Is this how Johan and Wiz look like while adjusting AE for 1.8?

[Xara]

Unless you're playing on Hard, this is incorrect. Lucky nations get 25% less AE but for the most part the reason AI doesn't get coalitions is because it paces itself when expanding.

The problem with this is that it is a positive feedback loop.

They get less AE, so their pacing is less threatening.
Because they tend to pace slower, they get even less AE.
Because of both of those, they can expand and expand and expand without ever facing the consequences.
The settings they get fuel growth which feeds back into being able to easily further grow.
It's why France, without player intervention, simply grows and grows and grows apart from the rare 1 in a 1000 game where they suffer an early defeat by combined Burgundy/Castile/Whoever alliances.
Don't you think players get tired of being forced to manage France in every campaign? Just once I would like to see Burgundy, Castile, Aragon, England become the superpower threat in the west...
A player by contrast much manage AE every step along the way. Hell, you can get a coalition from a single province at game start.

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

I can't say whether that's fishy or not, since you haven't stated:

• 8AE towards whom
• for which four provinces
• taken from whom
• by whom
• with which provincial culture and religion
• with which ideas
• with which CB
• under which game settings

It was near the HRE, probably the Ottomans conquering provinces from Bohemia and/or Hungary; I don´t remember exactly because it was at least 1 month ago and I have a huge backlog of episodes to edit and upload to my channel. When I find it I will post a link here.

 

[Red John]

Hell, you can get a coalition from fabricating on a single province at game start.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Wizzington]

The problem with this is that it is a positive feedback loop.

They get less AE, so their pacing is less threatening.
Because they tend to pace slower, they get even less AE.
Because of both of those, they can expand and expand and expand without ever facing the consequences.
The settings they get fuel growth which feeds back into being able to easily further grow.
It's why France, without player intervention, simply grows and grows and grows apart from the rare 1 in a 1000 game where they suffer an early defeat by combined Burgundy/Castile/Whoever alliances.
Don't you think players get tired of being forced to manage France in every campaign? Just once I would like to see Burgundy, Castile, Aragon, England become the superpower threat in the west...
A player by contrast much manage AE every step along the way. Hell, you can get a coalition from a single province at game start.

A player who paces themselves will also avoid coalitions...

 

[TomosCaerllion]

Slow and steady wins the race, after all.

In the current version of the game, AE and coalitions aren't usually much of a problem outside of HRE.

The only coalitions that scare me nowadays is when I'm playing a OPM, because my size scares me and I end up panic-expanding.

In the end, this thread is premature. Give the Devs a chance before complaining rather than engaging in speculative complaints. In all likelihood, the changes will be for the better but will have one or two overlooked snags which will have to be patched out with a hotfix, and then it's back to happy families again.

 

[RafaMonteiro]

A player who paces themselves will also avoid coalitions...

Pace ourselfs shouldnt be a thing in a game where 90% of its gameplay comes from war. Everything else is just one-click-wait. I would love to grow as a diplomat country but diplomacy only comes to the game when you need someone else to scare you enemies or you need more brute force. All ''big'' things like tech, religion, trade and province development (buildings) are click-wait...

By pace ourselfs you are pretty much saying that i should not play the game for half of a campaing time... or maybe more...



This is not CIv where you can tech focus, culture focus or develop so much that you can buy your way to victory, here is just about conquest/grow.. and the vassal system are way too slow and limited. There is no good use for vassal or diplomacy if not to put someone between you and the AI to avoid border friction or get more units to.. guess what.. war



I would love to work more in my arguments but im not at home, maybe later..

 

[Beefpiston]

You're wrong on both counts here, sorry.

I have documented proof that the AI stole my underwear and made me late for work yesterday. Are you going to deny that too?? Have you no shame??

 

[Wizzington]

Pace ourselfs shouldnt be a thing in a game where 90% of its gameplay comes from war. Everything else is just one-click-wait. I would love to grow as a diplomat country but diplomacy only comes to the game when you need someone else to scare you enemies or you need more brute force. All ''big'' things like tech, religion, trade and province development (buildings) are click-wait...

By pace ourselfs you are pretty much saying that i should not play the game for half of a campaing time... or maybe more...

What I'm saying is that it's not exactly unfair that AI does not get coalitions if the reason it doesn't get coalitions is because it expands slower. Lucky nations do get an advantage there, but even that advantage isn't terribly large.

I have documented proof that the AI stole my underwear and made me late for work yesterday. Are you going to deny that too?? Have you no shame??

WAD

 

[AurochsAway]

What I'm saying is that it's not exactly unfair that AI does not get coalitions if the reason it doesn't get coalitions is because it expands slower. Lucky nations do get an advantage there, but even that advantage isn't terribly large.

Come 1.8, they'll be able to get 33% more base tax than you for the same AE. That seems pretty large.

 

[Golladan]

Unless you're playing on Hard, this is incorrect. Lucky nations get 25% less AE but for the most part the reason AI doesn't get coalitions is because it paces itself when expanding.

So was this issue that was brought up earlier this year fixed? Or it didn't exist?

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...g-fishy...&p=17088984&viewfull=1#post17088984

 

[Wizzington]

So was this issue that was brought up earlier this year fixed? Or it didn't exist?

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...g-fishy...&p=17088984&viewfull=1#post17088984

Used to be the AE bonus for lucky was (incorrectly) applied to all AIs, it was fixed a number of patches ago.

 

[Golladan]

Used to be the AE bonus for lucky was (incorrectly) applied to all AIs, it was fixed a number of patches ago.

Good to hear

 

[Osman Pasha]

A player who paces themselves will also avoid coalitions...

I think you need a complete overhaul of the current coalition system...

 

[Osman Pasha]

Slow and steady wins the race, after all.

In the current version of the game, AE and coalitions aren't usually much of a problem outside of HRE.

The only coalitions that scare me nowadays is when I'm playing a OPM, because my size scares me and I end up panic-expanding.

In the end, this thread is premature. Give the Devs a chance before complaining rather than engaging in speculative complaints. In all likelihood, the changes will be for the better but will have one or two overlooked snags which will have to be patched out with a hotfix, and then it's back to happy families again.

The only thing I hate about coalitions is that you cannot sign separate peaces with coalition members, I don't understand why, its not even historical.

 

[Casus_Belli]

Why not just get rid of this -25%? Then, because the AI paces itself, it will still not get coalitions and people cans top complaining?

 

[Duruial]

I have actually seen a large number of coalitions form in my current game against AI nations, both lucky nations and unlucky (or normal nations). Of course, I am playing in the HRE where a neighbor only has to do a little to get a coalition. I have had a couple form against me, but it has been rare this game because I have expanded slower than normal (and targeted enemies that no one cares about). The one time I got a massive coalition I was like 'Yeah, I deserved that, that was super aggressive what I just did. I expected it, so I did it at a point where I knew I could sit back for a bit in peace and let the AE burn off.

So, maybe it is my own confirmation bias at play here, but I think that everything Wiz has said is correct. AI gets coalitions if they expand quickly, like in my current game, and if you pace your expansion you won't get them either. Just make sure that when you make a move that you /know/ is going to get everyone after you, that you are ready for it.

 

[TheBromgrev]

Pace ourselfs shouldnt be a thing in a game where 90% of its gameplay comes from war. Everything else is just one-click-wait. I would love to grow as a diplomat country but diplomacy only comes to the game when you need someone else to scare you enemies or you need more brute force. All ''big'' things like tech, religion, trade and province development (buildings) are click-wait...

By pace ourselfs you are pretty much saying that i should not play the game for half of a campaing time... or maybe more...



This is not CIv where you can tech focus, culture focus or develop so much that you can buy your way to victory, here is just about conquest/grow.. and the vassal system are way too slow and limited. There is no good use for vassal or diplomacy if not to put someone between you and the AI to avoid border friction or get more units to.. guess what.. war



I would love to work more in my arguments but im not at home, maybe later..

So, just because you personally lack any patience it's the game's fault that it was designed to punish countries (AI or player) that expand too quickly in an effort to retain some bit of plausibility?

 

[DicRoNero]

Come 1.8, they'll be able to get 33% more base tax than you for the same AE. That seems pretty large.

WRONG. It makes zero sense to compare things before other modifiers kick in, such as prestige and ideas. Assuming both parties have just +100 prestige, the lucky AI conquers (90)/(90-25) = 38% more, and if you add in another 10% ( i.e. from influence) it becomes a whopping 80/55 = 45% discrepancy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually what I said was the assumption that taking Sweden under the new AE system (with AE scaled to BT) would result in more AE than before (when it was not scaled) was incorrect. Please don't attribute your assumptions as quotes from me, it misinforms people.

We wouldn't want that, now would we? It would just be AWFUL if dev-stated material such patch notes actively mislead players by posting demonstrably false changes/mechanics, or neglecting to mention extreme mechanics overhauls .

Granted, it's better if others don't misquote devs all the same!

What I'm saying is that it's not exactly unfair that AI does not get coalitions if the reason it doesn't get coalitions is because it expands slower. Lucky nations do get an advantage there, but even that advantage isn't terribly large.

You need 2 idea groups finished and a policy just to match it. Is that just a statement of low-value for -AE impact :/?

 

[PeterCorless]

WAD

A personal note to Wiz,

This small reply made me laugh!

For all the grief that we give you when things get changed, for all the harsh statements made on the forums, I am so very glad you keep your sense of humor through all the uproar and tumult.