I don't understand the attitude of this forum

[Denkt]

Early game economy is fine. Mid and late game economy is better than it was, but you still get to the 'far too much money' phase eventually.

Have you taken a look on increasing the cost of military per tech level like infantry base cost increase half a ducat per technology. Military is the most important part of money and if the cost of the military keeps phase with the increase of ducats the mid and late game economy should be about the same, maybe you have to help the ai somewhat because it is not as good as a player so its cost increase per technology could be lower, maybe even have a difficulty level at which ai don't suffer from cost increase. This also will also make the game little more challenging in the mid and late game because the ai will have cheaper units then you and thus be able to field relative larger armies then it can now.

Or you could just take inspiration from Rise of Legends and implement a ramping cost for military units like you have done for naval units.

 

[Xara]

Honestly, you do know that just because you imagine something in your mind does not mean it automatically becomes reality... right?

I can see why your forum moderation has to keep adding more stickies with the attitude you personally deliver.

 

[Sukramo]

Just reduce the coring costs so I can start playing this game again thx.

 

[Pellucid]

Have you taken a look on increasing the cost of military per tech level like infantry base cost increase half a ducat per technology. Military is the most important part of money and if the cost of the military keeps phase with the increase of ducats the mid and late game economy should be about the same, maybe you have to help the ai somewhat because it is not as good as a player so its cost increase per technology could be lower, maybe even have a difficulty level at which ai don't suffer from cost increase. This also will also make the game little more challenging in the mid and late game because the ai will have cheaper units then you and thus be able to field relative larger armies then it can now.

Or you could just take inspiration from Rise of Legends and implement a ramping cost for military units like you have done for naval units.

This wouldn't be very realistic. A guy with a gun actually costs a little less than a guy with armor and a spear.

The realistic way to fix it would piss people off too much. Really expensive natural disasters, for example, was often a coffer-draining problem. Lost wars should arguably hurt way more (although this, again, would only hurt the AI or MP players as it stands right now). Maintaining a navy should be dramatically more expensive.

I guess my point is that while your suggestion is unrealistic, I'm not sure if a realistic one would be met with much support from the forum.

 

[OldmansHQ]

In the vast majority of cases, backlash to a balance and gameplay changes is actually just complaining about change, in itself. 1.12 changed a lot of things, and it's to be expected that the complaints would be more loud than usual and that they would mainly target easily articulated topics such as the increased coring costs. You'll notice the vast majority of complaining about it has died down now that people are used to the new rules and the rhetoric being thrown around like 'it is now completely impossible to expand' didn't exactly turn out to match reality.

This has happened with every major patch, will continue to happen with every major patch, and we usually manage to find some valid feedback among all the yelling.

Coring costs too much. There, I said it. Saying it changes absolutely nothing. The issue is still hanging in the air, no one but you can do anything about it, and you clearly are not interested in changing it, so might as well save words for better occasion. Don't assume the problem is gone just because nobody tackles it. FYI, I don't think just decreasing the values will fix things, but something should be done.

 

[Ame]

We enjoy hard; support having easy options like France that you don't need to be awake to do and don't want things to be made too hard.

For some that is too much to ask and they pretend they can't understand it.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Yes, more or less.

Randomness is a necessary part of every strategy game, but the healthiest sort of randomness is giving players control of the dice -- not the outcome of the dice, but the dice themselves. If I roll a 0/0/1/0 general, I'm in control of the decision to spend another 50 MIL to roll again. If a siege is stalled at -56 after a year, I'm in control of the decision to spend more cycles rolling for siege progress, committing more artillery/generals/blockaders, or retreating (ditto with battle rolls). Even if I get hit with consecutive negative stab events, I'm in control of the decision to spend ADM to boost stab, or try playing at low stab.

But with monarch rolls...there's no control over the dice. They get rolled at the whim of the RNG, and they can completely alter the course of certain games. A system of random monarch stats isn't problematic, but a system that doesn't give the player any recourse to bad luck is.

Not every strategy game does or should allow rerolls, even at a cost -- sometimes, you get screwed, and part of the challenge of the game is living with it. I will concede, though, that most of those games uses weighted RNG rather than pure RNG, to ensure a more even spread over time.

 

[Promanco]

Am I the only one who loves this devs?

 

[keynes2.0]

Have you considered that the reason your progress was much slower was because you haven't gotten used to the new systems? Because yes, conquest is slowed down, but it isn't radically so. People have already done WCs with 1.12 and it just takes one glance at a 1600-ish screenshot of Teutonic Order owning half of Europe to realize that the potential is still very much there.

>Keeps pointing out in threads that 99% of players dont care about WC and play large tags
>Brings up WC and small tag blobbing when people point out that the cost benefit are utterly bullocks

Coring is not, has never been and will never be a balancing mechanic. You would need to change the costs so much as to make the game unplayable for it to be a balancing mechanic.

I am thrilled with the latest patch. The economic changes means that there is some degree of difficulty and interest in doing something besides vomiting on the map. But that doesn't mean the game is balanced. And that's not the worst thing in the world! Not everyone wants to play starcraft. I for one would be delighted if you guys ditched this silly "balance" notion of cores and expansion and just made it so that the game had a good level of difficulty at any reasonable size a nation might be.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

>Keeps pointing out in threads that 99% of players dont care about WC and play large tags
>Brings up WC and small tag blobbing when people point out that the cost benefit are utterly bullocks

Coring is not, has never been and will never be a balancing mechanic. You would need to change the costs so much as to make the game unplayable for it to be a balancing mechanic.

I am thrilled with the latest patch. The economic changes means that there is some degree of difficulty and interest in doing something besides vomiting on the map. But that doesn't mean the game is balanced. And that's not the worst thing in the world! Not everyone wants to play starcraft. I for one would be delighted if you guys ditched this silly "balance" notion of cores and expansion and just made it so that the game had a good level of difficulty at any reasonable size a nation might be.

I just want a gold plated unicorn that vomits rainbows, but I think your desire for the game to be 'a good level of difficulty at any reasonable size a nation might be' is SLIGHTLY less possible.

 

[keynes2.0]

Well I dont think it's asking all that much. Napoleon stomped his way through Europe and was still defeated in the end. The Ottomans conquered their way from Algeria to Iraq to Hungary but got beaten back. The game should be able to deal with historical empires like that within it's timeframe.

Oh but wait... Wiz doesn't care about any date after 1444.

 

[Poncy Git]

Am I the only one who loves this devs?

"These"

 

[LikeNothing]

On the contrary, I spend 99% of my time in this game playing Great Powers only ever complain the game mechanics are too easy (for the countries I play). I love Forts, I love Karma, I love the current Coring Costs.

The reason is simple: The Great Powers are more carefully designed than other nations in this game. Paradox has spent more effort designing the Ottomans compared to Karaman (as they should), for example. I'm simply enjoying the product I paid for. It's like eating the meaty part of the Big Mac I just bought, instead of just munching on the lettuce and throwing the rest of it away.

Mahayana Ming is most fun, btw. Don't care much about the other Buddhist countries, tbh.

 

[Hakuromatsu]

Not every strategy game does or should allow rerolls, even at a cost -- sometimes, you get screwed, and part of the challenge of the game is living with it. I will concede, though, that most of those games uses weighted RNG rather than pure RNG, to ensure a more even spread over time.

I don't necessarily mean literal rerolls -- I'm talking about an abstract design philosophy of giving players tools to deal with bad luck. Not controlling the outcomes of dice rolls themselves (RNG should have an impact on the game, as you say), but being able to control the impact of these "dice" through smart decision-making.

If the RNG deals me a 0-year old 1/1/2 and then kills my ruler, whatever -- stuff like that happened in history, and it could make for an interesting 30 years. But I not only have no control over that outcome, but no control over the *impact* of that outcome. I can't declare war. My MP gain is going to stall for 50 or so years so there aren't many buttons I can press apart from "Speed +". Rather than bad luck being an opportunity to test my skill, I'm left twiddling my thumbs.

I know the "thumb twiddling" imagery is heavily dramatized on this forum, but there's a lot of truth to it. The entire monarch system should be a proving ground for players, but instead it's just the house rolling dice without player interaction.

I would say to Wiz that his arguments in favor of monarchs and monarch power are solid, but my argument doesn't exclude the monarch power system. I love RNG; I hate RNG that I can't affect the impact of via good strategy.

 

[knoddy]

I don't necessarily mean literal rerolls -- I'm talking about an abstract design philosophy of giving players tools to deal with bad luck. Not controlling the outcomes of dice rolls themselves (RNG should have an impact on the game, as you say), but being able to control the impact of these "dice" through smart decision-making.

If the RNG deals me a 0-year old 1/1/2 and then kills my ruler, whatever -- stuff like that happened in history, and it could make for an interesting 30 years. But I not only have no control over that outcome, but no control over the *impact* of that outcome. I can't declare war. My MP gain is going to stall for 50 or so years so there aren't many buttons I can press apart from "Speed +". Rather than bad luck being an opportunity to test my skill, I'm left twiddling my thumbs.

I know the "thumb twiddling" imagery is heavily dramatized on this forum, but there's a lot of truth to it. The entire monarch system should be a proving ground for players, but instead it's just the house rolling dice without player interaction.

I would say to Wiz that his arguments in favor of monarchs and monarch power are solid, but my argument doesn't exclude the monarch power system. I love RNG; I hate RNG that I can't affect the impact of via good strategy.

its ok you can develop your provinces during your regency...oh no wait you need MP to do that!

 

[LRDK]

Don't worry, no one does

 

[DukeDayve]

Would just like to point out that I think EUIV is better now than it has ever been.

 

[Hakuromatsu]

Would just like to point out that I think EUIV is better now than it has ever been.

This is true though. I'm really excited for EU5 since they've been testing out a lot of novel mechanics in EU4 since 1.8.

 

[LRDK]

Have you considered that the reason your progress was much slower was because you haven't gotten used to the new systems? Because yes, conquest is slowed down, but it isn't radically so. People have already done WCs with 1.12 and it just takes one glance at a 1600-ish screenshot of Teutonic Order owning half of Europe to realize that the potential is still very much there.

Wiz, oh Wiz... You must be getting tired

 

[Ilightmaster]

I like when it's surprising and hard so i fight for it. And i'm not even American, if you know what i mean .