I think 173 individuals are not representative of 1,000,000+, especially if they complain in the wrong place. Also, I fail to see how this is related to this update, given that none of them were posted when 2.5.2 had been released.
- 12
- 11
Crusader Kings II - 2.5.2 patch - NOT for problem reports! [checksum YZAZ]
- Thread starter Anona
- 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.
Anyone else tried to continue a save from 2.5.1.1 in 2.5.2?
The first thing I notice is that the new law Council Authority is not set - neither Limited nor Full. Will this lead to problems because e.g. the status is checked in event triggers?
The first thing I notice is that the new law Council Authority is not set - neither Limited nor Full. Will this lead to problems because e.g. the status is checked in event triggers?
Have you extensively played the several iterations of the patches, they all biol down to the exact same thing. You sit there doing absolutely nothing for 40 years game time which is the equivalent even on five speed to several hours of staring at map. I posted the top reviews as well so it was far more than just "173 individuals" and have you been around the forums lately? There's plenty of people who are asking for change. And its completely related to the update, they've still failed to fix the game that's been ruined. Just take a short look around, a lot of people are voicing the same sentiment: they've destroyed what the game used to be and the greatest tragedy to befall this game is Coalitions and forced call to arms.
- 9
- 8
Top reviews of the DLC, not the 2.5.2 patch, or any 2.5.x patch for that matter. These people are giving bad ratings to a DLC, not the free patch, and especially not this, 2.5.2 update. So it is indeed some top "reviews", that review something else. Off-topic reviews are not really representative of much in my opinion. Finally, there has recently been few complaints about this specific, 2.5.2 patch.
- 10
- 3
Did you not read my post, the reviews were about the patch. If you look at almost all the negative ratings on that DLC they're about the patch. And apparently you didn't check out my thread which is still alive and buzzing with a 2:1 ratio of people who agree with me. Plus there's several other threads floating around still discontent with 50+ agreement about the latest patch.
- 5
- 5
How can they be about this patch that was released after the reviews were made? I read your post, and that is why I answered that the reviews were off-topic. I think those reviews are a bad example and not representative nor relevant to this specific thread and the 2.5.2 patch. A misplaced review isn't symbolic, it is just misplaced.
- 7
- 6
- 1
They're about the latest patch because its almost exactly the same, little has changed. There's still forced call to arms and coalitions are basically exactly the same. The only real thing that's been changed is shattered retreat where they just adjusted the casualties. The main thing people are opposing is forced CtAs and Coalitions, thus they're still relevant.
*Clarification: By saying "nothing has changed" I simply meant in respect to the general workings of the two features: CtAs and Coalitions.
Last edited:
- 10
- 6
I disagree. Looking into the changelog shows that there are significant differences between 2.5.2 and 2.5.1.1 on the topic of coalitions. Forced call to arms are however still in place, but still unrelated to the DLC they are supposedly reviewing. My conclusion is therefore that the reviews were misplaced in the first place, and now they are obsolete.
- 10
- 6
Have you actually played the two different patches? They play out exactly the same. Despite what the changelog wants you to believe, when you get in game you'll see that the changes made don't significantly change the landscape of the patch.
- 7
- 7
The changelog is straightforward, and those are the changes. If any change plays out differently or does not work, ask if it was a misunderstanding or make a bug report. Regardless, that is not the topic of this subject, and I don't want to go off-topic.
- 7
- 4
Don't be like that, you understand what I'm saying. I'll try one last time. The changes are so insignificant that they make zero difference. The patches play out exactly the same. Why? Because the developers don't seem to care about railroading the player and slamming some track in front of them and telling the player to move backwards. If you misinterpret this one more time, I'm not going to respond. The patch was crap and the updates have been crap because they changed nothing. Stop taking things so literally.
- 12
- 8
You can remove Coalitions/SR in the defines file. It's literally changing a couple of 1s to 0s.
- 4
- 2
SnowHawkKiller, your post #40 about reviews has 6 disagrees and 0 agrees at the time I write this. Is it conclusive proof your opinion is wrong?
Shattered retreat has changed substantially in the patch, you just seem annoyed it still exists. If it bothers you, you can disable the feature in defines, but the patch made many changes to things like where armies retreat to, how far they go, and enabled retreating to ships where applicable.
Defensive Pacts also changed a lot (and as with SR, can be disabled if you can't stand it), and you can only have "the whole world" unite against you if you are over 95% threat. If you are under 75% threat your own religion group won't care if you attack other religions, and under 50% each religion group is on its own against you. Not to mention that larger realms can never join DPs against you and that you can remove nations from DPs via NAPs. With the minimum threat decay possible and 100 threat (which takes at least 2 wars now) you should not be above 95% for 2 years or 75% for 10 years. To have "the whole world" unite against you would also mean you have literally the largest army in the world, although threat also drops off with distance vs your respective sizes. In a more typical scenario you would have only your regional neighbours even at 100 threat and no NAPs. For example, I just started as East Francia in the Old Gods start and added 100 threat to myself - this resulted in a Catholic pact of only Bavaria and Great Moravia, and a Pagan Pact consisting of most of the Baltic and some of the Scandinavian Pagans and the furthest away ones started dropped out again shortly after as my threat ticked down.
Shattered retreat has changed substantially in the patch, you just seem annoyed it still exists. If it bothers you, you can disable the feature in defines, but the patch made many changes to things like where armies retreat to, how far they go, and enabled retreating to ships where applicable.
Defensive Pacts also changed a lot (and as with SR, can be disabled if you can't stand it), and you can only have "the whole world" unite against you if you are over 95% threat. If you are under 75% threat your own religion group won't care if you attack other religions, and under 50% each religion group is on its own against you. Not to mention that larger realms can never join DPs against you and that you can remove nations from DPs via NAPs. With the minimum threat decay possible and 100 threat (which takes at least 2 wars now) you should not be above 95% for 2 years or 75% for 10 years. To have "the whole world" unite against you would also mean you have literally the largest army in the world, although threat also drops off with distance vs your respective sizes. In a more typical scenario you would have only your regional neighbours even at 100 threat and no NAPs. For example, I just started as East Francia in the Old Gods start and added 100 threat to myself - this resulted in a Catholic pact of only Bavaria and Great Moravia, and a Pagan Pact consisting of most of the Baltic and some of the Scandinavian Pagans and the furthest away ones started dropped out again shortly after as my threat ticked down.
- 28
- 12
- 4
This however still leaves the gripe with the automated Call to Arms.
- 5
- 1
To a certain extent, part of the problem is just getting used to the new mechanic and perhaps not forming alliances so readily, but I would like to work more on CtAs too - that was never in the scope of 2.5.2 though.
- 9
- 7
- 6
That is correct, still, it needs some major tweaking, e.g. as was proposed in another thread only make defensive wars mandatory and handle offensive ones in the "classical" way. After all I personally really like to choose whether I'm pulled into an armed conflict with the largest blob on the map by my ally or no.
- 6
- 1
As I pointed out elsewhere, one of the more elegant means of keeping the automated CTA while allowing player choice would be to adapt another EU4 mechanic: the "prepare for war" button. Say, a month or so before you declare war, you send a message to your allies saying who you plan to attack, and if they say yes, they will be auto-called if you decide to go through with the war, and if they say no, or you didn't tell them to prepare, they won't be called in. And if you happen to be allied with with someone who plans to declare on another ally, you have a choice of who to side with, the aggressor if you agree to his call to prepare, or the defensive CTA when the war happens.
This would accomplish the same goal in helping the AI, as it will know who will be in the war on what side when it starts, and will have a chance to reconsider if an ally says no.
Edit:
Now that I think of it, this is rather reminiscent of how things will work for alliances in Stellaris as well.
- 7
I haven't seen these posts so you may well be right about this, but I know in practice the two often aren't that distinct. Whenever you complain about anything you sound salty, that's just comes with the territory of being negative I guess. I would trust steam reviews over forums every time because it is less likely there will be a fan bias there, which is what I think is happening here in the forums. Maybe the forums aren't the best place to voice dissenting views.
I bought the DLC anyway, as I do with every Paradox DLC, usually to a fault. I can't recall ever feeling like I've ever got my money's worth out of a Paradox DLC, and have been consistently disappointed since the start. I put enough hours into these games that I buy them anyway, but almost entirely because they're required for mods. I would not recommend anyone buys them who hasn't already put substantial hours into vanilla. Mods are the only reason I ever play the games or log into the forums, and I'm sure many people do the same.
If the majority on the forums are praising devs every time they brush their teeth and wipe their ass, and the majority who don't use the forums are consistently disappointed (which I think is the case), I believe they will be given a false sense of approval and will not be appropriately incentivised to change their methods. If you want the best product and service you should be incredibly hard to please, and not drop your pants immediately every time.
- 4
- 4
Thanks for the update. Unfortunately I found nothing about improved MP stability in the patch notes 
Can we expect some improvements in this regard in the near future? Because, since Conclave, I and my friends can't play for more than 3 minutes without OOS, so in fact we can't play at all.
Can we expect some improvements in this regard in the near future? Because, since Conclave, I and my friends can't play for more than 3 minutes without OOS, so in fact we can't play at all.
- 1