EUIV is ruined

[SacredDatura]

Ming wasn't actually rich, its declining by 1444.

If you're basing this off the Tumu Crisis, it's important to remember that the Oirats failed to gain any permanent edge from it despite the crushing nature of their military victory, which to me implies that it was very much an upset and that incompetent leadership, not structural weakness, was to blame.

Ming should not be declining until the mid-sixteenth century at the earliest.

 

[CatKnight]

I can't play this game anymore, the new update is just godawful. First, the game runs like complete ass. I have a i7 3770k with 8GB of RAM and a dedicated GPU, a XFX 7950. The amount of lag on the map is just ridiculous, and the frames when moving around are so choppy.

Secondly, this new rebel system and local autonomy is just plain awful. If I raise autonomy, I'll be losing out on income and manpower. If I don't, guess what, I get to face huge rebel armies that are almost double my own forcelimit, with eacharmy having god tier generals. Worse of all, there's no real way to keep the revolt risks down permanently. Before you say "Hurr raise autonomy", it takes a ridiculously long time to lower and raise autonomy. With a rebel system like this, it should be quicker. The autonomy system is an annoyance that bugs you every couple years with giant rebel armies commanded by George S. Patton.

A note on the autonomy. I've read that overseas provinces get a minimum of 75% autonomy. 75%. So that's 75% of your colonial income and manpower gone. Ming, one of my favourite nations is nerfed, beaten, and pissed on the ground. In previous versions, it was a great nation to play as, and you always had chances. Now, they removed the -25% buff from Eunechs, making Ming worse than the hordes with next to no chance of rising up. Secondly, Ming provinces have a minimum autonomy of 50%. 50% of manpower and income down the drain. Back then, Ming was the rich, prosperous Chinese dynasty it was historically. Now, it makes mediocre income, and it's "godly manpower' is a absolute joke.

So long as this game runs like ass on my high tier gaming PC and autonomy is in play, looks like I'll be playing more of CKII or Vicky 2.

Would you like some cheese with that wine?

 

[Ultrix Prime]

It does? Please elaborate.

Lol, oooook.

So you have positive stability and so forth and you go attack another and in the peace you take provinces.

The provinces you take which aren't your cores cause something called "overextension"

Overextension increases the level of national unrest.

Sooo, you hit first the autonomy button on the province/s, sit some troops on it and start the process of coring it.

Assuming that you succeed in coring the provinces you took, all the unrest from overextension goes away and you're basically back where you were at step 1.

Is that sufficient or should I elaborate further?

Lol. And again -> Narry a rebel along the way to taking all of North Africa and hammering down the Mamluks, Timi and so forth

Moreover, I didn't even bother doing my normal rush of humanism because in reading the dev diaries I was fairly sure I wouldn't need to - and I didn't.

Soooo, if you are having rebel problems, as poster after poster has said, and my experience as well to date has been, 1.8 is vastly, hugely INCREDIBLY easier for managing rebels and perhaps a change approach is warranted.

Orrrrrrrrrr, just keep having trouble managing rebels and thus having harder games and posting about it while everyone that doesn't have any trouble at all managing rebels as compared to 1.7 goes "mmm, no"

There's a certain gamesmanship to that as well I imagine.

 

[Ultrix Prime]

All you people who are posting just to say that you don't have any problems on your pc - please stop. In what way do you imagine this is helpful?

The factually helpful message from comments about the game running better comes down to THIS:

that guy -> slower hardware ->lower fpu processing throughput, lower cpu processing throughput -> game running fine

versus

OP -> faster hardware -> higher fpu processing throughput, higher cpu processing throughput -> game running poorly

OK - it's not the *game* specifically, it's something about the software interfacing to the hardware - video drivers, controller microcode, bios, windows dll versions, etc

And btw, this has been true of many more games than just from Paradox (CS GO had some really weird issues with one of the newer Nvidia variants that required an update to microcode driving the parallel fpu's wherein a $500 video card was being crushed by crappy old ones from the late 2000s). It has *always* been true when it comes to higher end graphical applications that the application can be highly sensitive performance wise to the hardware software combination on which it is running and newer/faster equipment can end up running more slowly because of OS software, microcode, bios and drivers than older equipment which is slower.

Happens all the time and thus, saying "my PC which is a slower cpu, slower video adapter runs the game smoothly" is VERY helpful, or, I should say *used* to be back when having a computer meant that even teens knew to check out versions on the items i mentioned above and try doing updates and changes to get this game or that to run better.

What probably *isn't* helpful is trying to force people who aren't have to the same issues with their slower PCs and video cards to shut up and not say so.

Game runs GREAT for me as well as all the folks on youtube that I love watching as well as a lot of other folks here.

Therefore, the TREMENDOUS message in that is there is HOPE and with a bit of patience and analysis, the performance issue's the OP is having can probably be resolved by *him*.

I do that kind of thing when I have performance issues all the time and the last thing anyone really should expect is that a dinky little company like Paradox can succesfully optimize their hardware for every combination their game will be run on.

Even *Microsoft* has never been able to do this and they have literally been running continuous integration testing on *THOUSANDS* of hardware combinations since the 1990s.

The *user* can *always* better optimize their platform than the software vendor can optimize their software to run flawlessly on every hardware combination where it will be run. That's just the software biz.

TLTR:

What the OP is actually complaining about in light of the responses is CLEARLY A TECHNICAL ISSUE - not a game quality issue.

 

[unmerged(88013)]

My performance has actually improved quite a bit since 1.8. The trade map mode for instance used to lag for me in 1.7, but it's super smooth now. I'm even using 'Graphical Map Improvements' mod which ups the textures.

Specs aren't amazing either. i5 3570k CPU, GSkill 8GB 1600mhz XMP RAM, R9 270X GPU, 128GB Vertex 4 SSD, 1TB Caviar Black Storage. Nothing special. Although I do optimise my OS' a lot.

 

[Jeltz]

Same here, my performance improved in 1.8. My theory is that there are a couple more bugs like the one fixed in the beta patch.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

I hate when people say something is ruined becouse new, big patch has issues. You know, it is possible to have issue where you can fix it by changing code`s place, for example:
type type type
more more more
Won`t work. But
more more more
type type type
works... That is just how complicated coding can be at the very worst. Or perhaps that is not even worst.

 

[PAnZuRiEL]

Secondly, this new rebel system and local autonomy is just plain awful. If I raise autonomy, I'll be losing out on income and manpower. If I don't, guess what, I get to face huge rebel armies that are almost double my own forcelimit, with eacharmy having god tier generals. Worse of all, there's no real way to keep the revolt risks down permanently.

Well I guess I'm not really playing this game as Qing where I've never had a rebel revolt, then. It must all be in my imagination.

Autonomy and unrest is a fine, and dare I say excellent system. If you have huge uncontrollable rebellions all the time, then you're doing something very wrong.

 

[SDWESG]

I played as Uesugi in Japan. I owned nearly all of the provinces in Japan(except for Shogunate cores and two single province daimyos) but my manpower is 12k max and my landlimit is 10. LOL I do not know what to say but that autonomy system REKT my nation. I am so sad. I want to get the achievement. But I keep getting rekt by a 3 provinces shogun who has 12k troops and his slave daimyos.

 

[LordDamien]

Secondly, this new rebel system and local autonomy is just plain awful. If I raise autonomy, I'll be losing out on income and manpower. If I don't, guess what, I get to face huge rebel armies that are almost double my own forcelimit, with eacharmy having god tier generals. Worse of all, there's no real way to keep the revolt risks down permanently. Before you say "Hurr raise autonomy", it takes a ridiculously long time to lower and raise autonomy. With a rebel system like this, it should be quicker. The autonomy system is an annoyance that bugs you every couple years with giant rebel armies commanded by George S. Patton.

Rebels have good Generals ?. Are you sure because I have watched Yt videos of people playing and the rebels they have had really bad generals. And Rebellions could be controlled by local Autonomy which yes you lose income..But then their are other ways of getting income. and what kind of rebels are you dealing with that you are having ones with supposedly good generals ?. I mean its not really that hard to place troops on provinces and bring down Revolt risk is it ?. The rebel system is better now than it was before because now it can be controlled. YEs you might have large stacks but they can be controlled. I really do not see the problem at all with the Rebel system.

 

[LordDamien]

I played as Uesugi in Japan. I owned nearly all of the provinces in Japan(except for Shogunate cores and two single province daimyos) but my manpower is 12k max and my landlimit is 10. LOL I do not know what to say but that autonomy system REKT my nation. I am so sad. I want to get the achievement. But I keep getting rekt by a 3 provinces shogun who has 12k troops and his slave daimyos.

You could go over your Landlimit and just pay a little extra. Which if you own a lot of territory you could easily support. Plus you could take out loans in the short term and hire mercs..Deal with the problem and unite Japan.. In this game their are many ways to win even with the odds against you . How the Autonomy System apparently destroyed your realm is beyond me... You could lower it and risk slightly more revolts... And then just raise it again. But still taking out loans helps a lot as well.

 

[Illianor123]

Just go over your force limits with some mercs for a month before hand and kill their stack. Or just wait for autonomy to tick down.

 

[Blindbohemian]

Ruined!!

Oh the humanity!!!

(I have a terrible, terrible computer and EU4 runs exactly as it did prior to 1.8 - I have noticed literally no difference, no choppiness, nothing. I also love the new rebel mechanic.

 

[Viperswhip]

Any time and expansion comes out, or a major patch, I just to a complete reinstall of the game. I've not had any issues, but maybe it is more ram intensive now than before.

As to the autonomy, I am a conqueror, I love it, I don't always do WCs, in fact I rarely play past the 100 year mark. I am at 1525 in my Byz game and am already thinking of restarting even though it's going really well, I just love the early game. Even by that point, all of Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Wallachia, Moldovia, Crimea and down the coast towards Georgia, and the western bit of Anatolia, Caffa, Theodora and a few other places are at 0 unrest and 0 autonomy. I have religious, and tech level 10 on admin, so can convert pretty quickly. I haven't culture converted anything except Kosovo, and that's because I got a mission to do it.

In EU3 it took 50 years (unless you changed it), to get a core on land you conquered and for those 50 years you could suffer rebellions and other nastiness. It takes nowhere near that long now.

I have suffered one revolt, in Crimea when I converted 3 places at the same time with now units there. 3 12-15 stacks popped, they all died pretty easily, and I saw it coming, awash in mil points I decided to see what would happen instead of spending 67 points to reduce the progress by 25%.

I don't see the problem, the progress is even on the side bar and you get notices and everything.

My early game ally Poland with Lithuana suffered mightily to rebels, a new country spawned in Lithuana with cores all over the place, but it only came about because Poland launched some barely win type stacks at the rebels stacks which allowed them to retreat instead of being destroyed and they all retreated to the same place. Only France, Austria or the human player could have beaten the resulting 52 stack of rebels there.

The biggest problem with the AI has been here since the beginning, they generally don't fight rebels until they've successfully taken a province, but under the new autonomy system that's a really bad idea. Unfortunately AI behaviour has not been updated to account for it.

As a human player you have a great advantage, you can design the army to beat almost any AI army, once you understand combat width, flanking, and artillery you will crush the AI, even a 52 stack with your 25 stack in the right conditions.

 

[Emiliana]

This thread stands as a shining beacon to the ability of this forum's demographic to engage in calm, reasonable rhetoric.

I have noticed something very similar. My advice for OP, wait a few weeks. When a non-beta patch comes out, try then. I'm sorry you are left feeling this way but it is not completely fair to say that the game is ruined when it is essentially in open beta patch phase.

 

[Pornek]

For everyone being constantly at war and complaining about LA ruining FL, TAX, MP etc. As soon as possible swap the government to some that has a passive LA decrease.

Once I swapped over to Administrative Monarchy with its - .10 LA I can be constantly at war and still benefit from my provinces instead of waiting a few years inbetween to decrease LA.

 

[mgoetze]

Lol, oooook.

So you have positive stability and so forth and you go attack another and in the peace you take provinces.

The provinces you take which aren't your cores cause something called "overextension"

Overextension increases the level of national unrest.

Sooo, you hit first the autonomy button on the province/s, sit some troops on it and start the process of coring it.

So, you've just disproven your own point. You said coring will somehow magically get rid of "most of the unrest straight off". Well if it did that, why would you need to raise autonomy?

BTW, I like the new system and have no problems whatsoever managing it. Good job assuming otherwise. But your statement was still nonsense, there is nothing magical about coring, the unrest from OE is small compared to the unrest from nationalism. Raising autonomy, OTOH, will indeed get rid of most of the unrest. But that's not what you said.

 

[monsterfurby]

Obviously the balance discussion is fairly subjective, but the performance thing seems to be something going extremely wrong with your system specifically. Some thoughts on this without wanting to get into the balancing debate:

If the map view is choppy as you describe it and that choppiness persists even when the game is paused, that means that it's likely your GPU, not your CPU. Since your specs are above most people's, this could be a heat issue or something else (corrupted RAM, for example) that limits your system. Have you checked if there might be a dust buildup causing your GPU or CPU to overheat and throttle down? Also check your PSU fan - that's usually something people tend to neglect when checking for broken parts in their computer's cooling system. Note that other games working does not have to be an indicator, since heat development (= CPU/GPU usage) is more often tied to how well (or badly) an engine is optimized rather than how taxing it really should be. And Clausewitz 2... well, it has come a long way, but it also seems to be an awfully complex engine to optimize, to put it lightly.

 

[winsingtonIII]

I don't understand these posts complaining about massive revolts while clearly refusing to raise autonomy to prevent revolts. The new rebel/autonomy system makes perfect sense, and it works so much better than the old system.

Before it wasn't really a system, it was use harsh treatment and put troops on the provinces with a chance of revolting, and hope that they don't revolt. Since even a province with a 1.0% revolt risk had a 1% chance of revolting every month, you could get revolts in random provinces that didn't really make sense.

Now, it's great, because you actually have a system where you can choose to make tradeoffs in order to prevent revolts. Yes, raising autonomy lowers manpower and income in the short term, but it has to have a negative effect or else it would just be a "lower unrest anytime you want to with no repercussions" button. Now, if I'm a large nation and feel I can handle a revolt, I have the option of ignoring the unrest and letting them rebel and crushing them, but if I'm a small nation and I'm nervous about a revolt, I can raise local autonomy and make the trade off getting less manpower and income from those provinces in the short term for the benefit of avoiding a revolt. Strategy is all about about making choices like that based on the situation on hand.

Also, autonomy does tick down automatically over time, and I'm not sure why that fact seems to get ignored in these posts. They come off sounding as if raising autonomy is irreversible and you're going to spend the rest of the game getting no benefit from that province.

 

[spinoza013]

EUIV has never been better