Has Some of the Fun Gone Out of This Game?

[MordinSolis]

Because it got higher before the introduction of developement system, thats the part we complain about, not the transition between base tax and developement system.. In 1.11 it got ~40% higher.

when did that happen ? Patch 1.11 has no changes at all to coring costs unless it was not mentioned in the change log thats aviable on the wiki

 

[MordinSolis]

Hey guys.
2. Coring Costs/Increased Coring Costs Ideas - Seriously paying 200+ Monarch points for a province when you have no real way to influence Monarch Point creation outside random ruler stats and events is a major annoyance, add to that things like Berber traditions and I find myself increasingly wondering ... why am I playing this? It's not even to say that your income, manpower, trade significantly increase from these super costly provinces to make them feel worthwhile.

It's basically the reason that I find recently that only the Ottoman's are in anyway enjoyable, and even then I still have to do gamey things like abuse 'overseas expansion' to deal with Berber traditions.

If you dont find conquering stuff worthwhile why do you do it ?
So before when Coring was aparently much cheaper you enjoyed doing what exactly ? Conquering everything and coring it for cheap and then what? I dont really see how the game got less interesting by making you evaluate if its worth conquering stuff or not.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

The classic tradeoff/opportunity cost debate. I don't have any DLCs activated, but I know I'll be getting that core, because as Ming, the minimum 50% local autonomy means that if the province is not cored, it will be really useless to me.

This is true, but this is more of a situational case, and since Ming is a bit of an unusual/unique case (although I would say that 50% isn't completely useless, and it's still better than your enemy having it). I just disagree with the notation that you always have to core, or are forced to core a province. It is, as you said, a case of weighing up the positives and tradeoffs of the situation and making a decision.

 

[LastSalian]

Wow, what an insightful and completely mature reply!

His answer is like yours: useless. And he is right, if you don't have to say anything constructive, why don't just let people discuss this topic?

 

[LastSalian]

What I hate the most on the overly increased coring and annexation costs is both Administrative and Influence are mandatory for SP. Previously you could live without it and pick different idea groups. .

 

[yezhanquan]

This is true, but this is more of a situational case, and since Ming is a bit of an unusual/unique case (although I would say that 50% isn't completely useless, and it's still better than your enemy having it). I just disagree with the notation that you always have to core, or are forced to core a province. It is, as you said, a case of weighing up the positives and tradeoffs of the situation and making a decision.

For the most part, I imagine making conquered provinces useful involves the following:
1) Coring
2) Religious conversion
3) Culture change, especially with non-accepted cultures outside culture group

As I really do like the idea of squeezing every bit out of my provinces, it works for me. That, and "colonies" which don't have the 75% local autonomy floor.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

His answer is like yours: useless. And he is right, if you don't have to say anything constructive, why don't just let people discuss this topic?

I'm just going to assume you quoted the wrong person, because that doesn't make any sense. Having an alternate opinion and trying to understand other peoples opinions isn't constructive, and I should just leave? What?

 

[Sneering Imperialist]

Why do people complain about the "coring cost spike" ? (I assume they mean when CC was recalculated to include the 3 dev types instead of only basetax)
Is there any reason why 2 provinces with same BT but one having much more production/manpower should cost the same?

There is an excellent reason, yes: It makes the game more enjoyable. Even the devs have stated that 'realism' shouldn't come at the cost of game enjoyment.

If you dont find conquering stuff worthwhile why do you do it ?

Because, for i'd say 80-90% of players, 'conquering stuff' is almost the entire point of the game. Other aspects of the game are under-developed or simply less appealing.

 

[sesn]

2. National focus?

Thats on ADM 89% of the time anyways.

Why do people complain about the "coring cost spike" ? (I assume they mean when CC was recalculated to include the 3 dev types instead of only basetax)
Is there any reason why 2 provinces with same BT but one having much more production/manpower should cost the same?

It's not that valuable provinces are more costly, it is how costly everything is.

I'm a strong proponent of iron man and don't enjoy playing the normal mode at all.
But if I'm not playing republics, I'm savescumming. Auto-pause on monarch death and evaluate the new heir.
Basically, the game becomes extremely boring if you have a leader below 8 points. I love EUIV but monarch points are the big flaw of it.
When EUV comes out it will hopefully have ended this ridiculous incursion and we all will wonder how we could tolerate such a terrible game mechanic.

 

[ChildeR]

when did that happen ? Patch 1.11 has no changes at all to coring costs unless it was not mentioned in the change log thats aviable on the wiki

The only change to coring cost since 1.3 is when it changed from 20 per BT to 10 per development.

Diploannex cost has varied more. It used to be 15 per BT, then 10 per BT, then 10 per dev., and now 8 per.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

For the most part, I imagine making conquered provinces useful involves the following:
1) Coring
2) Religious conversion
3) Culture change, especially with non-accepted cultures outside culture group)

As I really do like the idea of squeezing every bit out of my provinces, it works for me.

Fair enough. Perhaps non-core provinces should be a bit more useful, so it's more of an even choice.

 

[yezhanquan]

Because, for i'd say 80-90% of players, 'conquering stuff' is almost the entire point of the game. Other aspects of the game are under-developed or simply less appealing.

For countries who don't have access to lands for colonization, yeah I totally agree. For the most part, you're conquering to survive. Then, once you reach a size suitable for survival, you do it out of force of habit.

 

[IIWW]

when did that happen ? Patch 1.11 has no changes at all to coring costs unless it was not mentioned in the change log thats aviable on the wiki

my bad, it was in the same patch. Nevertheless it was increased ~40%

To expound on my reply from yesterday, coring costs have gone up somewhere around 40% compared to 1.11 (more for dipannexation) because we wanted to create some more interesting dynamics where conquering everything around you was not necessarily always the best option.

 

[pedrito_elcabra]

Detailed post, but I disagree with a few points. In general the game seems as enjoyable as ever to me, but it's quite a bit more challenging than a couple years back.

1. I rarely get coalitions these days... and I'm almost always at war and tend to get to the point where there is no challenge left in the game by 1600-1650. Spread your conquests. Ally/RM and smoothtalk potential coalitioners. Make peaces for humilliations, money, etc. Release nations in peace then diplovassal them. Always have claims, never take from non-co-belligerents. Don't take a province if a sizable coalition will form (you can even preview this in the peace deal now).

2. National focus, administrative ideas, advisors, high PP... plenty of things you can set up to increase your paper mana flow. And those pesky berbers you can diploannex them and spend less valuable diplo points instead.

3. Couldn't agree more.

4. Fort mechanics can be improved yes... but overall it's magnitudes better than pre-fort carpet sieging.

5. Some things like claim fabrication discovery are annoying, yes. Looking forward to the espionage rework next patch.

 

[itsuart]

There is still only 1 type of "victory" that involves active play - military one. And by 'active' I mean "I'm doing something and immediately see direct results: winning battles, gaining territory, etc). No scientific, diplomatic, cultural or any other kind of active victory exists. You could possibly say that 'game of thrones' is kind of diplomatic game with easily discernible, visible winning state (PU major military(!) powers). But it is only for christians, RNG heavy AND still demands strong military (again!) due to LD and wars of succession.
Yet patch after patch military play punished more and more but in a passive, non-dynamic way (no more than 100% OE, slow diploannexation and 'my diplotech bigger than yours, I have you!', increased coring costs and truces, all of this just equals increased wait-and-do-nothing periods. And they are boring).

 

[MordinSolis]

What I hate the most on the overly increased coring and annexation costs is both Administrative and Influence are mandatory for SP. Previously you could live without it and pick different idea groups. .

That is simply not true.
You can conquer ALOT no problem before the game ends without taking either influence or administrative.

Here some math as proof (disclaimer this calculation disregards all events stab hits and other mp drains as well as no developing provs since not everybody has CS so of course its not accurate):

Total BT in europe 1444 2360
Total Production in 1444 2335
Total Manpower in 1444 1558

Total Dev in europe 1444 is thus 6253 comes to 62530 adm to core.(without any CC reductions form ideas adm efficency or even just claims)

You make 3 MP base if you have a 0/0/0 ruler (which is very unlikely) and no advisors.
Topped at 13MP (15 if you count National focus again not counted because of DLC) per month in ideal case of +3 advisors and 6/6/6 rulers(also very uncommon

So for a game that takes 377 years that makes 4524 months.

Worst case(impossible since you must like not play the game to at the very least get +1advisors)
4524*3=13572 adm -> 13572/62530 =0.21 so you can core 21% of europe. Not great you might think but still 1357 dev which is quite a bit.

Average case(lets say you have average rulers that have 3/3/3 and can afford lvl 2 advisors )
4524*8=36192 -> 36192/62530=0.578 so you can core 57.8% of europe. Now already 3619 dev which is more or less the dev of Rome at its greatest extend applied to eu4 map in 1444.(thats 3758 dev )

for funsies:

Best Case(also practicaly impossible since 6/6/6 rulers are sady quite rare and you cant afford lvl3 advisors as most nations the entire game)
4524*13=58812 -> 58812/62530=0.94 So you can core 94% of europe. This amounts to 5812 dev which is incredibly much and i think not something you would ever achive unless you go WC.

 

[yezhanquan]

There is still only 1 type of "victory" that involves active play - military one. And by 'active' I mean "I'm doing something and immediately see direct results: winning battles, gaining territory, etc). No scientific, diplomatic, cultural or any other kind of active victory exists. You could possibly say that 'game of thrones' is kind of diplomatic game with easily discernible, visible winning state (PU major military(!) powers). But it is only for christians, RNG heavy AND still demands strong military (again!) due to LD and wars of succession.
Yet patch after patch military play punished more and more but in a passive, non-dynamic way (no more than 100% OE, slow diploannexation and 'my diplotech bigger than yours, I have you!', increased coring costs and truces, all of this just equals increased wait-and-do-nothing periods. And they are boring).

I don't really agree. To make conquered lands work for you, you gotta ensure a few things. For me, I'll rather take the time to reduce local autonomy in the country to the floor values, and ensure religious and cultural unity (all primary or accepted cultures).

 

[semaphore]

Sometimes, a bit. Feels like too many things are being balanced around WC or WC-style gameplay. Just my perception, though.

 

[Freudia]

The important thing to realize about the whole 'you don't have to core it if it's too expensive' logic is that overextension exists, and you can't core land that's not adjacent to one of your cores. Hell, you can't even take land you can't core, anymore. Literally not coring your land gates your expansion now, to the point where not coring your land is not a viable option.

 

[MordinSolis]

There is an excellent reason, yes: It makes the game more enjoyable. Even the devs have stated that 'realism' shouldn't come at the cost of game enjoyment.

Realism you say ? How is it realism to expect consitency in gameplay mechanics ? Is it not normal for better things to also cost more ?
If you get the choice between 2 things that cost the same but have different values one being 100% better why even bother making the weaker thing?