For the love of god, lower the coring costs.

[forrseti]

Common Sense

First, you're amazed by the changes.
Then you start a war, and when you see the cost to take territories, you close the game.
Some challenging emotionnal roller coaster.

 

[hypaspist]

game is almost perfect as is now. some minor tweaks and bug fixes are welcomed but , dont you dare lower coring costs paradox

 

[Scarstone]

Hmm. I’ve heard that people are furious about this coring cost changes. I think it is fun to conquer a large chunk of the world, it seems this is way harder now. I’ve loved the game up until now, and bought all the DLC’s. But I think I will keep my money in my pocket for now, and see how this coring cost changes will play out for people that like the same playstyle as me.

 

[LastSalian]

Same here. Not buying any PDX original title or DLC til they fix the current non-sense with coring and diploannexation costs.

PD.- Cities Skylines is actually developed by Colossal Order, so it's ok to buy it

 

[Guardian54]

I spent 1284 points DIP diplo-annexing Bengal. The diplomat doing +6 a month had to be there for over 19 years.

BENGAL. EDIT: To clarify, As in, modern day Bangladesh, just the starting Bengali culture provinces, not even counting Koch and Assam, that's it.

The guy was there almost as long as Zhang Qian was stuck in the Xinjiang/current Afghan region!

And coring... well I somehow managed to run over time in admin tech as Ming and now am forced to conquer more land to not feel like I'm wasting my admin points.... wtfbbqsauce is this.

 

[grommile]

I spent 1284 points DIP diplo-annexing Bengal. The diplomat doing +6 a month had to be there for over 19 years.

BENGAL.

When someone says "Bengal" to me in EU4, I think of a country encompassing about a third of India.

 

[iShurik]

I get that with common sense you should pay more attention to your own state but having to pay 220 admin points for Liguria is just ridiculous, especially since it was around 90-100 before the patch. You won't be able to conquer anything that is worth something without missing out on admin tech and ideas.

That's exactly the point.

You can't have a high tech supernation anymore. You can have a large nation, which falls behind in ideas and tech, but not mil tech (going wide) or you can have a smaller nation which is up to date in tech and ideas (going tall). Or you can have something in between. It's your decission. I think that's the whole Idea behind this rebalance, and IMO it makes sense.

I love it.

 

[FrigidSoul]

That's exactly the point.

You can't have a high tech supernation anymore. You can have a large nation, which falls behind in ideas and tech, but not mil tech (going wide) or you can have a smaller nation which is up to date in tech and ideas (going tall). Or you can have something in between. It's your decission. I think that's the whole Idea behind this rebalance, and IMO it makes sense.

I love it.

No. Development costs several times as much as conquest, so if you truly try to go "tall" you'll fall behind in tech and ideas even more than the bloodthirsty conqueror. The increase in coring costs didn't create new choices; it just made the best option slower.

And if you like a slower game, more power to you, but do us all a favor and admit that you're simply expressing a subjective preference about the game's pace, rather than advocating for deeper gameplay. It isn't even clear that increased core costs make the game harder, because anything that retards the growth of player nations will tend utterly to confound AI nations.

Of course, none of the above is to say that the overall game isn't deeper or more interesting in Common Sense, but the core-cost thing doesn't comprise the whole patch.

 

[TheDungen]

Well again if you want to be able to blob like you used to there are mods that lower the coring cost. I don't see why you think it's your right to have an easier time to get achievments.

It's your own damn fault competing in shortest world conquest is kind of rubbing it in the devs face.

 

[TheDungen]

No. Development costs several times as much as conquest, so if you truly try to go "tall" you'll fall behind in tech and ideas even more than the bloodthirsty conqueror. The increase in coring costs didn't create new choices; it just made the best option slower.

And if you like a slower game, more power to you, but do us all a favor and admit that you're simply expressing a subjective preference about the game's pace, rather than advocating for deeper gameplay. It isn't even clear that increased core costs make the game harder, because anything that retards the growth of player nations will tend utterly to confound AI nations.

Of course, none of the above is to say that the overall game isn't deeper or more interesting in Common Sense, but the core-cost thing doesn't comprise the whole patch.

So going wide is still OP but less OP. Still seems like a fix to me.

 

[iShurik]

No. Development costs several times as much as conquest, so if you truly try to go "tall" you'll fall behind in tech and ideas even more than the bloodthirsty conqueror. The increase in coring costs didn't create new choices; it just made the best option slower.

And if you like a slower game, more power to you, but do us all a favor and admit that you're simply expressing a subjective preference about the game's pace, rather than advocating for deeper gameplay. It isn't even clear that increased core costs make the game harder, because anything that retards the growth of player nations will tend utterly to confound AI nations.

Of course, none of the above is to say that the overall game isn't deeper or more interesting in Common Sense, but the core-cost thing doesn't comprise the whole patch.

Going Tall isn't only about development, it is also about beeing up to date in ideas and tech.
Ideas and tech improve your development efficiency. E.g. +10% Tax modifier makes all your admin development 10% more valuable. You could spend those 400 points from idea cost for expansion through war, this way you would also increase your income by increasing the total development, again it's your decission.
I only develop key provinces, then I plan to expand and take key provinces, like centers of trade and provinces with expensive goods. So I make the most out of my development efficiency. I would say this adds strategic depth and deeper gameplay.
In my Byz game this worked pretty good. Without westernizing I was the richest nation with the largest army and the most provinces in the end of the game. And I was up do date in tech and ideas.

 

[frolix42]

no

lol

I'm still adjusting to the changes. There seems to be basically three big ones. (1) Coring Cost. (2) Forts. (3) Development. Overall I like them.

 

[Guardian54]

When someone says "Bengal" to me in EU4, I think of a country encompassing about a third of India.

I vassalized em in one war cause they got rekt by Orissa, then I discovered taking cores back for my vassals COSTS DIP WITH EVERY CORE BUT THE ONE YOU STATE IN CB.

Cue RAEG.

Bengal in that game was just the initial Bengali culture provinces, that's it, they didn't get to expand before Orissa destroyed them and I swept in to finish em off.

 

[Youbar]

I don't see the harm in decreasing coring and diploannex costs to 1.11 levels. Tall players can still play tall with reasonable incentive, and wide players can play wide.

 

[Mercuric]

I wouldn't mind the extreme coring costs if it wasn't mandatory to reduce overextension. I just don't understand why annexing territory suddenly makes the peasants and particularists decide to get angry.

Basically, as it is now, having an uncored province is pointless because it doesn't do anything and it contributes to making your life miserable because of rebels. If it were just one or the other, at least there would be a decision to make.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

I wouldn't mind the extreme coring costs if it wasn't mandatory to reduce overextension. I just don't understand why annexing territory suddenly makes the peasants and particularists decide to get angry.

Basically, as it is now, having an uncored province is pointless because it doesn't do anything and it contributes to making your life miserable because of rebels. If it were just one or the other, at least there would be a decision to make.

Higher autonomy = lower overextention?

 

[TheDungen]

I don't see the harm in decreasing coring and diploannex costs to 1.11 levels. Tall players can still play tall with reasonable incentive, and wide players can play wide.

Wide is still better as it is and yet you think anyone would play tall with the old coring and diploannex costs?

 

[LordP]

After finally getting the game to run for some time without deleting saves and directly crashing in december 1444, I can say that playing my first game as Mongolia I wasted Admin generously.

I had too much diplo first and am stuck in the game right now somehow. It seems like I go way more behind all the time than it used to be, playing with golden horde or jurchen. That said I like the forts, when they are not messing up the battle, because it gives some tactical dynamic. (But Shen's stream yesterday showes the weaknes of that concept rightnow - I think it might work one day and then be really good, since it might allow you to play more strategic and less number-based, at least in a not as dense area as the steps, maybe it's different in the HRE) I also would like to see the good in the other features, but the core cost are really absurd, especially since I feel that it does just make the game more static and on the otherhand the "development" seems forced to me.

Giving up a stable game that it was after the last patch, for the weird development mechanic, that feels somehow alien to the rest of the game (the comparison of paywall fits well, because it looks like a browser-gameish extra) and the somehow weird behavior of AI to forts and my problems with lauching the game in general leave me personally with a negative impression of 1.12.1.

Well at least i got to check out the forum now and had more time for university.

 

[Mayonass]

My only problem is that you have little to do whilst not expanding. And if you want us not to expand and play "Tall", what the hell am I going to do in the mean time? Stare at the ceiling while waiting to get enough monarch points to go back at it. I was expanding like hell in the early game because I was unaware of this change, then i started falling behind in tech; me as a western country 4 techs behind in admin and 2 in diplo. And in hundred years i had only gotten little more than 40 provinces for myself, taking only claimed provinces, vassal feeding yet I still was falling behind. However it's not only me, the hole Europe is falling behind, in 1567 everybody was in the yellow, few in the dark green and only one or two in the slightly brighter green. I mean, not even your AI can keep up paradox.
For someone trying to do an achievement with so little time, i can't afford to sit idle watching my provinces NOT grow because i have to save it to catch up on tech and continue my rampage or waiting for my diplomat to come back after diplo annexing a 1000 diplo cost vassal.

So i thought it was me, and tried the "tall" gameplay with a free city. And i got bored in the first 15 years... There is nothing to do, you can't upgrade your provinces enough or else you will fall back on tech too, the buildings are expensive and you can only build few in a province early game. You can't go to war because you lack the cb to actually make something fun without conquering a city or vassalising someone and the missions get repetitive after a while.

But you sure gave a use to the speed 5 now...

 

[TheDungen]

I'm not disagreewing with you there, even more peace content would be nice. In time I'd like to see technology linked to mean development and the aqquiration (and loss) of development made more intresting than simply pushing buttons.