• 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.
The problem is not the typo. The problem is devs didnt notice the PU thing and corrected it before release. It shows they didnt play the patch. Or at least didnt play enough.

If the blame is on content creators, coders, QA team, it doesnt matter. The blame is on the team and the firm as a whole. After the disaater Leviathan and 1.31 were all we could hope is they would be more cautious before releasing 1.32 and Origins.

I really dont understand why there are so many players who act like devs and their employer cant be criticized, as if they are deving games as a favor to us, an act of love and friendship, instead of selling products for profit.

I guess if you go to a restaurant and your dinner comes with hair on it you just say "ok, no reason to complain, just a small mistake, I know next time my dinner will not be so disgusting, if I complain now maybe the chef will get demotivated"...

Edit: indeed the bigger problem is the development one, it is gamebreaking for people who want to play tall or want to dev for institutions.
How do you know they didn’t catch it? One of the team members said that some of the bugs were caught but it was too late in the cycle to change. It‘s being addressed in the hotfix. These absolute statements, where posters claim something as fact, are probably a reason other posters come to the defense of the studio.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The PU thing is just a typo that will be fixed next week and is already fixed if you run the beta build. It could very well have been changed last minute and not tested well. This is infinitely better than things like Native Development and Concentrate/Pillage dev, which were pointed out as awful and broken literally months before Leviathan released and stayed in the game for over half a year.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I think AE must be graduated according to the power of the two countries concerned (so that if Landshut has a PU with Munich it will not traumatize Europe much unlike a France-Spain PU)

And much more unrest. I think the level of unrest you get in the Balkans, as Austria, if you choose that new religious communities estate perk should be the base level of unrest in conquered lands.
 
And much more unrest. I think the level of unrest you get in the Balkans, as Austria, if you choose that new religious communities estate perk should be the base level of unrest in conquered lands.
Religious unity is a thing already. AE is already dependent on which culture and religion you take land from.
 
One of these days.... one of these days... Portugal will actually colonize Brazil. Today is not that day.


sweurope.jpg


Now it's 1551 and Portugal is an OPM in Brazil. The only european colonizer in the Americas too..
 
Playing one of the three bavarian states (Upper Bavaria, Lower Bavaria, Ingolstadt) has become ridiculous. You used to get 6 AE for forcing the union on one of the other, now you get 40 something AE.
This is plain crazy!
 
One of these days.... one of these days... Portugal will actually colonize Brazil. Today is not that day.
In my Songhai campaign Portugal has actually colonised Brazil. Something is wrong with my game, I guess. :D
adding on top of this, did anyone went past 1st March 1535?
It's 1630 in my Songhai campaign and I haven't experienced any problems.
 
Playing one of the three bavarian states (Upper Bavaria, Lower Bavaria, Ingolstadt) has become ridiculous. You used to get 6 AE for forcing the union on one of the other, now you get 40 something AE.
This is plain crazy!
Try the beta. The AE for PUs is twice as high as in 1.31, but I think it is low enough to get the PUs over the other bavarian countries without coming close to a coalition.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Try the beta. The AE for PUs is twice as high as in 1.31, but I think it is low enough to get the PUs over the other bavarian countries without coming close to a coalition.
Getting the PU against one oth the others is already close to a coalition. Even if if you can eventually evade a coalition, you are crippeld at both expansion as well as diplomancy. Either the patch has to be reversed or the Bavaria reunification game has to be remade.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
PU AE needs to go back to 1.31 values. You filled mission trees (which are mostly paid DLC) with restoration of union CBs and now you can just barely squeak under the AE limit if you use them, and some of them will go over now that didn't before. AFAIK only England over France and France over Castille/Spain was enough to trigger a coalition by itself before the increased AE, and those are the two that should trigger it for both historical and gameplay reasons.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Getting the PU against one oth the others is already close to a coalition. Even if if you can eventually evade a coalition, you are crippeld at both expansion as well as diplomancy. Either the patch has to be reversed or the Bavaria reunification game has to be remade.
Did you try it in the beta like I suggested? I just tried it and I only got a total of 26 AE for forcing the unions over both Landshut and Ingolstadt.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The increase does slow down some tags, but I'm still trying to decide whether it's fair or not as Landshut could truly skyrocket really quickly due to the lack of AE.
There might be other tags that have a harder time. I don't mind England getting a coalition for forcing a union over France (although when they did in history, no one actually did something) but it might now simply be impossible unless you'd have most of Europe under truce.

I think it would be wise to consider to go through each mission tree that rewards subjugation or PU cb's and set a custom AE factor to not break mission trees by using a blunt tool of adjusting AE for every tag by a set modifier.
 
The increase does slow down some tags, but I'm still trying to decide whether it's fair or not as Landshut could truly skyrocket really quickly due to the lack of AE.
There might be other tags that have a harder time. I don't mind England getting a coalition for forcing a union over France (although when they did in history, no one actually did something) but it might now simply be impossible unless you'd have most of Europe under truce.

I think it would be wise to consider to go through each mission tree that rewards subjugation or PU cb's and set a custom AE factor to not break mission trees by using a blunt tool of adjusting AE for every tag by a set modifier.
Landshut (and Munich and Ingolstadt) are probably the biggest victims of this change. When Bavaria got split into 3 it was just a nifty little gimmick that didn't get in the way of much since you get the automatic restoration of unions in what, Feburary 1455? They had very low AE and made the mission tree feel more interesting, and were only a slight delay and could even be beneficial if you could annex or vassalize another Bavarian minor they had allied. But now even in the beta version they generate too much AE so you end up needing to sit around and burn it off, even if Austria allied you. And Bavaria is pretty railroaded into needing to annex one free city at the start to get their mission tree rolling which is of course death by coalition now.

If the AE remains doubled from 1.31 then Bavaria should just be unified at the start again because splitting it has become an awful unnecessary nerf.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: