Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations - Dev Diary 10: Balance Changes

[Chevaresqye]

How? Do you try for too high stab? Do you tech ahead? Use a lot of ADM ideas? I have never run into this problem even with monarch with 2 adm. If I have a 2 adm monarch and an adm idea tree, I keep up in tech, and invest in ideas when I can, or take land if that is the situation at hand. If Im using vassals even better. No ADM cost.

Of course, if you play as low level, you don't need ADM ideas. There are not many problems with 2 ADM ruler, it just makes you either lose your game in MP or failed to archive your goal in SP. I run out of ADM because I need to rush my Religious idea, expand in many directions. You can sit back and expand leisurely by using diplo-annex only, but I will beat you with my extra ADM annexation.

Now with the new rule of diplo-annex, a bad ruler will drive you to your grave even faster.

 

[misterbean]

Maybe that's why a lot of us are a bit upset. It's like HOI3, with TFH. All of a sudden, you had to remember to keep anti-tank guns up-to-date and build them. Takes some getting used to.

 

[unmerged(752132)]

Of course, if you play as low level, you don't need ADM ideas. There are not many problems with 2 ADM ruler, it just makes you either lose your game in MP or failed to archive your goal in SP. I run out of ADM because I need to rush my Religious idea, expand in many directions. You can sit back and expand leisurely by using diplo-annex only, but I will beat you with my extra ADM annexation.

Now with the new rule of diplo-annex, a bad ruler will drive you to your grave even faster.

now you will save on adm for religious if you choose to go a tolerant route also. I have never tryed multiplayer so I cant argue any of these points for that. But for single player you have to adapt your goals given situations as you cant really lose. 1000's of things happen over 400 years that could make or break your original goal. Theres always something given up to chance. Even with no monarch point, being backstabbed by a major alliance and crushed after a war that drained your manpower is even more destructive than a shitty monarch. The size of your empire isnt the determination of your skill level. Its how you built your empire, how you've used your bad and good monarchs, managed alliances, and dealt with the 1000 other things that made your game more challenging/easier.

The complaints against it make it seem like people think everyone should be starting of in equal positions and given equal situations. But this is not the case with this game, there should be some realistic balance sure. But you start as france your going to have a much easier time than starting off as anhalt. But both can be very rewarding fun games depending on your goal. Of course as anhalt your going to have to play it much safer.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Theres always something given up to chance. Even with no monarch point, being backstabbed by a major alliance and crushed after a war that drained your manpower is even more destructive than a shitty monarch.

That kind of stuff is MP-only. Crushed by the AI after a manpower-draining war against a different AI in SP? Lol. SP is the kind of setup where you can beat Ming with an 8 province (5 cored) Mongol Khanate by looting and hiring mercs to cover losses, never even risking a peasants war...and you still progress even after Manchu and Korea dogpile you with 30k more regiments because you roughed up Manchu to get those still-uncored provinces...only to see you peace out taking land from Ming and vassaling Manchu anyway. That's single player. Don't be silly with this major alliance backstab stuff lol. Maybe in the first 30 years for weak starts...

 

[unmerged(752132)]

That kind of stuff is MP-only. Crushed by the AI after a manpower-draining war against a different AI in SP? Lol. SP is the kind of setup where you can beat Ming with an 8 province (5 cored) Mongol Khanate by looting and hiring mercs to cover losses, never even risking a peasants war...and you still progress even after Manchu and Korea dogpile you with 30k more regiments because you roughed up Manchu to get those still-uncored provinces...only to see you peace out taking land from Ming and vassaling Manchu anyway. That's single player. Don't be silly with this major alliance backstab stuff lol. Maybe in the first 30 years for weak starts...

Maybe your more skillful then me, but while the AI is easier, it's never been that easy. single player I've been beaten by large coalitions as a growing small nation, even once as france right around the first release of the game. Ive even gone up against nations Im supposedly stronger then and somehow been beat even with more men, better generals, same tech, same morale, same discipline, and even a small defensive landscape bonus and at times those crushing defeats that drain your manpower, even if you win the war, the next person to attack you can break you, or put you in enough debt can set you back a very long time.

They keep improving the AI to, so hopefully, maybe they'll be able to beat you in these ridiculous situations where you shouldn't probably win.

 

[brifbates]

That kind of stuff is MP-only. Crushed by the AI after a manpower-draining war against a different AI in SP? Lol. SP is the kind of setup where you can beat Ming with an 8 province (5 cored) Mongol Khanate by looting and hiring mercs to cover losses, never even risking a peasants war...and you still progress even after Manchu and Korea dogpile you with 30k more regiments because you roughed up Manchu to get those still-uncored provinces...only to see you peace out taking land from Ming and vassaling Manchu anyway. That's single player. Don't be silly with this major alliance backstab stuff lol. Maybe in the first 30 years for weak starts...

But isn't your entire argument about mp randomness being a skill equalizing (or whatever high sounding variant of that you're using today) about multi-player? For single player dealing with the ups and downs of good/bad rulers is part of the experience but in multi-player a bad ruler will lose the game is a re-occurring complaint (using various specific phrasings). If your complaint is about multi-player effects then counter-arguments can't be shrugged off with "that kind of stuff is mp only".

 

[unmerged(752132)]

But isn't your entire argument about mp randomness being a skill equalizing (or whatever high sounding variant of that you're using today) about multi-player? For single player dealing with the ups and downs of good/bad rulers is part of the experience but in multi-player a bad ruler will lose the game is a re-occurring complaint (using various specific phrasings). If your complaint is about multi-player effects then counter-arguments can't be shrugged off with "that kind of stuff is mp only".

This is what I try to get at. I dont play multiplayer, and I like dealing with good/bad monarchs because it makes it more challenging even for a large powerful nation. I have to deal with incompetence as well as enemies. Id rather have a challenge. Clearly Im not as skillfull as him in his army ways either if he can do well in the situation he presented, but I don't want to be able to win in that situation easily. I like the challenge. I dont want WC, I want a challenging empire build against the AI, where its not always best to destroy them because me as anhalt cant beat france, but maybe changing my goals and expanding somewhere else would be wiser, then someday when larger I can beat them. Or end up with large empire, expanded in a different direction.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Maybe your more skillful then me, but while the AI is easier, it's never been that easy. single player I've been beaten by large coalitions as a growing small nation, even once as france right around the first release of the game. Ive even gone up against nations Im supposedly stronger then and somehow been beat even with more men, better generals, same tech, same morale, same discipline, and even a small defensive landscape bonus and at times those crushing defeats that drain your manpower, even if you win the war, the next person to attack you can break you, or put you in enough debt can set you back a very long time.

It's been a long time since I lost to the AI without bullcrap like "vassal attached army detaches right before battle" or "general dies marching to combat and you lose 6+ pips", excepting cases of trying to break out as an OPM and screwing up.

When I was practicing scorched earth and unit control in 1.4 (I've only had this game since December 24), I learned from Stategem and then played two starts until I could win them:

1. Take Mongol Khanate, and consistently defeat Oirate Horde 1 vs 1 in your independence war. Note that they start with over 2x your forces and a shock V general. Oh, and no loans needed.

2. Pick Ethiopia, fabricate a claim on the Mamluks at the 1444 bookmark, and then declare immediately once you've finished the fabrication. Win the war and take at least one province without any allies. Loans optional (I didn't take any).

If you practice stuff like that and know the game's mechanics really well, fighting the AI at similar tech/numbers just isn't the same any more. Hitting the timing and completing "Luck of the Irish" before 1530 was much easier than beating the Mamluks with Ethiopia for example. You also eventually realize what works and what you *can't* get away with, like beating Spain solo as Grenada at the start, because SE doesn't do enough damage there.

Just recently I declared on Venice as Byz in early 1500's, pulling in France which was more than I bargained for (normally, they could not reach me, but got involved vs Austria as well and marched through their Austrian foe to reach me :/), and still came away with a province returned to me due to stack manipulation and retreat-attack wipes. I screwed up and lost some naval units there before retreating them and had 60 units in territory from a better tech group vs my 30, and took a province . AI is *not* the limiting factor in this game unless you botch something. Admittedly, I'm not perfect and I occasionally botch diplomacy or unit control, but most of the time the bottleneck isn't there and it isn't close to there.

But isn't your entire argument about mp randomness being a skill equalizing (or whatever high sounding variant of that you're using today) about multi-player? For single player dealing with the ups and downs of good/bad rulers is part of the experience but in multi-player a bad ruler will lose the game is a re-occurring complaint (using various specific phrasings). If your complaint is about multi-player effects then counter-arguments can't be shrugged off with "that kind of stuff is mp only".

It's more prevalent and noticeable in MP, because it results in losing outright instead of just significantly and unnecessarily slowed progress for no other reason than "because". However, it is not MP-only.

Even if it were, MP is a real part of the game and the game needs to work in both SP and MP.

 

[srd5090]

But isn't your entire argument about mp randomness being a skill equalizing (or whatever high sounding variant of that you're using today) about multi-player? For single player dealing with the ups and downs of good/bad rulers is part of the experience but in multi-player a bad ruler will lose the game is a re-occurring complaint (using various specific phrasings). If your complaint is about multi-player effects then counter-arguments can't be shrugged off with "that kind of stuff is mp only".

The issue is that even in single player, you may have a strategy planned but the game gives you the old :fartnoise: with a 1/1/0 ruler with no ways to deal with the situation. People on here have been saying "well you just deal with it, use your skills to make up for it". The problem with that is that having that happen to you doesn't really change what the 'right actions' are, it just delays them because you no longer have the points to do as much 'stuff'.

What would be better was if we had more agency in dealing with those bad rulers. Instead it's just a 'deal with it' situation. That isn't very good to have in a strategy game where player choice matters.

 

[Chevaresqye]

now you will save on adm for religious if you choose to go a tolerant route also. I have never tryed multiplayer so I cant argue any of these points for that. But for single player you have to adapt your goals given situations as you cant really lose. 1000's of things happen over 400 years that could make or break your original goal. Theres always something given up to chance. Even with no monarch point, being backstabbed by a major alliance and crushed after a war that drained your manpower is even more destructive than a shitty monarch. The size of your empire isnt the determination of your skill level. Its how you built your empire, how you've used your bad and good monarchs, managed alliances, and dealt with the 1000 other things that made your game more challenging/easier.

Being backstabbing by a major alliance, not a problem. Alliance is just something important early game (I'm talking about single players). Being crushed by a destructive wars is because you have poor skill, not a luck base. Funny thing, among 1000 other things, 999 of them are involve Monarch point. In good designed game, when bad thing happen, it offers player many option as counter measure. But for bad monarch, all that you can do is to wait until he dies.

Your skill level depend on how do you understand the game and how well you can exploit that knowledge.

 

[Blastaz]

I like the sound of these changes.

It's about time they buffed expansion through actually just taking land in a peace deal. Vassal feeding was such a silly mechanic.

Administrative Efficiency will probably take some balancing. Personally I think it would be better if it started much earlier (around tech 10) and ramped up more slowly, it's so late in the game most people will probably get bored and abandon a game before they ever get to it.

I agree that monarchs have too much of an effect on the game, the easy fix for that would be to halve the influence of their stats on monarch points and double that of advisors. That would make money much more important because it would become the main route to gaining monarch points.

 

[unmerged(752132)]

Being backstabbing by a major alliance, not a problem. Alliance is just something important early game (I'm talking about single players). Being crushed by a destructive wars is because you have poor skill, not a luck base. Funny thing, among 1000 other things, 999 of them are involve Monarch point. In good designed game, when bad thing happen, it offers player many option as counter measure. But for bad monarch, all that you can do is to wait until he dies.

Your skill level depend on how do you understand the game and how well you can exploit that knowledge.

Sounds like they need to really update the AI if people are having such an easy time against them. Im sort of glad Im not that good or it would ruin the feel of the game for me. I like fearing dying even when I have grown very well. due to my neighbours also growing. But even the best player shouldn't win a war against france as a 1 province country. Or these other insane feats you guys apparently have an easy time with.

It's been a long time since I lost to the AI without bullcrap like "vassal attached army detaches right before battle" or "general dies marching to combat and you lose 6+ pips", excepting cases of trying to break out as an OPM and screwing up.

When I was practicing scorched earth and unit control in 1.4 (I've only had this game since December 24), I learned from Stategem and then played two starts until I could win them:

1. Take Mongol Khanate, and consistently defeat Oirate Horde 1 vs 1 in your independence war. Note that they start with over 2x your forces and a shock V general. Oh, and no loans needed.

2. Pick Ethiopia, fabricate a claim on the Mamluks at the 1444 bookmark, and then declare immediately once you've finished the fabrication. Win the war and take at least one province without any allies. Loans optional (I didn't take any).

If you practice stuff like that and know the game's mechanics really well, fighting the AI at similar tech/numbers just isn't the same any more. Hitting the timing and completing "Luck of the Irish" before 1530 was much easier than beating the Mamluks with Ethiopia for example. You also eventually realize what works and what you *can't* get away with, like beating Spain solo as Grenada at the start, because SE doesn't do enough damage there.

Just recently I declared on Venice as Byz in early 1500's, pulling in France which was more than I bargained for (normally, they could not reach me, but got involved vs Austria as well and marched through their Austrian foe to reach me :/), and still came away with a province returned to me due to stack manipulation and retreat-attack wipes. I screwed up and lost some naval units there before retreating them and had 60 units in territory from a better tech group vs my 30, and took a province . AI is *not* the limiting factor in this game unless you botch something. Admittedly, I'm not perfect and I occasionally botch diplomacy or unit control, but most of the time the bottleneck isn't there and it isn't close to there.



It's more prevalent and noticeable in MP, because it results in losing outright instead of just significantly and unnecessarily slowed progress for no other reason than "because". However, it is not MP-only.

Even if it were, MP is a real part of the game and the game needs to work in both SP and MP.

Im definitely not quite at that level, I have a hard time with the AI doomstacks still even as fairly large country. I can't imagine beating them with a smaller country unless I play diplomatically right and have a strong AI ally.

I like the sound of these changes.

It's about time they buffed expansion through actually just taking land in a peace deal. Vassal feeding was such a silly mechanic.

Administrative Efficiency will probably take some balancing. Personally I think it would be better if it started much earlier (around tech 10) and ramped up more slowly, it's so late in the game most people will probably get bored and abandon a game before they ever get to it.

I agree that monarchs have too much of an effect on the game, the easy fix for that would be to halve the influence of their stats on monarch points and double that of advisors. That would make money much more important because it would become the main route to gaining monarch points.

If they did that they'd have to balance it really well. What worries me about that is you end up going back to EU3's largest problem of snowballing, where more money= more everything so the bigger you get, the more money you get, the faster you tech, the faster you conquer, etc. until you've world conquest by 1650 as england.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I like fearing dying even when I have grown very well. due to my neighbours also growing. But even the best player shouldn't win a war against france as a 1 province country.

You can only pull crap like that by allying Burgundy + Castille. The reason some of the other wars are possible is a combination of room to maneuver, scorched earth, defensive terrain, and base attrition. I used to think attacking Mali with Songhai is hard, but now I go in with armies like 8/11 vs 20+ and expect to win due to the terrain there + AI inability to evaluate when it's worth diving uncolonized provinces.

You can't just solo France with an OPM (other than stalling them out with 1.5 scorched earth walls which hopefully will be gone again next patch), but you absolutely can win while being out-teched, out numbered, etc. Unit control is pretty important in this game, and even human vs human it can play a big role in who wins; even if most MP wars are decided by diplomacy...not all are. One guy I fought didn't even know looting was a thing and let me loot over 1k off him haha.

 

[unmerged(752132)]

You can only pull crap like that by allying Burgundy + Castille. The reason some of the other wars are possible is a combination of room to maneuver, scorched earth, defensive terrain, and base attrition. I used to think attacking Mali with Songhai is hard, but now I go in with armies like 8/11 vs 20+ and expect to win due to the terrain there + AI inability to evaluate when it's worth diving uncolonized provinces.

You can't just solo France with an OPM (other than stalling them out with 1.5 scorched earth walls which hopefully will be gone again next patch), but you absolutely can win while being out-teched, out numbered, etc. Unit control is pretty important in this game, and even human vs human it can play a big role in who wins; even if most MP wars are decided by diplomacy...not all are. One guy I fought didn't even know looting was a thing and let me loot over 1k off him haha.

These are very interesting things Im gonna spend some time looking into. This brings me back to the only real problem I have with the game is the AI. I understand its the hardest part to program right. But I hope someday they can really get an AI working right that isn't so exploitable, and is more skilled at fighting even players with very good use of all the war mechanics and strategies.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

These are very interesting things Im gonna spend some time looking into. This brings me back to the only real problem I have with the game is the AI. I understand its the hardest part to program right. But I hope someday they can really get an AI working right that isn't so exploitable, and is more skilled at fighting even players with very good use of all the war mechanics and strategies.

That's a whole different can of worms. From a cost/benefit perspective, you can only do so much with the AI. Not only because it's hard to make a good one and expensive to attain a large #people with AI expertise *and* many trials against it to expose weaknesses, but also because each small increase in its ability gets increasingly expensive from a computational standpoint, until it drags even good machines to a crawl with only modest gains in ability to show for it...which most wouldn't find worth it.

 

[unmerged(752132)]

That's a whole different can of worms. From a cost/benefit perspective, you can only do so much with the AI. Not only because it's hard to make a good one and expensive to attain a large #people with AI expertise *and* many trials against it to expose weaknesses, but also because each small increase in its ability gets increasingly expensive from a computational standpoint, until it drags even good machines to a crawl with only modest gains in ability to show for it...which most wouldn't find worth it.

Yeah. Maybe we're not quite at that point yet I suppose. Probably part of at least why they add different limitations in. To make the AI more of a challenge and the game more worthwhile for singleplayer.

 

[Stategem161803]

Sounds like they need to really update the AI if people are having such an easy time against them. Im sort of glad Im not that good or it would ruin the feel of the game for me. I like fearing dying even when I have grown very well. due to my neighbours also growing. But even the best player shouldn't win a war against france as a 1 province country. Or these other insane feats you guys apparently have an easy time with.



Im definitely not quite at that level, I have a hard time with the AI doomstacks still even as fairly large country. I can't imagine beating them with a smaller country unless I play diplomatically right and have a strong AI ally.



If they did that they'd have to balance it really well. What worries me about that is you end up going back to EU3's largest problem of snowballing, where more money= more everything so the bigger you get, the more money you get, the faster you tech, the faster you conquer, etc. until you've world conquest by 1650 as england.

Just remember that winning doesn't necessarily mean full occupation every time. If you can drag the war on, maybe win a few critical battles, blockade some provinces, loot and recruit mercs, you would be surprised what can be accomplished.

Furthermore, numbers do not matter.

If you don't believe me consider the following example:

20,000 vs. 20

You've gotta figure 20,000 has the advantage right? Well what if those 20K are stuck on another continent? What if those 20K have pointy sticks and you have muskets? What if you can engage that 20K 1 at a time?

I will grant you that 20K vs 20 with same-tech, same-leaders, same-ideas, on plains in a single straight-up fight will result in the 20K winning every time. However, why would you ever fight "fair" or straight-up?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What if you can engage that 20K 1 at a time?

This was crucial to the Ethiopia example . After burning Mamluks down with scorched earth, I got 1 stack wipe on them and never let them recover. After doing so, I left 2 guys behind to siege and immediately blitzed Cairo/Alexandria region with the rest, constantly killing newly trained units 1 at a time, trivializing the tech disadvantage because after all, at THAT point it was 5:1 odds or better! It was a situation where Mamluks got locked at 0 regiment but had most of its manpower...pretty comical. Of course the vultures start circling there. Venice, Dulkadir, Hedjaz...lots of nations willing to go in on a 0 unit nation even if I wasn't allied to any! This made follow-up wars easier also as they basically get chained on and can't actually get out of a war due to different declaration timings.

 

[Stategem161803]

This was crucial to the Ethiopia example . After burning Mamluks down with scorched earth, I got 1 stack wipe on them and never let them recover. After doing so, I left 2 guys behind to siege and immediately blitzed Cairo/Alexandria region with the rest, constantly killing newly trained units 1 at a time, trivializing the tech disadvantage because after all, at THAT point it was 5:1 odds or better! It was a situation where Mamluks got locked at 0 regiment but had most of its manpower...pretty comical. Of course the vultures start circling there. Venice, Dulkadir, Hedjaz...lots of nations willing to go in on a 0 unit nation even if I wasn't allied to any! This made follow-up wars easier also as they basically get chained on and can't actually get out of a war due to different declaration timings.

I believe I am quite understandably justified in being royally pissed of when someone calls such a sound and effective strategy an "exploit." I don't know how much of a practical effect such complaints have on the game, but they still bother me personally.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I believe I am quite understandably justified in being royally pissed of when someone calls such a sound and effective strategy an "exploit." I don't know how much of a practical effect such complaints have on the game, but they still bother me personally.

It bothers me too, but given my tendencies over the years I've gotten used to hearing it of course. It's just crummy AI that should probably be dropping down 10k mercs off in the fog somewhere I can't quickly reach, but playing SP at all is inherently exploitative if you use the "AI is bad at this" line of reasoning.

A lot of players bemoan such strategies despite being unable to execute them, which is even more interesting.