deal with buffing/nerfing the relevant countries much better than if you're wondering what major change might be introduced next ?week? month? year?

 

[17blue17]

That's an interesting typo.

Sorry - fixed

 

[Dotto1979]

I'll grant that naval combat has some legitimate issues. But I think that these are over-stated, and that it's likely to be far more complicated to "fix" than it's worth. Naval combat has never been great, and, let's face it, it's a bit of a sideshow. The current model IS a slight improvement over the immediately preceding model, in many ways, even if it suffers in other ways. I don't find it game-breaking and I suspect it's a prime candidate for "good enough", even if that reaction would disappoint me.

Naval combat can be very important in MP. I think devs changed naval combat for worse the way it resolves now. It looks like to reduce the time these combats took, they had to introduce this anihilating defeats. Random factor becomes too important. If you get a few bad rolls you can lose all your fleet.

 

[RedRooster81]

The major problem that I am noticing that I think needs fixing is about inheriting other countries in Europe then getting hit over the head by the Emperor. Every time that Naples inherits Provence, the poor Valois boy gets hit with imperial injunctions, then Provence passes to whoever is the emperor with full RR; then either it revolts constantly or when the emperorship changes hands it goes to the new emperor, ad nauseam. So I would recommend either giving full rights to your inherited provinces whether or not you belong to the same cultural group or not: so, I inherit Portugal, then no problem; but I inherit France and Milan at the same time, then I get hit by HRE Austria for possessing Parma, which I cannot release as a vassal. Legally it should be mine, since Milan controlled it since 1399, and then I inherited Milan after a very long union. Inheriting colonial powers is also a pain: overseas provinces stay in perpetual revolt as they did not tend to do historically. Maybe five years of tough times, but not a decades. At least once you assimilate the locals with in my case good Castilians, there should be an easier time of things.

The big recommendation that I would make is giving the option to not inherit automatically. Frankly, I would have preferred keeping all my unions as unions, plus now I can diploannex unions, so the inherit union event should have an option for integration or not. Otherwise, I am enjoying Divine Wind a lot.

 

[unmerged(277230)]

How unstable has this patch been for people?

 

[starwarsfan541]

For most EU players, even those that mod a bit like myself, the mapdir issue doesn't matter at all. Problems like the horde system, naval combat and interacting with Japan affect everyone.

I disagree, I mod a lot, but the map mod issue was making me have to reinstall my game constantly and was overall very annoying to anyone using or designing map mods.

 

[sprites]

there still are a number of problems with the hordes , they should be able to evolve , and not needing to be prawnstar to simply being able to survive...
during a horde war , you can't raise wartaxes : " for a horde , all taxes are wartaxes! "

I thought i wasn't a horde myself !? this leads to a weird system where you are half at war and half at peace ...
they shouldn't auto declare war on everyone each time truce ends , especially if they are in trouble ...
i saw no reports either to the instant white peace bug being resolved , or that you oculd do something abou your vassals if you managed to vassalize some countries

- making conquest harder can be interesting , if this is applied with caution
- an area being absolutely impossible to conquer , i think this is on game breaking level

- inheritances and diplo-annexatons should spare some/more buildings regardless of cores

- westernization is cool , but you should have an incentive not to do it

 

[DrLulz]

They're more important than fixing naval combat or Japan.

Seriously. Japan?! Really!? People want to spend time on "fixing" that? It may be a lame design; it may screw up achievements; but how is the ability to conquer Japan, more easily, central to the smooth operation or balance of this game? Frankly, I'd much rather see mechanisms making many places extremely difficult to conquer, rather than making them easier to conquer because perceived inconsistencies in the mechanics offend some people. Sure it'd be nice if such obstacles were elegantly inter-woven with the game mechanics, but lame artificial roadblocks would be better than seeing outsiders regularly dominate North Africa, Anatolia, Russia, Ethiopia, and Central Asia. If I'm disappointed in anything it's that few people seem to be railing about the much more central issue that projecting power abroad is far too easy, far too early.

Difficult? Yes. Put all the penalties you would like on a world spanning empire be they, overseas supply and logistics penalty, revolt risk penalties and different culture penalties, murderous attrition. You name it. Multiply overextension modifier by a 100 - I don't really care. Just do not make any part of the world UNCONQUERABLE by design. It is stupid and it is oh so frustrating for the player. And if we are going to talk about power projection, Japan isn't the hardest place to project power, due to it being easily reachable by sea. Sure they were never conquered in real life, but that was due to their westernization.

PS: Another bug with Japan I never got around to mentioning. It seems that sometimes when unifying Japan you do not get the Japan specific missions (butcher Manchu/Korea and Colonize to the north), I have no idea what causes this.