EU4 - 1.10 - Full Patch Notes

[Freudia]

No, let's not forget about the other awful one.

Yeah, I skimmed the notes. I was pretty much bedridden all of yesterday so I didn't have much time to sit at my desk and read patch notes, and subject death spirals didn't cross my mind as something to check for, even though it's incredibly important it gets fixed.

Show me that subject nations finally work (IE they core and convert religion consistently, rather than doing nothing for 30 years or more) alongside rebels being less derpy and I'll still peg this as arguably the best patch to date in spite of the annoyances, unless they're dumping hidden changes on us again . Serious messing with subject nations and liberty desire absent a fix to a longstanding, frustrating, and game-altering bug would come off as pretty sour. All in all most of the changes look good otherwise.

This I agree with. Aside from the obvious ones, I can't really see any major repercussions that pop out as a result of these changes, so this patch does look pretty good aside from the obvious omissions.

 

[petertel123]

Yeah this is ridiculous. The Eurobabies do NOT need more babying. I agree it's stupid for the natives to build Carracks and such to stop the Euros from landing but it's equally stupid for Euros to have 6 regiments conquer massive native tribes without blinking. Plague, fortunate circumstances and native allies were far bigger factors in the relative ease of the conquest of the Americas, not 'Europe is so friggin awesome111!!!!'.

A simple solution would be to allow reform after two or so years at war with a western power in addition to the core thing but it's not the only way. I really dislike playing native starts at the moment simply because Europe goes "lololoolololol look at my uber easy mode CB hurrhurrrhurr, I'm gunna send my entire army to you, sit on your massive empire forever stopping you doing anything won't take any demands until I get call for peace hurrhurrhurr1111!!!!!"

have you ever heard of the battle of cajamarca? no native allies there, 150 spanjards brougth down the massive inca empire (with a population comparable to germany) in a matter of years

 

[CommunistCookie]

HAHAHAHAHAno. Come back with this reasoning when there are no more UNIs dictating that Protestant Spain is still a bastion of Devout Catholicism, land-based HYW-winning England still sings Britannia Rule the Waves, the Republic of Sweden is known for its Absolutism, the merchants of Prussia are the best warriors in the world even without having fought a war in the last 150 years, no more magical walls that stop a Colonial Nations from growing further, natives that don't lie down and die in front of 30k Spanish soldiers magically transported over the Atlantic instead of dying like flies while Spain bankrupts itself over the venture. Come back then, and you will find me agreeing with you.

I'm going to agree with User4035 because I have reasonable expectations as to what can be emulated in a history-based game.

 

[kitemasaki]

have you ever heard of the battle of cajamarca? no native allies there, 150 spanjards brougth down the massive inca empire (with a population comparable to germany) in a matter of years

An absolutely pathetic response. Even though all these 'historical' references literally mean almost nothing right now in the forum posts, the fact that you are trying to refute what another person stated with an example of massacre is ridiculous. Read the entire history of events of the Spanish/Inca conquest. Even the Spaniards were 'scared so much they excreted in their pants' when facing what they had to deal with. When 150 armed men surround and attack unarmed civilians..any claims of 'military superiority' are null and void.

The history arguments are ridiculous and none of the examples that the rants posted today matter with what is really being asked. Why is nationalism being removed from primitive provinces when *nothing* warrants the change. It entirely makes Wiz's past statements about challenge vs railroading, hypocritical.

Keep replying with historical wiki searches if you wish, but it bears no relevance to what the real discussion is.

 

[GothicEmperor]

have you ever heard of the battle of cajamarca? no native allies there

That was a surprise attack against an unarmed group of people. It was hardly a battle.

 

[petertel123]

An absolutely pathetic response. Even though all these 'historical' references literally mean almost nothing right now in the forum posts, the fact that you are trying to refute what another person stated with an example of massacre is ridiculous. Read the entire history of events of the Spanish/Inca conquest. Even the Spaniards were 'scared so much they excreted in their pants' when facing what they had to deal with. When 150 armed men surround and attack unarmed civilians..any claims of 'military superiority' are null and void.

The history arguments are ridiculous and none of the examples that the rants posted today matter with what is really being asked. Why is nationalism being removed from primitive provinces when *nothing* warrants the change. It entirely makes Wiz's past statements about challenge vs railroading, hypocritical.

Keep replying with historical wiki searches if you wish, but it bears no relevance to what the real discussion is.

stop being rude over the internet, it makes you look like a whiny child, what I know of the spanish conquest of the inca empire I learned in university, which I somehow doubt you can say
why are you ignoring the fact that the inca emperor was surrounded by his top military commanders and that his army was very close, not to mention atahualpa's personal guard wich alone would have outnumbered the tiny group of spanjards
stop rewriting history as if europe was not technologically superior to pre-columbian civilizations, historical research does not back it up at all
if anyone does not think cajamarca is ample proof of spanish military superiority, look up the battle of otumba

 

[kitemasaki]

stop being rude over the internet, it makes you look like a whiny child, what I know of the spanish conquest of the inca empire I learned in university, which I somehow doubt you can say
why are you ignoring the fact that the inca emperor was surrounded by his top military commanders and that his army was very close, not to mention atahualpa's personal guard wich alone would have outnumbered the tiny group of spanjards
stop rewriting history as if europe was not technologically superior to pre-columbian civilizations, historical research does not back it up at all

Hilarious response. Failing in public.

 

[petertel123]

Hilarious response. Failing in public.

I like how you have absolutely no argument

 

[petertel123]

HAHAHAHAHAno. Come back with this reasoning when there are no more UNIs dictating that Protestant Spain is still a bastion of Devout Catholicism, land-based HYW-winning England still sings Britannia Rule the Waves, the Republic of Sweden is known for its Absolutism, the merchants of Prussia are the best warriors in the world even without having fought a war in the last 150 years

"some things which happen only if the player causes them and even then only 1 in a 100 games are not logical, therefore this game should not strive to be historical at all"

 

[grommile]

What's the diplomacy finisher good for now other than trucebreaking?

Breaking RMs with countries who are too big to diplovassalize, too small to be your rivals, and who you want to attack sooner rather than later.

Reducing the pain of a no-CB war declaration.

 

[michnius]

I hoped they would repair the anti Ottoman coalition event since it fires properly but I cannot even annex them Mamluks through annexation war... Otherwise, really looking forward to the patch/DLC.

 

[WeissRaben]

"some things which happen only if the player causes them and even then only 1 in a 100 games are not logical, therefore this game should not strive to be historical at all"

Some things, which as of now they are railroaded not to happen unless the player actively twists the game's arm, happen in 1 in 100 games! Who would have thought that?

 

[Opera]

Regarding terrains, is it savanna or steppe? The last diary listed savanna among the new terrains, here it lists steppe. Which is it?

 

[Trin Tragula]

Regarding terrains, is it savanna or steppe? The last diary listed savanna among the new terrains, here it lists steppe. Which is it?

Both

 

[BCaldeira]

Regarding the change in the amount of leaders at the start of the game for Portugal, will that mean that it will only start with the 1 general and without any explorers, or without the general and just 1 explorer?
Because it seems to be a massive nerf without justification, specially if you consider the removal of being able to navigate open seas without the idea of the Quest for the New World.

 

[Trin Tragula]

They still get both one general and one explorer.

 

[User4035]

Please change Savoy's capital to Savoie province before 1562. Capital of the Duchy was Chambery (Savoie) from 1416-1562 when it was moved to Turin (Piedmont)

Should probably make this some kind of event or decision based on the history around it.

 

[WeissRaben]

Should probably make this some kind of event or decision based on the history around it.

Triggered by France having the mission to annex them; Turin was in a better defensive position, which was the main reason for the move (apart from France having become too big a beast to be conquered, which helped in moving the Duchy's interests to Northern Italy).

 

[emperorwiki]

Hilarious response. Failing in public.

Please stop degenerating the discussion here.

With regards to the Inca and Aztecs vs. the Spanish. I don't think anyone disputes that Spain was man to man vastly superior in military tactics. From what I've read the Inca and Aztecs did not have organised groups of archers or slingers, did not have any heavy infantry centric formations or military tactics that could match the Spanish Terico. Why should they have? Both peoples lacked metal weapons and although stone can be dangerous on the first strike it blunts entirely after several strikes. The Aztec mode of warfare, that is to say warfare to capture prisoners, was no match for the war of annihilation that the Spanish inherited from the battle fields of Europe and Morocco.

Spain also had cavalry, crossbows, steel and gunpowder all of which gave them a decisive edge.

As far as I understand the Spanish managed to win several important skirmishes and battles without major allied support and before the European diseases had broken out into the Central American population, not to mention the fact that the Spanish local allies would have been affected just as much by disease as the Aztec troops and people they were fighting.

My overall point is that asymmetrical power of European troops towards native troops in EU4 is I would say more accurate than not, I think though that in a perfect world it would be more difficult to send large numbers of troops to the new world unlike now where it is quite possible for the Spanish to send half their entire army to the Americas to smash whoever they find there.

 

[User4035]

Does this include enemies? If it does, does having enemy troops in their territory block you from cancelling access?

I Duarte NT know why they implemented this.
It's going to be so broken and exploitable.

I'm startup Ng to think they put this stuff in just so that ddrjake can make videos.