• 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.

Imperator Dev Diary - 8/26/19

Greetings all!

Today I’m joined by @Trin Tragula who will bring you up to date on some of the rebalancing and tweaking that has taken place in the Cicero update, after I’ve explained a little about the changes we’ve made to the food and pop systems. These changes are not currently live on the open beta, so those of you who have kindly opted in to the beta to help us out, will have some new information to read.

It has been rightly pointed out that the way that starvation applies in the current beta iteration results in some undesirable results. To solve this, starvation will no longer be applied at a flat rate, which caused Settlements to dwindle away when a large city is present in a Province.

Instead, provinces which run out of food will apply a -75% total multiplier to the population capacity of all Province territories. Overpopulation will now yield a small (-0.03%) population growth malus for every pop over the threshold, alongside the happiness penalties previously implemented. This solves a number of issues we had when playing with Cicero, and feels like a much more organic solution to starvation and overpopulation. Territories that exceed their population capacity will begin to slowly grow fewer pops, organically reaching a stable population point, and starvation will no longer punish Settlements unduly.

In addition to these food changes, we’ve taken a pass over the initial setup of the territory map, adding food resources to a few Provinces that were lacking access to a renewable food source, and removed a series of buildings that were erroneously lurking in territories of the wrong category.

A seemingly minor, but important change coming to population, is in the way that ratios are calculated. It was previously possible to raise the desired ratio of a pop-type to well above 100%, and depending on the order (from left to right) in which it appeared, would be given precedence over other types. In an effort to solve this problem, and provide a better baseline with which to balance setups, we’ve elected to normalise pop ratios across the board.

FwYxD3w0w6EjkKiZ9uJQyJyIK35d6m5fepadV62xiYmV8GG7dK4mpMGeaFGtdTb64NqTu8FIPoivQGCHXOd5Ts4TNmCL0Gp2ht0RTZxSvVnXRAGETV2xEW1dPbzhuWeSWUwpjWPd



In practical terms, this means that a territory which in the old system had 20% Desired Citizens and 10% Desired Freemen, would now have 66.6% Desired Citizens, and 33.3% Desired Freemen.

This system is much easier to balance around, and should never result in a situation where it becomes impossible to gain any pops of a specific type in a territory.

Some valuable feedback regarding the cost of founding a city has been given and received, and we’ve changed the cost from a scaled gold cost, to a flat gold cost. This seems logical, as the benefit from a city does not scale linearly with national income, as a scaling cost would imply.


Now I shall hand over to @Trin Tragula , to explain some of the balance changes we’ve made, in the Cicero update!


/Arheo


Hello and welcome to this second part of today’s Dev Diary. Here I will show some of the changes that Cicero brings on the balancing side. One of the greater benefits of an open beta is that we have been able to change things based on the feedback players provide as they try out features. Some of this you will already be aware of if you have been playing the open beta, some of it will be new even if you have.


Military Traditions:

AQS3vnfTkgyAPw0GV9oDs-WvTIFcO-zkU_5HM1DMjRH58CRVucZbU5ROXj8iWuGKNmry1nfe3DPUes8HyQWgFoEQFR5-oyqq3VtYivz1-j3bfwdLSTbO41dcWJJCXLT7GNdHm0Zl


Traditions are in many ways the main thing that differentiates countries in various parts of the map, and in some cases they also unlock things that you cannot otherwise make use of. As such there will likely always be many opinions on them and their relative balance.

Offense, Defence and Discipline: Something that has been frequently mentioned by the community is the fact that traditions have not always seen to the full picture when it comes to the use of unit specific Offense, Defence and Discipline modifiers. As of the Cicero Update almost all such modifiers from traditions have been changed. Some have increased, others have decreased and in many cases a Discipline bonus has been turned into one for Offense or Defence.

Levantine Traditions: When traditions were originally conceived the intention was always that Egypt make use of the Levantine set. This later changed to make the successor kingdoms all use the same (Greek) Tradition set. In the name of variety Cicero has brought the Levantine set back to Egypt, while also reshuffling it a bit to make the middle path able to unlock Mega Polyremes. The Legacy of the Builders tradition will now also provide extra building slots in cities.

‘Barbarian’ Traditions: Perhaps our most wide reaching set, that of the Barbarian Traditions, have seen an increase in bonuses related to Light Infantry and Chariots.


Military Units:

A fair bit of the feedback we have been getting during the open beta has related to unit type balance. In some ways the new food system has meant that units with a higher weight are more valuable now, and to some degree this feedback has just related to general concerns present since 1.1 or before.


Elephants:
While elephants themselves have not been changed their general viability has increased with the introduction of food. Having a healthy food storage, and taking control of the enemy food storage in offensive warfare, have made these giant beasts of the battlefield a much more viable option in many cases.

Horse Archers & Light Cavalry:
The effectiveness of flanking means that both Horse Archers and Light Cavalry are very useful, more so than is warranted by their cost and availability. As of the Cicero patch we have increased the attrition weight of both, reflecting the great need for food of horses. Mounted archers will now also take extra morale damage and therefore retreat more quickly from the field of battle if they are opposed, much like archers do when deployed as skirmishers.

Chariots:
Chariots are a tricky unit type balance wise since they were largely outdated in many ways by the start of our game, yet they were still in frequent use in some societies. As of the Cicero patch Chariots are cheaper to recruit (from a cost of 8 to 6) and traditions that boost them have been further increased.

Heavy Cavalry:
While expensive Heavy Cavalry was a central part of a number of prominent armies in this timeline. Cicero patch increases the viability of Heavy Cavalry by reducing their price to 10 (this is further reduced by Military Traditions in many cases).

Mega Polyremes & Octeres:
The idea of the Heavy ship class was always that its main use would be the special abilities that they have access to, that allow them to influence land warfare and help more directly with naval invasions than other types. This is why their maneuverability is low enough that they can only target a ship directly in front of them, but even given that these ships have tended to perform very well against other ship types. More so than intended, even given their high cost.

For this reason both Mega-Polyremes and Octeres have now lost their greater ability to absorb strength damage, making them slightly less useful in ship to ship encounters.


National Ideas:

Even if the need to match your national idea to your government type remains in Cicero the removal of monarch power has made it more important that national ideas can compete with each other for utility.

The bonuses have therefore been revisited, both with an eye on their value and to adopt them to our new game mechanics such as food or conversion.

Central Urban Spaces:
Province loyalty gain increased from 3% to 5% to make the idea more worthwhile.

City Planning:
With the introduction of cities a national idea that gave more building slots in only cities turned out to be of limited use. Instead this idea now gives a general increase in Population Capacity.

Standard Construction:
With buildings playing a larger role in the game, and with the more expensive buildings in settlements this idea has grown more useful. It will remains o but the discount for buildings have been decreased from 20% to 15%.

Grain Stockpile:
Instead of increasing population growth directly this idea will now increase Food output as well as the food capacity in every Province in your empire.

Institutional Proselytism:
This idea will now increase population conversion speed in your nation.

Siege Training:
In order to make this idea more worthwhile the bonus to Siege Ability is now 15%.


That was all for today. It is however by no means the only tweaks coming to the Cicero update! We will cover more changes, as well as more of the general features of the Cicero Update next week. :)
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Before you had 10% extra citizens and 20% extra freeman, that ment 30% boost in total.

They have put this to a scale of 100%, so to make it match 10% = 33.3% and 20% = 66.7%.
I want to see how this will work with buildings, apparently a building that increases 4% the desired pop ratio will no longer increase by 4% but 4% of the % desired pop ratio present in the city.
 
I want to see how this will work with buildings, apparently a building that increases 4% the desired pop ratio will no longer increase by 4% but 4% of the % desired pop ratio present in the city.
Buildings will likely add weight and you can see how I think the formula will be in a previous post. Basically buildings will work like marketplaces in EUIV and add weight for their pop type so a library could add +5 weight to citizens with will increase their ratio but at diminishing returns the more you build.
 
Buildings will likely add weight and you can see how I think the formula will be in a previous post. Basically buildings will work like marketplaces in EUIV and add weight for their pop type so a library could add +5 weight to citizens with will increase their ratio but at diminishing returns the more you build.
Intriguing, I can't wait to test this out.
Dear devs, any ETA for the next beta update?
 
Instead, provinces which run out of food will apply a -75% total multiplier to the population capacity of all Province territories. Overpopulation will now yield a small (-0.03%) population growth malus for every pop over the threshold, alongside the happiness penalties previously implemented.
So to the end game is to have overpopulated unhappy cities? Is it possible that you'll run out of population capacity for pops? Might you have to expand into wasteland just to keep your pops from being an unhappy overpopulated mess?
 
So to the end game is to have overpopulated unhappy cities? Is it possible that you'll run out of population capacity for pops? Might you have to expand into wasteland just to keep your pops from being an unhappy overpopulated mess?
Aqueducts increase population capacity so you can build those if you need to.

I only see one space to show outgoing migrations, does this mean that only 1 pop can emigrate out of a territory now?
Thats how it has always been. One pop can mirgate away but a territory can have several immigrants.
 
I think the potential strength of unmodded HC is late game with dedicated road networks and food bufferig for attrition. You can deploy high concentration of HC on and near your border, move them faster and train them much faster than elefants.

the changes to LC/HA in this dd means the supply differance between HC and LC will be notably smaller, closing the gap a bit in terms of usefulness on enemy lands - perhaps you’re right that HC will still be too nieche though, idk.

In other news, camels are now probably the most supply-efficient flanker?
Then you just build 30 stacks of elephants and force march them in to battles. What does HC do taht's better than that? 60 HC or 30 elephants, the 30 elephants are WAY superior. Not to mention if your opponent has 30 elephants trying to do the same thing as your 60 HC, your HC will take like 5:1 casualties.
 
Then you just build 30 stacks of elephants and force march them in to battles. What does HC do taht's better than that? 60 HC or 30 elephants, the 30 elephants are WAY superior. Not to mention if your opponent has 30 elephants trying to do the same thing as your 60 HC, your HC will take like 5:1 casualties.
Elephants are alot more expensive than HC but yes they are pretty strong and don't really have any good counter since they only suffer 50% manpower loss. Some suggestions have been to make light infantry an elephant counter which have basis in reality and having the weakest unit be the counter to the strongest one mean that massive elephant spam may be quite limited in use.
 
Finally no more mass enslavement of 2/3 of your population within the first 5 years of game start, followed by no slaves at all as soon as you centralize your pops to megacities :)

Those changes are overall great!

Besides the heavy cav one. The problem is, and was never its gold cost, but rather the fact that Elephants simply outclass it as a high-end unit, which HC should be, much more so than heavy infantry, however they are now equally as expensive. In my opinion, Heavy Cavalry should cost more not less than it did. It simply needed its own niche to be viable. In other words - it needs to be better than elephants in at least something.

The approach I would go with would be to make elephants take and deal more morale damage and lower their strength damage reduction a bit, so that they're shock units as they were historically, dealing potentially massive damage but also routing quickly. To differentiate between the two, Heavy cav could get some morale and strength damage resistance, so it would be able to fight for longer, and it could also get some increased morale damage dealt, because cavalry charges, though it shouldn't be as big a bonus as elephants. This could justify keeping them high cost units without making them unviable. I also feel that traditions for mid-high end units should generally focus on their effectiveness on the battlefield, rather than cost.

There could also be constraints that limit the availability of unit recruitment depending on the amount of goods available, so that one cannot simply spam elephants or cavalry without end, but that would require a trade goods overhaul in the first place. Another good way to differentiate units would be to make each unit's combat performance different depending on terrain. Once, again, I just feel that each unit should have its niche, and that they should feel as different from one another as possible, and the current going trend appears to be to equalize their cost and effectiveness instead, which I believe simply isn't the optimal approach.
 
No, the new system will likely work with weights such as a city may have 10-10-10 weight for citizens-freemen-slaves which would give an ideal ratio of 33% each. Now you may change the weight to 10-20-20 which would give 20% ideal citizens and 40% ideal freemen and slaves.

The formula for a pop's ratio would be: Its weight/(sum of all pops weights)

If it works this way (which is plausible and logical) then Arheo's post is wrong.
 
You’re not wrong, its just that it takes helma time to train 60 elephants as compared to HC, and they move 33% slower.

A 30 elefant stack is better when you have it, where you have it, but it can be a tall order to have that in reach of each possible border.

... btw as i understand it, food will only buffer for attrition in your own lands, so 30 force march elefant stacks will still suffer hella attrition if crossing a border to attack. HC can arguably skirt over the border temporarily in a more effective way, due to speed and lower supply.
 
If it works this way (which is plausible and logical) then Arheo's post is wrong.
No he is not wrong, his example was one in which slaves had 0% weight or rather it was about the relative difference between citizens and freemen would be the same as before but done in another way. In his example citizens had 10% and freemen 20% and it is implemented that the other pops was at 0% or simply ignored so we only look at the relative between citizens and freemen. With the new system the relative ratio between freemen and citizens would be 33% and 67% either total if the other pops had 0% or relative between just freemen and citizens.

... btw as i understand it, food will only buffer for attrition in your own lands, so 30 force march elefant stacks will still suffer hella attrition if crossing a border to attack. HC can arguably skirt over the border temporarily in a more effective way, due to speed and lower supply.
Attrition is still capped at 5% normaly, the elephant stack will hit the attrition alot quicker but massive armies will hit it quickly no matter what.

Aquaduct spamming is horrible gameplay though.
It was granery spaming before and aqueducts is amongst the most realisitic buildings in the game in terms of what it actually do. Spamming training camps or tax offices give far more unrealistic results with each training camp increase productivity of all manpower producing pops which have lead to exponentional gains with large cities.
 
These upcoming changes look great. Love the ones in the beta so far. I've been playing every chance i get. Im seriously dying for the next beta update/patch. Since there wasnt one last week, you guys releasing one this week?
 
The fix to the ratio system sounds neat, though having to guess exactly how it worked from the snippet is a little weird (flat ratios are now weighted against 100). I'm guessing that's because you guys don't even really have the details ironed out yourself.

The fix to settlement starvation is so simple I'm almost surprised I didn't realize it lol. I'm guess this is because I forgot that Overpopulation is based on number of pops versus percentage of pop. AKA a 4 pop settlement reduced to 1 will suffer way less penalties than a 60 reduced to a 40. Simple.

I'm not sure if the matter of Food is really settled though...Late game starvation sounds like it may be as big of an issue still. Will you have a 'don't trade surplus food if it means starvation' for automation? That's what makes the current system so annoying at least.
 
OH something I Wanted to say but didn't want to make a thread of it's own on:

Please make every single debt event remove 5 stability. It's a little too easy right now to just debt farm.