They could fix this by adding a "catamaran" transport ship that "primitives" could build, which behave like CK2 ships (ignore other ships in seazone) but are sunk instantly by any proper ship.
EU4 - 1.10 - Full Patch Notes
- Thread starter Wizzington
- 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.
Continental reinforce rate should be reworked. Reinforcing an european army in the middle of nowhere in America far away from Europe makes no sense. Colonizers must rely on mercenary natives on their continental campaigns, as it was IRL.
A stupid example about that. Portugal lands on China with a stack of 25k and after getting the half of the army wiped it reinforces like if it was on Lisboa. I hope someday Paradox notice it and implement a more complex reinforce system. Just because is the only way for non european nations to have a chance against colonizers.
A stupid example about that. Portugal lands on China with a stack of 25k and after getting the half of the army wiped it reinforces like if it was on Lisboa. I hope someday Paradox notice it and implement a more complex reinforce system. Just because is the only way for non european nations to have a chance against colonizers.
Historically the boats used by American states were extremely small by old world standards. When Cortez took Tenochtitlan he brought "brigantines" which had multiple advantages over native boats even on lake water. In open water, there is no possible way the natives can do anything to take down a galley - it rides too high.
I could see transports, but it should be a heavily gimped version that takes longer and has zero weaponry (i.e. one cog should beat 20 native boats).
Historically, every single major native power fell to the Europeans. If you want to be fair, the Spanish need to be able to land under 500 men, acquire enough native allies to take down the Aztec (and the Inca) without reinforcements. Most of the time that New World states of any type survived it was because they either moved into inhospitable land far from peak European interest or they cut a deal with one or more European powers.
My guess is that the real reason native conquest is going to be easier is because Colonial states need to be able to take them apart, but it is hard to keep the colonial competent at conquest when it has to deal with wrong religion, wrong culture, high autonomy provinces with OExt and get dragged into wars at times not of its choosing. I mean frankly the amount of taxable wealth in the conquered Mesoamerican states is vastly higher and more accessible than comparable place elsewhere. Spain really did get some freakishly huge returns quite quickly.
Reinforcements make great sense. Every single European conquest of the era made huge uses of local recruits as cannon fodder if nothing else. There wasn't some magical Chinese or Aztec solidarity. It was insanely common for European conquest forces to grow over the course of conquest and to grow faster than their homeland counterparts (more loot to be had in the new world). We could have an ugly mechanism to recruit local cannonfodder ... or we could just pretend that the reinforcements come from disaffected locals (perhaps 100 natives being the rough equivalent of a single armored knight on horseback).
This sounds like one of the most useless updates yet (unless you play as a South American nation). Though custom nations does sound interesting. Of the many patch notes, this one bothers me greatly:
"- Now more reluctant to separate peace out of a war where their side is winning."
Minors in a war almost never get anything for a victory so why bother fighting and letting their war exhaustion rise at all? It's already difficult to get a nation with a medium war enthusiasm and a fair amount of war exhaustion to drop. The only benefit for finishing out a war is your relations "fought to the end" or "early truce" bonus or penalty. I suppose there may be some trust effect too. But some wars just don't make sense to continue fighting. What I find even more annoying is when my ally is drawn into war and I join the war. If the enemy has no chance, I still cannot get them to accept a white peace if I never engage them because our borders are nowhere near each other. At least not any time soon.
"- Now more reluctant to separate peace out of a war where their side is winning."
Minors in a war almost never get anything for a victory so why bother fighting and letting their war exhaustion rise at all? It's already difficult to get a nation with a medium war enthusiasm and a fair amount of war exhaustion to drop. The only benefit for finishing out a war is your relations "fought to the end" or "early truce" bonus or penalty. I suppose there may be some trust effect too. But some wars just don't make sense to continue fighting. What I find even more annoying is when my ally is drawn into war and I join the war. If the enemy has no chance, I still cannot get them to accept a white peace if I never engage them because our borders are nowhere near each other. At least not any time soon.
The issue with nerfing Byzantium, is that there's a specific DLC for flavor for it. It's not about "oh it's just another country", there's content completely devoted to Byzantium. By continuing to nerf the country to oblivion, it effectively makes the DLC more and more useless.
Personally not a fan of removing all boats from "primitives"... at least let them have some transports. Something?
Other then that the patch is good overall from what I can see.
Personally not a fan of removing all boats from "primitives"... at least let them have some transports. Something?
Other then that the patch is good overall from what I can see.
Not to mention that usually an entire army did not fight in a single battle. Most battles seem to result in the army remaining far larger than the numbers lost. In other words, you could think of the number as you see on the screen as your active fighting forces and the reinforcements coming from a hidden "main army." Of course, in real life, it also seems many ancient wars were won or lost in a single battle. That could be added to this game by making reinforcements very light. But it would probably kill some of the fun.
The byzantines still aren't a difficult country, and this patch won't change that. The byzantines aren't as powerful as they are because they have cores everywhere. Constantinople is a ridiculous province, and wildly valuable.
HAD cores everywhere. If you look at the steady progression of the cores Byzantium started back at the start of the game to now, it's now significantly reduced. Essentially the cores are now limited to Greece and some of the islands. And of course Constantinople is ridiculous, it's the center of the world and is the main thing Byzantium has going for it. It's also the main reason why the Turks want you as their din dins.
Difficulty is in the eye of the RNG, and how willing the Turks are to give you time before they nom you. The nation is quite difficult without the right start. My post was more a comment of the general nerfing of Byzantium in general. Unless of course you like cheese, then by all means, it's your game.
You may not think much of it, but I just had a friend tell me he's fed up with the Byzantium nerfs and is quitting the game because these decisions seem like arbitrary garbage to him. So you may be fine with it, others that invested in the game are not.
A midwestern native is not really in the same boat as a mesoamerican. They're generally safer from Europeans for a longer time. THey usually know about the colonizers before they know about the natives, and as they're mainly inland they're somewhat safer from attack. For a mesoamerican all it takes is for a colonizer to discover one of your coastal provinces and you better get ready.
And with the lack of ships for primitives the ability of a mesoamerican to colonize is greatly diminished. And it will take them longer to find a neighboring European to westernize off of.
Then you have the Maya religion mechanic where they lose land every time they reform. Or the Nahuatl mechanic where they get doom faster the bigger they are.
For practicality in implementation, you can just give them cogs TBH. There's no way that backwards cogs can hold up to even trade ships in this game, so it's not like the result would be materially different. Anything the AI Europeans would actually send over there would massacre even a truly gouged number of cogs. I guess if you really want caught native infantry at sea to die for certain you could go out of your way to make new units, but the times where that's going to matter are going to be very fringe cases regardless.
But in player hands (the only time this is going to matter regardless, native navies are a joke in 1.9), there is indeed "solidarity", and in spades. A player-controlled nation is nothing if not under a semi-omnipotent sage-like guidance, and the state of Mesoamerica or South America under that influence will in no way resemble anything in history. Absent the disease killing all the natives, there's no way 500 or even 5000+ Spanish soldiers win significant ground in the new world...not when entire freaking Mexico is under one banner already. The diplomatic tricks they pulled to play natives off on each other wouldn't be there the same way.
Still, like several other changes in this patch, it's annoying because it wasn't necessary. If you're going to buy rebels making new states there, more pretenders to the old Roman empire isn't the biggest reach ever, and now we're starting to discuss provinces that again were lost < 150 years prior in primary culture, all while still granting Ottomans and especially Castile ridiculous ahistorical cores. It's inconsistent, a hallmark of PI's patch behavior when it comes to "reality".
But that's just annoyances that underscore a petty outlook. The big concern here is that the patch says nothing about fixing the most egregious bugs with rebels and subject nations, and now numerous posters are asking about it in this thread for good reason. None of the game's models for realism/lack thereof/gameplay are going to feel particularly potent if, after over half a year, basic and commonly used features that are emphasized in recent DLC still don't work. The other big concern is the things the patch has changed and not mentioned at all.
...your friend is leaving huge expanding moddable game because one country of hundreds playable is slightly nerfed in patch?
This is one of the most idiotic reasons for leaving game I have ever heard for countless reasons. First of all, do you Byzantophiles do nothing else but play as Byzantium numerous times? Seriously, there are hundreds of nations in this game, many of them more interesting and developed as Byz - personally I find it a waste of time to play as one nation twice so either you are really obsessed over this goddamn carcass of Rome or your friend has waited 10 patches to play it and just now fed up.
Okay, that was harsh. Maybe playing as Byzantium many times is really, really awesome. So... you say your friend decided to leave this game he spent money on... because recent patch turns cores into claims... Which is not unreasonable and can be modded back in 5 minutes. Or added via console. Or simply outplayed as people win with countries much harder as Byzantium, like Theodoro or Albania.
Okay, okay, this might be extremely tiny change to the game but your friend can argue it is horrible disregard for historical truth, that Byzantium is so weak. Well, honestly, Byzantium by 1444 was such shadow of a shadow that it should have non-capital provinces as vassals and capital with autonomy plus absolutely no ability to defend itself from ottos if we were being strictly historical. The fact that it can survive in eu4, that it can miraculously recover, reexpand, reconvert provinces, reform from complete decadence, the fact it has so much flavour compared to 95% of countries in eu4 - hell, for me it has been always a mystery how much Paradox cares about this relict of the past especially for Byzantophiles.
On top of that, most of Byzantine 'core' provinces didn't belonging to the 'empire' (laughable title given its shape for last 300 or so years of its existence) is entirely justified from the realistic perspective given it didn't own them for centuries (Anatolia) or at the very best decades. No other country in the game had so generous collection of cores to get for free, hell, no one had so generous collection of claims in 1444!
One of the reasons for them being reduced to mere claims is, paradoxically, the case of historical realism. Byzantine cores tended to lead to Byzantine nationalist revolts well into 16th or 17th century which was completely absurd and anachronistic. They should be uprisings of Greeks aiming at forming Greek states, like Athens/Morea/Naxos - by the way the sole fact of them existing outside of Byzantium shows how much the imperial identity and faith in Constantinople among Greeks has deteriorated - not proposers of restoring long dead long decadent relict and its long lost dynasty, especially on Anatolian lands undergoing islamization.
Besides, if I was designing the game and didn't want to please the fans of this nation, I would make the game start in 1453 to prevent it for messing with the main theme of the game and Ottoman Empire. Byzantium shined for thousand years, allow it to die at the dawn of modern age. I am not hater of it but seriously, I am occasionally pissed off by such First World Problems as this one,
as much as I think it would be hilarious seeing Andalucian nationalists tearing apart Castile (20%+ nationalism and mountainous revolts), I think there is a good reason for the BS cores
as part of the association of Concerned Ndongo Players I'd like to point out that I'm tired of these constant BS nerfs to our starting position as well and I'm probably going to quit the game as well. wtf paradox
Last edited:
That was glorious.
Oh, I think the reason castille and ottomans have those cores is to help new players so they don't take "Finish the Reconquista" and then eat OE because they don't know how to core provinces yet *cough* my first ever playthrough I tried to eat aragon without coring *cough*
Oh, I think the reason castille and ottomans have those cores is to help new players so they don't take "Finish the Reconquista" and then eat OE because they don't know how to core provinces yet *cough* my first ever playthrough I tried to eat aragon without coring *cough*
Sorry, but despite my distaste for all the love BYZ gets, I'm with the BYZphiles here.
Wiz is perfectly happy to nerf BYZ here, simply to see it less for historical reasons. But what's this?
O RLY?
But this balance discussion vanishes into thin air when we talk about Castile's cores on Granada, the numerous and absurd horde nerfs (and that they still don't get new units, despite the problems this introduces on occasion),
Now we have natives building ships! AHISTORICAL! NERF IT! OBVIOUSLY IMBALANCED! Or, that's the only position one can take after looking at the above. But there's a problem with that. From a "balance" perspective, natives overperforming in AI hands due to the strength of native navies is indefensible. You can play 1000 games and you're not going to see an unreformed or if not a council not-westernized AI native hold off an Iberian fleet at sea. A human running a Mesoamerica game could also not defend this way against competent human opposition (which could simply land in TI or uncolonized out of sight and walk into Mexico if they somehow couldn't win at sea), so scratch that off as a legit issue.
So then...I'm curious. Really curious, as to why these kinds of things are important to the game's "balance":
- Requirement of hordes to reform to form nations (anti realism bonus)
- Hordes get a large amount of minimum LA at 1444 while basic feudal monarchies get...none?
- Removal of native ships that applies literally only to human players in a meaningful capacity
- Nerfing BYZ repeatedly patch to patch, despite that its only non-human success has only ever been via rebellions
- Railroading an absurd 0% LA switch of land to Austria + France.
- ...but not railroading the creation of Qing, up there among the most important events in the period, or Aq Qoyunlu, which shaped the progression of the Middle East and Persia. Or the Mughals. No, they made the Mughals...among the largest land area nations to emerge in the period and very powerful for a long time...LESS likely to happen
.- Inability to declare war during regency (anti-realism bonus on this one)
- Same-continent colonization nerf that effectively applied only to ROTW and Russia, and more so to the former.
This is a small list, that could be expanded to 20+ points. The fact of the matter this "history" versus "game balance" thing is not being applied with any discernibly consistent criteria. PI will happily nerf nations in the name of history or "anti exploit" then turn around and make France too strong 100+ years early or ignore active wars in the name of "balance". We get nerfs to weak nations and buffs to strong ones (including in this very patch, with buffs to the baby nations and nerfs to natives, because it TOTALLY needed to be easier for the easiest nations in the game), in the name of history? Balance?
Neither. That is why some of these changes are vexing, because they have no reasonable consistency, are rarely if ever given justification/thought process regarding their implementation, and yet alter the play experience for a chunk of starts. That makes it feel like the dev team actually put work into implementing a mechanic in a detrimental way, which is a shame for everyone involved.
A significant chunk of development in El Dorado went directly into subjects - aka liberty desire. The fact that subjects don't function (won't convert religion without restarting often, won't core at negative stability but fall into it even with sub-100% OE) was a known issue and should have been a priority emphasis; if it WAS fixed it certainly shouldn't have been omitted from the patch notes! But if it hasn't been...then speaking of "taking people seriously", it would be mighty hard to do that.
Last edited:
You too? I thought I was alone in my concerns for the BS Ndongo nerfs. I might have to quit computer games altogether because of this one, they've gone too far. *shakes fist*
