No DD today + 1.33 Open Beta feedback update

  • 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.
On the topic of idea groups, one of the pulse events for Innovative is a stab hit due to "spreading of humanist ideas". Maybe it would be a better idea to move this event over to Humanism.

It seems unfair that a much stronger idea group like Humanism has no stab hit event, while a weaker group like Innovative gets the extra insult to injury of a stab hit, in which the text even attributes to humanism.
Not a bad suggestions, will take a look on it for 1.34.
I hope something has been done to make Innovative and Espionage more attractive. Although at the moment I'm not sure what could persuade me to choose them.

More powerful policies for Innovative would be nice. The theme of creativity resulting in powerful synergies with all of your other idea groups would be a very interesting twist to the usual method of measuring an idea group by just its ideas.
We've made a few changes for Espionage ideas, too... Although the idea group still looks a bit lackluster, TBH.

Still remembering the old times when picking Innovative as first Ideas group was a no-brainer. Will also take a look on balancing it a bit for 1.34, as said before.
I was wondering, since you guys are tweaking the AI a bit, could you guys maybe tweak where the AI prioritises colonisation? I mostly see Portugal taking Mexico the Caribbean, Peru and La Plata, while Spain is often the one who takes Brazil. Perhaps if you could make the AI prioritise more based off of the mission trees, if you don't want to just railroad them for colonising certain regions.

Also, since you are tweaking the placement of the PU Portugal mission in the Spanish tree, could perhaps also please have a look at these suggestions:


And finally, are you guys planning on implementing a way to merge colonial nations in the same region, say after integrating/inheriting a PU? Perhaps the PU subject's CNs could revert to the overlord first, like in annexation and then automatically revert to the CN subject as usual. Alternatively this could be by event? But I think the formed is better if the CN is spilling into another region and maybe even easier to implement.

P.S. it would also be nice if CNs would prioritise colonisation in their own regions, you know, clean borders and all
There is a lot of things that could be improved regarding Colonial gameplay, yes, including AI, and a lot of QoL. We'd like to rework it at some point, although it's up to be decided when we'd have enough development time for it.
Hi there.

Do you plan to decrease (or is some occasions remove) penalty to professionalism after recruitment of mercenary unit ? As I was playing as Hungary yesterday and I realised that black army (as a mercenary unit) is in reality described as one of the first professional/permanent armies in Europe (at its peak around 20 000 men). And first units of permanent army of Habsburg empire (after end of 30 years war) were mercenary units, which were kept in service even after war ended. Mercenary units (not all of them of course) were definitively more disciplined (if payed well enough) and skilled than any contemporary levies and therefore it is weird to see recruiting one reduce professionalism.

Maybe at least reduce "damage" to professionalism after recruiting mercenary unit to 1-2 depending on size of unit ?
Not at this moment. Maybe you could open a thread in the Suggestions subforum, as it's an interesting topic to be discussed by the community.
@Noble Steel @Pavía
Did either of ye read my post properly? I was referring to wars that one fights without calling in any allies.
Immediately being hit with call for peace on 100% ing them is BS.
I still don't think it's an issue, being honest, but I will share the issue with other devs, to take a look upon it.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
@Noble Steel @Pavía
Did either of ye read my post properly? I was referring to wars that one fights without calling in any allies.
Immediately being hit with call for peace on 100% ing them is BS.
They did seem to have misunderstood you yes.
As for what is happening: They made the AI able to use the Unconditional Surrender option, which is exactly designed to stop an attacker from not peacing out a won war just to devastate their victim more. It does that by giving the enemy 100% warscore, giving them calls for peace, and exiling your armies so they can't be killed off.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
We've made a few changes for Espionage ideas, too... Although the idea group still looks a bit lackluster, TBH.

I think if you ever want to make espionage not worthless, then the key target goal should be to change the game enough that players cannot simply completely ignore enemy spy networks against them with no consequences.

So long as players don't care about and suffer no serious consequences for low spy defense, enemy networks, etc., espionage will never be relevant to anything. Because the mechanic it is built around is not really relevant to anything.

Thus, I would be looking to add something which severely threatens countries allowing themselves to be heavily compromised by enemy spying.

It's not severe, but hiding the info in the ledger might be a start.
 
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
They made the AI able to use the Unconditional Surrender option, which is exactly designed to stop an attacker from not peacing out a won war just to devastate their victim more

Which makes the new mass-devastation meta sieging down the enemy capital until it reaches positive surrender chance, then shrinking the siege army enough to stop progress, and continuing once you're ready to peace out. Maybe AI should also surrender once there are no more armies nor forts (provinces?) not under siege left on its own side?
 
On the topic of idea groups, one of the pulse events for Innovative is a stab hit due to "spreading of humanist ideas". Maybe it would be a better idea to move this event over to Humanism.

It seems unfair that a much stronger idea group like Humanism has no stab hit event, while a weaker group like Innovative gets the extra insult to injury of a stab hit, in which the text even attributes to humanism.
I think the more reasonable approach would be to buff Innovative ideas, and then make having Humanist ideas disable that event. Innovative and Humanist ideas having synergy also makes thematic sense.

Not a bad suggestions, will take a look on it for 1.34.

We've made a few changes for Espionage ideas, too... Although the idea group still looks a bit lackluster, TBH.

Still remembering the old times when picking Innovative as first Ideas group was a no-brainer. Will also take a look on balancing it a bit for 1.34, as said before.
It would be nice for idea groups like these to get buffs specifically targeting their niches in gameplay and theme. Like giving Innovative modifier(s) that scale with high province development, and letting Espionage make your spy actions have more impact by fx making claimed provinces cost less warscore/AE/overextension or something.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
We've made a few changes for Espionage ideas, too... Although the idea group still looks a bit lackluster, TBH.

Here are some ideas that might make espionage more relevant:

Enable (only!) espionage to use spy network to damage target country's diplomatic reputation. Say 50% spy network for -2 dip rep which decays over 5 years, and stackable so that a country which doesn't defend itself can be hit repeatedly.

Let espionage increase favor rate gain (i.e. blackmail and infiltrating positions of power).

Let espionage use spy network to steal money (like involuntary subsidies).
 
They did seem to have misunderstood you yes.
As for what is happening: They made the AI able to use the Unconditional Surrender option, which is exactly designed to stop an attacker from not peacing out a won war just to devastate their victim more. It does that by giving the enemy 100% warscore, giving them calls for peace, and exiling your armies so they can't be killed off.
My understanding is that is the design change was to address the exploit showcased here:

From a practical perspective, now it means that when I'm not ready to peace somebody out I need to micromanage such that I never get to 100% WS until I'm ready to make peace as otherwise I'll get a tonne of WE. So I'll either place a sub 1k regiment on a province or let the siege progress on a fort just tick up to 0% and then move some troops off it so that progress pauses. It's just needless micro/tedium but whatever :rolleyes:
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You're absolutely right El Cid, so I'll look at closing that loophole too for 1.34. Why would the enemy want the war to be prolonged just to suit you? :)
 
  • 8Haha
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
After another game session of EU4 after enacting reform Proclaim Erbkaisertum a religious peace is declared, which does not take into consideration real religious status of the empire - in my gameplay only 1 (!) member of the HRE was of protestant religion with the rest being catholic. Maybe reform Proclaim Erbkaisertum could check ammount of development controlled by reformed, protestant, catholic, hussite, orthodox before declaring
1.religious peace (if neither religion controlls majority of development in the HRE)
2.dominance of reformed, protestant, catholic, hussite, orthodox religion if either of those religions control at least 75% percent of HRE development.
 
I think if you ever want to make espionage not worthless, then the key target goal should be to change the game enough that players cannot simply completely ignore enemy spy networks against them with no consequences.

So long as players don't care about and suffer no serious consequences for low spy defense, enemy networks, etc., espionage will never be relevant to anything. Because the mechanic it is built around is not really relevant to anything.

Thus, I would be looking to add something which severely threatens countries allowing themselves to be heavily compromised by enemy spying.

It's not severe, but hiding the info in the ledger might be a start.
I would be on board with that change only if how spy networks and/or spy defense work is changed around to a monetary cost instead of tying up a diplomat. Otherwise good luck defending against dozens of AI which use their special for the player diplomat to constantly spy on you from the other side of the world just because they are threatened/hostile with 2-3 diplomats of your own.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Here are some ideas that might make espionage more relevant:
Unfortunately:

Active counterintelligence (rather than just buying spy defence modifiers) costs dollars, not just ducats, mana, or diplomat-days.

and also:

Sabotage actions in SP are largely worthless to the player (because you never have sufficiently few targets to really get good use out of them) outside the early game, but tend to remain an insufferably annoying harassment mechanism all game long in the hands of multiple AIs.

(I remember the days when an AI country taking Espionage ideas was grounds to immediately promote it to the top of your "terminate with extreme prejudice" list. We're not in that space any more, thankfully, but sabotage actions remain a tedious harassment mechanic.)
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I would be on board with that change only if how spy networks and/or spy defense work is changed around to a monetary cost instead of tying up a diplomat. Otherwise good luck defending against dozens of AI which use their special for the player diplomat to constantly spy on you from the other side of the world just because they are threatened/hostile with 2-3 diplomats of your own.
The AI's extra diplomat is not really "for the player", although I believe that was originally claimed by a dev on the forum a long time ago. It is really (at least nowadays) reserved for non-continuous actions, with no regard for who's AI or human.
For example, if a human would have 3 diplomats, the AI will have 4, of which it will try to use 3 for continuous actions such as "improve relations" and "build spy network", but reserve the fourth one for requesting alliances, declaring wars, etc.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
Let me preface this by saying that I’m very positive to almost all the changes in this patch, but since they are clear/outright improvements I don’t feel the need to debate them much.

However, there’s one change that I feel has a significant negative impact on the game. That change is the cannon backrow change where they retreat at zero morale.


Some starting points to work from:
Cannons now lose morale at the same rate as infantry, this means that the cannon backline typically will retreat around the same time as the infantry in front. This means that they suffer minimal (in my tests, literally zero for both sides) casualties.

Cannons are now (if they weren’t already) incredibly strong, engaging with only infantry and no artillery support is after certain tech levels simply throwing manpower and warscore away.

The conclusion to the above becomes that your fighting stacks should consist of equal numbers of infantry and artillery (since if they consist of more infantry, the last infantry regiments end up fighting without artillery, being essentially fodder/wasted manpower)


Onto the first issue:
Now, since your infantry receives the brunt of the casualties (due to the artillery being ready to retreat/already retreating once the infantry breaks), and you want to maintain the ‘magical’ 50/50 ratio, you’ll want infantry to reinforce your stack every time you consolidate an army. For any efficient warfare, especially offensively (due to slower reinforce speed), you likely want to consolidate after almost every fight. This means that you’ll want some pure infantry stacks ‘standing by’ (not engaging, as you risk them suffering heavy casualties for little gain) and after every consolidation reorganize your ‘fighting’ stacks to once again be 50/50 inf and artillery. This is a huge problem, having to reorganize every fighting stack to 50/50 after battle feels incredibly clunky/like a huge chore even in single player with pauses. In multiplayer I imagine it’ll be outright dreadful.


Second issue:
This issue is mainly relevant for multiplayer, but I think it’s fair to at least mention regardless. Since all your stacks anywhere near the frontline (your reinforcing infantry stacks can be quite far back, as they merely need to be present after the battle) are 50/50 inf and artillery that (with the forcelimit general change) likely has a general you no longer have any ‘vulnerable’ stacks. The most interesting part of multiplayer warfare is to in some try way force a bad fight for your opponents, typically this is accomplished by catching out stacks without artillery/general support and in ideal cases wiping them (forcing negative terrain modifiers) before reinforcements arrive.

This entire aspect of multiplayer warfare simply goes out of the window with this change, as there simply aren’t any vulnerable stacks to catch. The same can be said regarding reinforcements, timing them/slowing down reinforcements barely matters since the reinforcement stacks will fight at full strength on their own (cannon backline+general) not requiring the support of other stacks. Your actual decisions while controlling your units will hence be largely irrelevant/of very diminished impact.


Available solutions:
1. Making the backline artillery take less morale damage by a certain percentage, as has been suggested by Gnivom, alleviates both issues but doesn’t solve in particular the first issue (the second also persists to some extent). You will still be (assuming that you want to win your battles) greatly incentivized to reorganize your entire army after every consolidation, just to a different inf to cannon ratio.

2. Another solution would be to simply have artillery take casualties when they take morale damage. This would solve the first issue, but the second would remain. It’d also change artillery cost and performance by a huge amount, opening up other potential issues.

3. Simply don’t make cannons retreat when their morale hits zero. This is how it works on live, and I struggle to see the disadvantages. The main reason for the proposed change seems to be that it’s ‘wrong’ to get the full benefit of these strong cannons while simply employing one stack per battle. I personally find this argument to be quite weak as running cannon stacks in battle is just mandatory in either scenario, and this fact doesn’t change because you have more of them. It should also be noted that the cannons regardless don’t perform in a vacuum, you still need infantry to support them to bring out their power, meaning that the ‘alone’ cannon stack isn’t just functioning on its own, it requires support.


Possible advantages of the beta artillery change:
As mentioned above I’ve struggled to find the advantages of this change, but here are the ones I can find. Not having the possibility of vulnerable stacks being ‘caught out’ is a potential advantage from beginner to mp perspectives, but any beginner-friendliness accomplished by this is to me greatly outweighed by the clunkiness/complexity having to reorganize your stacks after every battle. I also think the economic impact (bigger % of artillery means bigger army costs) can be positive, since ducats can be a bit too readily available in the later stages of the game. However, this result could just as easily be accomplished by simply increasing the maintenance scaling with tech slightly, so it doesn’t really justify the artillery change if it doesn’t bring other additional benefits. My conclusion is that these pros don't come close to outweighing the negative aspects.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
To be fair it's a bit more odd that in the vast majority of games the HRE is extremely dynamic, whereas "stagnant" or "slow decline" is a fairly good description of the HRE's trajectory in real life.
Pretty true, but it is a game after all, kinda expect stuff to happen
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Active counterintelligence (rather than just buying spy defence modifiers) costs dollars, not just ducats, mana, or diplomat-days.
The devs have made changes to get around this in the past, and they can do it again if necessary.

Sabotage actions in SP are largely worthless to the player (because you never have sufficiently few targets to really get good use out of them) outside the early game, but tend to remain an insufferably annoying harassment mechanism all game long in the hands of multiple AIs.

(I remember the days when an AI country taking Espionage ideas was grounds to immediately promote it to the top of your "terminate with extreme prejudice" list. We're not in that space any more, thankfully, but sabotage actions remain a tedious harassment mechanic.)
Yet this is what spying is about in this game, for better or worse.

Espionage isn't going to make your army more powerful, nor will it enhance your economy, nor grow your colonies. The only thing it can really offer are ways to interfere with other nations. And in EU4, all diplomacy is ultimately hostile, so these interventions will be hostile as well. Harassment is annoying, yes. But that is point of harassment, after all. Spying is offensive in nature.

There's no saving Espionage without making it do better the only thing it can do, frankly. The only alternatives are to either let Espionage languish as a worthless idea group or else to completely abolish it and replace it with a brand new idea group centered around something else. The latter may not actually be a bad idea, but that's an entirely different discussion.
 
Let me preface this by saying that I’m very positive to almost all the changes in this patch, but since they are clear/outright improvements I don’t feel the need to debate them much.

However, there’s one change that I feel has a significant negative impact on the game. That change is the cannon backrow change where they retreat at zero morale.


Some starting points to work from:
Cannons now lose morale at the same rate as infantry, this means that the cannon backline typically will retreat around the same time as the infantry in front. This means that they suffer minimal (in my tests, literally zero for both sides) casualties.

Cannons are now (if they weren’t already) incredibly strong, engaging with only infantry and no artillery support is after certain tech levels simply throwing manpower and warscore away.

The conclusion to the above becomes that your fighting stacks should consist of equal numbers of infantry and artillery (since if they consist of more infantry, the last infantry regiments end up fighting without artillery, being essentially fodder/wasted manpower)


Onto the first issue:
Now, since your infantry receives the brunt of the casualties (due to the artillery being ready to retreat/already retreating once the infantry breaks), and you want to maintain the ‘magical’ 50/50 ratio, you’ll want infantry to reinforce your stack every time you consolidate an army. For any efficient warfare, especially offensively (due to slower reinforce speed), you likely want to consolidate after almost every fight. This means that you’ll want some pure infantry stacks ‘standing by’ (not engaging, as you risk them suffering heavy casualties for little gain) and after every consolidation reorganize your ‘fighting’ stacks to once again be 50/50 inf and artillery. This is a huge problem, having to reorganize every fighting stack to 50/50 after battle feels incredibly clunky/like a huge chore even in single player with pauses. In multiplayer I imagine it’ll be outright dreadful.


Second issue:
This issue is mainly relevant for multiplayer, but I think it’s fair to at least mention regardless. Since all your stacks anywhere near the frontline (your reinforcing infantry stacks can be quite far back, as they merely need to be present after the battle) are 50/50 inf and artillery that (with the forcelimit general change) likely has a general you no longer have any ‘vulnerable’ stacks. The most interesting part of multiplayer warfare is to in some try way force a bad fight for your opponents, typically this is accomplished by catching out stacks without artillery/general support and in ideal cases wiping them (forcing negative terrain modifiers) before reinforcements arrive.

This entire aspect of multiplayer warfare simply goes out of the window with this change, as there simply aren’t any vulnerable stacks to catch. The same can be said regarding reinforcements, timing them/slowing down reinforcements barely matters since the reinforcement stacks will fight at full strength on their own (cannon backline+general) not requiring the support of other stacks. Your actual decisions while controlling your units will hence be largely irrelevant/of very diminished impact.


Available solutions:
1. Making the backline artillery take less morale damage by a certain percentage, as has been suggested by Gnivom, alleviates both issues but doesn’t solve in particular the first issue (the second also persists to some extent). You will still be (assuming that you want to win your battles) greatly incentivized to reorganize your entire army after every consolidation, just to a different inf to cannon ratio.

2. Another solution would be to simply have artillery take casualties when they take morale damage. This would solve the first issue, but the second would remain. It’d also change artillery cost and performance by a huge amount, opening up other potential issues.

3. Simply don’t make cannons retreat when their morale hits zero. This is how it works on live, and I struggle to see the disadvantages. The main reason for the proposed change seems to be that it’s ‘wrong’ to get the full benefit of these strong cannons while simply employing one stack per battle. I personally find this argument to be quite weak as running cannon stacks in battle is just mandatory in either scenario, and this fact doesn’t change because you have more of them. It should also be noted that the cannons regardless don’t perform in a vacuum, you still need infantry to support them to bring out their power, meaning that the ‘alone’ cannon stack isn’t just functioning on its own, it requires support.


Possible advantages of the beta artillery change:
As mentioned above I’ve struggled to find the advantages of this change, but here are the ones I can find. Not having the possibility of vulnerable stacks being ‘caught out’ is a potential advantage from beginner to mp perspectives, but any beginner-friendliness accomplished by this is to me greatly outweighed by the clunkiness/complexity having to reorganize your stacks after every battle. I also think the economic impact (bigger % of artillery means bigger army costs) can be positive, since ducats can be a bit too readily available in the later stages of the game. However, this result could just as easily be accomplished by simply increasing the maintenance scaling with tech slightly, so it doesn’t really justify the artillery change if it doesn’t bring other additional benefits. My conclusion is that these pros don't come close to outweighing the negative aspects.
Thanks a lot for the detailed feedback!
In the upcoming patch it will be possible to mod BACK_LINE_MORALE_DAMAGE_TAKEN_MODIFIER (=1.0) as well as BACK_LINE_STRENGTH_DAMAGE_TAKEN_MODIFIER (=0.0). This will allow modders to achieve solutions 1 and 2.
We do still see benefits to the new system, but reverting the changes is on the table, as well as changing these defines in vanilla. However we are still holding off a final decision for now.
 
  • 4
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
the time with bancrupcy and super high debt for all AIs is thankfully behind us (and yes, realy thanks) but russias economy still always seems bad. any chance you will look into some of the known problem TAGs some more? (i say know problem TAGs but i admit its just my assumtion)
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
the time with bancrupcy and super high debt for all AIs is thankfully behind us (and yes, realy thanks) but russias economy still always seems bad. any chance you will look into some of the known problem TAGs some more? (i say know problem TAGs but i admit its just my assumtion)
I'll keep an eye out for it. But it is not my experience that Russia usually has significant economy problems. Of course, this is somewhat random and also sometimes depends on the player's input.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I very much hope to balance the tags of Southeast Asian countries updated in version 1.31 in version 1.33, because these tags can be established with each other. For example, Ayuthaya can establish Lancang through cultural change, and then establish Siam. In multiplayer games, Siam can even be established before 7 technologies, This led to his strong combat effectiveness and beat almost all players around. The following is a screenshot of a battle between Jianzhou and Siam with 8 scientific and technological ideas and economic ideas, and how Ayuthaya skipped the missions to establish Siam.
 

Attachments

  • 20220209210903_1.jpg
    20220209210903_1.jpg
    311 KB · Views: 0
  • 20220209210952_1.jpg
    20220209210952_1.jpg
    300,9 KB · Views: 0
  • 20220209211037_1.jpg
    20220209211037_1.jpg
    301,2 KB · Views: 0
  • 20220209211042_1.jpg
    20220209211042_1.jpg
    301,8 KB · Views: 0
  • 20220209211051_1.jpg
    20220209211051_1.jpg
    312,4 KB · Views: 0
  • 20220209211109_1.jpg
    20220209211109_1.jpg
    312,2 KB · Views: 0
  • 20220209211112_1.jpg
    20220209211112_1.jpg
    344,9 KB · Views: 0
  • 20220209212017_1.jpg
    20220209212017_1.jpg
    314 KB · Views: 0
  • 20220209212048_1.jpg
    20220209212048_1.jpg
    300,4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Thanks a lot for the detailed feedback!
In the upcoming patch it will be possible to mod BACK_LINE_MORALE_DAMAGE_TAKEN_MODIFIER (=1.0) as well as BACK_LINE_STRENGTH_DAMAGE_TAKEN_MODIFIER (=0.0). This will allow modders to achieve solutions 1 and 2.
We do still see benefits to the new system, but reverting the changes is on the table, as well as changing these defines in vanilla. However we are still holding off a final decision for now.
please don’t revert the change, it makes it much less annoying to play single player as you no longer have to spam cannons against the AI, I.e. bankrupt yourself If you’re not a big nation.

just leave the define at 0.5 or 0.25 so the multiplayers can mod it if they want.
 
  • 3
Reactions: