For the love of god, lower the coring costs.

[ringhloth]

If that's all the further Oirat is in 1757, there's nothing blobby going on. That screen is showing a bunch of underdeveloped provinces late in the game with the full 50% admin efficiency reduction. If Oirat is blobby they should have China totally under their control at this point in the game.

Look at the screenshot. He's paying 1 adm for every province. Hell, one of those provinces is 22 development, which is high anywhere.

 

[Korashy]

Look at the screenshot. He's paying 1 adm for every province. Hell, one of those provinces is 22 development, which is high anywhere.

Horde Tradition + Idea = 50% discount = 5 adm per Dev, * 0.5 from AE = 2.5 adm/Dev. Depending on his religion, claims, and other flat stack modifiers, it's possible he got it to 1adm/dev.

Not all countries are setup for that, and it comes incredibly late in the game, where those provinces don't really do anything for him.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Horde Tradition + Idea = 50% discount = 5 adm per Dev, * 0.5 from AE = 2.5 adm/Dev. Depending on his religion, claims, and other flat stack modifiers, it's possible he got it to 1adm/dev.

Not all countries are setup for that, and it comes incredibly late in the game, where those provinces don't really do anything for him.

A stop gap fix for that could be setting a reduction floor. Like the cost can never go below 10-20% to core.

 

[RandomZach]

Horde Tradition + Idea = 50% discount = 5 adm per Dev, * 0.5 from AE = 2.5 adm/Dev. Depending on his religion, claims, and other flat stack modifiers, it's possible he got it to 1adm/dev.

Not all countries are setup for that, and it comes incredibly late in the game, where those provinces don't really do anything for him.

Pretty sure that person has player bonuses on. There aren't enough other bonuses available to Oirat to get them to the 80% core cost reduction they'd need. There is a coring hard floor at 1 adm/development.

 

[FrigidSoul]

Pretty sure that person has player bonuses on. There aren't enough other bonuses available to Oirat to get them to the 80% core cost reduction they'd need. There is a coring hard floor at 1 adm/development.

Could be autonomy too.

Heh, nevermind. Autonomy's irrelevant. You're probably right.

 

[ringhloth]

Horde Tradition + Idea = 50% discount = 5 adm per Dev, * 0.5 from AE = 2.5 adm/Dev. Depending on his religion, claims, and other flat stack modifiers, it's possible he got it to 1adm/dev.

Not all countries are setup for that, and it comes incredibly late in the game, where those provinces don't really do anything for him.

People also are saying that he's taking poor, base tax 1 provinces. There's clearly a 22 development province. Besides, the only thing countries aren't setup for is taking horde traditions. Anything else is player choice.

 

[durvas]

People also are saying that he's taking poor, base tax 1 provinces. There's clearly a 22 development province. Besides, the only thing countries aren't setup for is taking horde traditions. Anything else is player choice.

Country specific modifiers matter a lot. ADM coring cost reduction is a flat modifier, it becomes better per point the more you stack. That's why the Ottos can core multiple times the land others with the same reductions from ideas/claims can, not just 50% more. Not to mention that it directly overcomes the OE cap by decreasing coring time. The reason he can get down to 1 ADM per development is because the guy above's equation is wrong. Admin efficiency's reduction is treated as a flat bonus of -50%, not a multiplier of their development number, but it does not decrease coring time. For diplo-annexation, the -50% modifier is not working at all.

 

[RandomZach]

Country specific modifiers matter a lot. ADM coring cost reduction is a flat modifier, it becomes better per point the more you stack. That's why the Ottos can core multiple times the land others with the same reductions from ideas/claims can, not just 50% more. Not to mention that it directly overcomes the OE cap by decreasing coring time. The reason he can get down to 1 ADM per development is because the guy above's equation is wrong. Admin efficiency's reduction is treated as a flat bonus of -50%, not a multiplier of their development number, but it does not decrease coring time. For diplo-annexation, the -50% modifier is not working at all.

You're right, it does seem to be additive. Wiz specifically commented that it would be multiplicative here, so it does not appear to be WAD. The prices in the screenshot should all probably be 2.5x higher, unless he has claims.

 

[TheDungen]

I honestly have no idea what you're saying

I asked if it was from Arumba's Oirat let's play, Arumba is a well known youtube EU4 player. CK2 is crusader kings 2, WoL is way of life an expansion for CK2.
The joke was that Arumba is really good at blobbing.

 

[Korashy]

Country specific modifiers matter a lot. ADM coring cost reduction is a flat modifier, it becomes better per point the more you stack. That's why the Ottos can core multiple times the land others with the same reductions from ideas/claims can, not just 50% more. Not to mention that it directly overcomes the OE cap by decreasing coring time. The reason he can get down to 1 ADM per development is because the guy above's equation is wrong. Admin efficiency's reduction is treated as a flat bonus of -50%, not a multiplier of their development number, but it does not decrease coring time. For diplo-annexation, the -50% modifier is not working at all.

As mentioned below, it was stated specifically to not be additive, so I suppose that's not WAD. But it's not just traditions, it's also religions. Hindu for example has dieties that reduce core cost, being emperor reduces core cost, there are lots of other modifiers you can get if you are really pushing for it.

 

[durvas]

You're right, it does seem to be additive. Wiz specifically commented that it would be multiplicative here, so it does not appear to be WAD. The prices in the screenshot should all probably be 2.5x higher, unless he has claims.

Yeah, that's probably why Admin Efficiency isn't being applied to diplo-annexation at all.

 

[josh127]

People also are saying that he's taking poor, base tax 1 provinces. There's clearly a 22 development province. Besides, the only thing countries aren't setup for is taking horde traditions. Anything else is player choice.

Actually I said they are underdeveloped. Calling them base tax 1 is something you are implying yourself. Yes there's a development 22 province in there, and this late in the game that's not anything special. Look at 1444 and go into economic mode then click around the green provinces a bit. Europe has plenty of provinces that are in that ballpark at the start.

And just to expand on what I've said so far, NO, I do not think that one point per development is the right price. That is very suspicious. If that's the case then either a lot of modifiers have been stacked or as others have said there could be a bug with how the modifiers are being applied. We don't know because the modifiers weren't posted. However, looking at end game coring cost is not the way to judge whether coring cost is done well or not anyway. Instead you need to look at it during the bulk of the game.

 

[durvas]

And just to expand on what I've said so far, NO, I do not think that one point per development is the right price. That is very suspicious. If that's the case then either a lot of modifiers have been stacked or as others have said there could be a bug with how the modifiers are being applied. We don't know because the modifiers weren't posted. However, looking at end game coring cost is not the way to judge whether coring cost is done well or not anyway. Instead you need to look at it during the bulk of the game.

It's not suspicious, it's just that the Admin Efficiency isn't working correctly at the moment. The reduction is not working as a -50% development cost, but as a -50 coring cost that gets added on top of his -25 NI and probably the -25 admin idea, so it's -100% (capped at -90) and currently broken. If it were working correctly, even if he had a claim, it'd be twice as expensive. This brings it up to more than it would have been in 1.11 for 8BT even with the development reduction. And as you say, factor in that you don't get this reduction until tech 28, and coring was increased far more than 40%.

 

[josh127]

It's not suspicious, it's just that the Admin Efficiency isn't working correctly at the moment. The reduction is not working as a -50% development cost, but as a -50 coring cost that gets added on top of his -25 NI and probably the -25 admin idea, so it's -100% (capped at -90) and currently broken. If it were working correctly, even if he had a claim, it'd be twice as expensive. This brings it up to more than it would have been in 1.11 for 8BT even with the development reduction. And as you say, factor in that you don't get this reduction until tech 28, and coring was increased far more than 40%.

I acknowledged that could be a reason for it didn't I? Until I'm confident Admin Efficiency is the cause, all I know is that the numbers are suspicious. I had no plans to try it out either and was just going to trust everyone else is right.

Of course, to avoid a prolonged argument over nothing that these forums are so well known for, I went ahead and tested it myself and can now say... yep, Admin Efficiency is being applied wrong. Peace?

 

[durvas]

I acknowledged that could be a reason for it didn't I? Until I'm confident Admin Efficiency is the cause, all I know is that the numbers are suspicious. I had no plans to try it out either and was just going to trust everyone else is right.

Of course, to avoid a prolonged argument over nothing that these forums are so well known for, I went ahead and tested it myself and can now say... yep, Admin Efficiency is being applied wrong. Peace?

I wasn't arguing, I was just repeating something I said further up the page. I meant "it's not suspicious" as there was a reason for it, not a disagreement.

 

[josh127]

I wasn't arguing, I was just repeating something I said further up the page. I meant "it's not suspicious" as there was a reason for it, not a disagreement.

Yeah, I misread your post above. My bad. Although this does explain why it had me a bit confused.

 

[RaptorCommander]

You need to stop derailing the conversation into 'what is fun'.... for some it is WC and for others it is the other aspects of the game.

I find this idea that peace is boring and just waiting ridiculous, peace is the most interesting part of the game. In peace you analyse the map and your situation to decide what to do. In war you are doing all the waiting.

In war you are just sitting there waiting, there are no decisions to be made.

Waiting for siege 'mana points' to accumulate.
Waiting for the war % 'mana points' to increase.
Waiting for the enemies morale 'mana points' to decrease.

So stop with this arrogance that war is the most interesting and 'real' part of the game. Honestly I always have a vassel just so I can do the least fighting possible, it's just tedious.

Also, the game changed, deal with it, accept the challenge.


Anyway... as I said before, I think there needs to be a separate mechanic for rapid expansion. EU4 is obviously aimed at simulating the careful political environment of the Ancien Regime, which the core mechanic describes well. But there were times and people when this system was ignored and they just went for it... conquering like crazy.

What if the core cost was lowered by your aggressive expansion points against you by the old owner of the province?

Or if power projection lowered coring costs?

I think this would simulate the 'steamroller' effect that rapidly expanding (And rapidly coring) countries had that others did not.

I agree fun does not necessarily equal painting the map. But I would disagree that fun doesn't come from the final objective. As one might have varying objectives; forming Italy, surviving as Prussia in the 7 years war, being the largest colonel power, surviving as a OPM or conquering all of Africa.. And people can have the same amount of fun from achieving any of these objectives.

I have never done a world conquest game (closest was all of Eurasia in eu3) the required effort and time to grind out the game is not 'fun' to me.

Yes the journey is half the fun and to me the difficulty/fun of a game comes from figuring out the strategies that will work. However, if in your analysis of the situation you end up with “Need to wait till my mana pool grows” to implement it then the game is slowing down your fun (Increasing the time it takes for you to reach YOUR objective). Especially if this occurs after you have already minimised your other mana pool spend by being behind tech/low stab/got the correct cbs/etc

To make the journey more fun there needs to be more strategic options.Ideally I want to see is the introduction of new tools that can be used to make the game more complex (thus increasing the time it takes to work out the optimal strategy and the fun level). Such things could be:
- Trade coalitions, work to get a group of ‘enemies of my enemies’ together to curtail the trade power of the dominant nation
- New rebel support mechanics
- Give everyone access to the espionage idea group abilities
- Bring forward the custom Vassals to start of game. (even a create a custom free nation would be enough)
- Some type of dynasty management
But until the time comes when these in-peace strategies become more viable/complex/numerous for stop slowing down conquest as it is still the most engaging part of the game.

There is a lot more resource management involved in executing wars of expansion than in economy management.

In most cases there is generally a mathematically defined solution to optimal infrastructure builds (in some respects Common Sense makes this easier, since it practically tells you where you should be developing). When you're at the point you can fight multiple wars, there's almost always something you can be doing better in terms of expanding faster. It is (in my opinion) the true test on understanding game mechanics.

Fun could be measured as being proportional to the attention needed to playing the game. I can manage peace at speed 4 but not war (speed 2/3). So peace is not as engaging as warfare. Until it is then on a in-game day basis war is more 'fun' than peace.

Of course paradox has the problem that peace mechanics don't stop with a war so cant overload peace with stuff.

In large muilty player games this is fine because you need to deal with other people and that in itself is interesting.

In small muilty player games and single player you will find your self upping the speed from 2 or 3 to 4 or 5. Why? Because, at speed 2/3 you have sufficient time in peace to work out the strategies needed (the fun part) to defeat an opponent but won’t have enough monarch points to implement it (Thus reducing the amount of fun per minute).
Keep in mind that speed 4 is unviable in Muilty Player because you can’t fight big wars at that speed and there will always be someone in a fight.

 

[Youbar]

As France, I annexed Provence's north western most provinces, and Britanny who they (Provence) had recently conquered, with claims on all of Britanny. I paid 800+ admin power. For 6 provinces. Why?

 

[grommile]

As France, I annexed Provence's north western most provinces, and Britanny who they (Provence) had recently conquered, with claims on all of Britanny. I paid 800+ admin power. For 6 provinces. Why?

That's six pretty decent provinces. Tibet would smother you in your sleep to get that much development in as few as six provinces.

 

[Youbar]

That's six pretty decent provinces. Tibet would smother you in your sleep to get that much development in as few as six provinces.

Well, to compare, last patch it cost me ~360 admin power, which seems reasonable. Sacrificing a whole tech level for 6 provinces is not reasonable. Besides, Tibet could barely manage to core the provinces in the first place when they're drowning in lack of technological progress.