Europa Universalis IV Open Beta - 1.4.1.9 - checksum: 8131

[jecjackal]

You realise that the Military rating does mostly work? It's a rating of 0 - 3 stars (4 point scale) instead of 0 - 5 (6 point) as for Economy and Diplomacy.

I agree that it's a bit odd that Military has a four-point scale instead of six-point. But the rating is at least partially functional now. It just doesn't have much granularity so you can't tell a huge difference between, say, Spain and France and Ottomans. But you can tell a difference between, say, Denmark (2 star in 1579), Sweden (1 star in 1579), Netherlands (2 star), Brandenburg (1 star), and then Commonwealth, Ottomans, Spain, France, England etc (all 3 star in 1579.)

are you talking about the military score (1st - 10th get monthly points)?

Something about the military score bugs me. Your morale bonus depends upon your current military funding.

 

[TheBloke]

You're right, it's not a bug, it's not broken. But it is of limited utility as it does not take a major power to display three stars, which means mid-late game most surviving powers have 3 stars, and earlier on, a well-developed Milan can have three as well as France, when we know those two are not quite comparable. I find it reduces the rating's relevancy, which I'm sure the Devs didn't intend. Compared to the excellent bug reports you've filed it's a small thing, but it would be nice to have it work better.

Yeah, fair enough. It's certainly rather odd that Military is four-point when the other two are six-point. If anything, I'd say Military is the most important and should have the larger granularity; certainly not less.

are you talking about the military score (1st - 10th get monthly points)?

Something about the military score bugs me. Your morale bonus depends upon your current military funding.

No, we're talking about the Main Menu New Game / Load Game screen (the one with the map) - when you click on a nation, it shows a rating of its Military, Economy and Diplomacy, in the form of stars. Military was broken for a long while in that it always showed three stars, now it shows 0 - 3 stars, which is less granularity than Economy and Diplomacy which show 0 - 5 stars.

 

[Bud_Backer]

Yeah, fair enough. It's certainly rather odd that Military is four-point when the other two are six-point. If anything, I'd say Military is the most important and should have the larger granularity; certainly not less.

I agree completely. I'd only add that I think it would be best that whatever granularity they have, that it be the same across all three categories as that's what would be most intuitive to most players. 5/5/5 is far more clearly "at Max" than say, 5/3/3. Uneven scaling makes accidental misinterpretation far to easy, even when you actually know what the maximums are.

 

[RobRoy3]

No, we're talking about the Main Menu New Game / Load Game screen (the one with the map) - when you click on a nation, it shows a rating of its Military, Economy and Diplomacy, in the form of stars. Military was broken for a long while in that it always showed three stars, now it shows 0 - 3 stars, which is less granularity than Economy and Diplomacy which show 0 - 5 stars.

Yeah, I'd like every issue dealt with, eventually. But this one hardly seems to be in the same category as some of the others.

 

[TheBloke]

Yeah, I'd like every issue dealt with, eventually. But this one hardly seems to be in the same category as some of the others.

That's my personal prioritisation, as well. Frankly I'd never even have noticed it was broken if people didn't keep mentioning it - I don't use those stars to pick nations, because a) I don't play many nations b) when I play a nation I research it independently, e.g. read the Wiki pages, research NIs etc.

But it seems to be a fairly common dislike amongst a number of users. And it would also seem to be awfully easy to fix. So I'd have no problem with them fixing it, so long as that happened at the same time as the major bugs

 

[wolfing]

That's my personal prioritisation, as well. Frankly I'd never even have noticed it was broken if people didn't keep mentioning it - I don't use those stars to pick nations, because a) I don't play many nations b) when I play a nation I research it independently, e.g. read the Wiki pages, research NIs etc.

But it seems to be a fairly common dislike amongst a number of users. And it would also seem to be awfully easy to fix. So I'd have no problem with them fixing it, so long as that happened at the same time as the major bugs

Wow, didn't know people did so much before playing a game. I basically look at the map, see what looks like it could be fun because of its position and neighbors, and start away

 

[Bud_Backer]

That's my personal prioritisation, as well. {snip} But it seems to be a fairly common dislike amongst a number of users. And it would also seem to be awfully easy to fix. So I'd have no problem with them fixing it, so long as that happened at the same time as the major bugs

I agree with you both. I mention it more for completeness, but compared to the other issues like Colonist Travel time or the Max Great Power alliances (to name a few) it's a total side-show.

 

[Pellucid]

I think this is considered "working as designed" at this point. Not saying it's a particularly entertaining design, but I suspect the response is likely to be "mod them out".

No, it's considered "confirmation bias." :laugh:

 

[Sir Garnet]

Please consider adding naval commander fire/shock/maneuver scores to the hover tooltip like what was done for land commanders.

Thinking about this, it was generally an easier matter to discover pre-battle information about your opposing commander in a land campaign through scouts, spies, local reports, deserters, messengers, personal or formation standards, etc. than when fleets met at sea, as well as reputational information.


==================

So, is 1.4.1.6 getting 1.5 near ready for prime time?

 

[mcmanusaur]

Time for another open beta. The previous one were'nt quite ready for release, and since we are continuing working and playing EU4 we find more things we want to change. There is also a couple of exports for modders in this one.

I don't know why, but I love it (not even kidding) when Swedes fail at English grammar.

- When signing a peace against an enemy where your allies in the war are occupying provinces they want, you will now get an opinion penalty towards them if you do not give them anything. Size of the opinion penalty depends on how much they are occupying and how much you yourself are taking.

THANK YOU. I like where this is going, but I think that warscore could be loosened up slightly in light of this. Hope we see more along these lines, and it's also always good to see more modding support.

 

[unmerged(26686)]

Has AE/coalitions been buffed compared to 1.4? I don't see anything in the notes, but I deeply hope it has; it's the whole reason I stopped playing, because right now you can conquer/blob without any real challenge whatsoever.

 

[Rosey Palmer]

AE was buffed for 1.4.1.2 and so I bet it still is for 1.4.1.6

The issue is that some coalitions never break up.

But AE is back to where it should be as of 1.4.1.2

 

[TheBloke]

Has AE/coalitions been buffed compared to 1.4? I don't see anything in the notes, but I deeply hope it has; it's the whole reason I stopped playing, because right now you can conquer/blob without any real challenge whatsoever.

Yes, very much so. Each beta patch just has patch notes relative to the previous one. The AE changes were listed in notes for 1.4.1.1.

AE is slightly lower than 1.3.2 levels but coalitions seem to be around the same so far as I can see. Which is a little odd because 1.4 was meant to remove AE scaling and overall make AE slightly less impact full. Of course it went way too far. But 1.5 seems to basically revert it almost completely. I haven't yet formally tested the difference but I plan to, eg to confirm that AE scaling with nation size is indeed gone still.

Coalitions are currently broken in that the AI will frequently stay in them for hundreds of years even with friendly +200 relations, but they're investigating that.

 

[Golladan]

- All vassalization missions require target country to have less than 25 total base tax

Does this include Poland's mission to vassalize the Teutonic Order?

 

[myzael]

Does this include Poland's mission to vassalize the Teutonic Order?

Yes.

 

[TheBloke]

Does this include Poland's mission to vassalize the Teutonic Order?

Yes.

I think this is mostly not going to make a huge difference, and the restriction is logical - because even with a Vassalize mission that reduces the requirements by 50%, you can't normally force vassalise a nation who has more than 25 Base Tax, which is a net of 12.5 BT after the 50% discount. Province WS is 8% per BT, so 12.5 BT = 100% WS.

So I do not believe this new restriction will block you from many occasions when you could have vassalised them with the mission, but now cannot.

Where it will make a difference is where:

1. You couldn't have vassalised them, but you took the mission to get a free CB;
2. You could have vassalised them in two wars, so you took the mission and annexed some provinces in war one, then DOW'd again on the same mission to vassalise the second time round
   1. In this scenario, you'd have to do the first war without the mission and the CB, then hope the mission was available afterwards to then get the mission to vassalise them in a second war.

So my feeling is that in practice this change is not going to remove or change many opportunities.

Anyone feel differently?

Actually, was it ever possible to get further discounts on top of the 50% - for example, if you made claims over their provinces, would that reduce the required WS further? Such that you could have vassalised a nation with more than 25 BT because of the 50% vassalisation CB discount, plus per-province Claim discount? I've never looked at that closely.

 

[RMcD94]

- no longer possible to form protectorate when your not in the higher techgroups (no more aztec protectorate of sioux)

Your?!

/GrammarPrussian

 

[Golladan]

I think this is mostly not going to make a huge difference, and the restriction is logical - because even with a Vassalize mission that reduces the requirements by 50%, you can't normally force vassalise a nation who has more than 25 Base Tax, which is a net of 12.5 BT after the 50% discount. Province WS is 8% per BT, so 12.5 BT = 100% WS.

So I do not believe this new restriction will block you from many occasions when you could have vassalised them with the mission, but now cannot.

Where it will make a difference is where:

1. You couldn't have vassalised them, but you took the mission to get a free CB;
2. You could have vassalised them in two wars, so you took the mission and annexed some provinces in war one, then DOW'd again on the same mission to vassalise the second time round
   1. In this scenario, you'd have to do the first war without the mission and the CB, then hope the mission was available afterwards to then get the mission to vassalise them in a second war.

So my feeling is that in practice this change is not going to remove or change many opportunities.

Anyone feel differently?

Actually, was it ever possible to get further discounts on top of the 50% - for example, if you made claims over their provinces, would that reduce the required WS further? Such that you could have vassalised a nation with more than 25 BT because of the 50% vassalisation CB discount, plus per-province Claim discount? I've never looked at that closely.

Teutonic Order starts with 41 base tax.

With Poland's mission to vassalize them at the start, you couldn't in 1 war because it was 108% war score.

Taking Chelmno, 3 base tax province, brought that down to 99% war score.

 

[myzael]

I think this is mostly not going to make a huge difference, and the restriction is logical - because even with a Vassalize mission that reduces the requirements by 50%, you can't normally force vassalise a nation who has more than 25 Base Tax, which is a net of 12.5 BT after the 50% discount. Province WS is 8% per BT, so 12.5 BT = 100% WS.

SNIP

Do claims/cores lower WS cost?

Your?!

/GrammarPrussian

The Swedes are so hilarious at there English grammar, aren't they?

Sorry, couldn't resist a bad joke...

 

[Novacat]

Do claims/cores lower WS cost?

The wargoal, if its a province, has a reduced WS cost.