One tag World Conquest March,1674

[alpaca]

why is 1.13 One-Tag friendly?

Off the top of my head, the most important is probably that overseas coring is an additive modifier (I think OP mentions this in one of his videos, too), but there's also low AE, the fort changes making it fairly easy to stackwipe the AI after you lure them into your territory (because they can't reinforce easily), faster siege compared to pre-1.12 and less AT (so worse generals, which is beneficial if you have a numerical advantage), buildings provide substantial manpower modifiers now rather than a base increase and there are buildings increasing force limits.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Off the top of my head, the most important is probably that overseas coring is an additive modifier (I think OP mentions this in one of his videos, too), but there's also low AE, the fort changes making it fairly easy to stackwipe the AI after you lure them into your territory (because they can't reinforce easily), faster siege compared to pre-1.12 and less AT (so worse generals, which is beneficial if you have a numerical advantage), buildings provide substantial manpower modifiers now rather than a base increase and there are buildings increasing force limits.

Late game sieges are slower than pre 1.12 mass assaults. Much, much, much, slower. I could consistently occupy the entirety of France in 2 years or less if I was rolling late game in 1.11.

But a major offset you didn't mention that makes 1.13 1-tag friendly is that administrative efficiency now applies to both core and diploannex cost, the latter creating a consistent 1 DIP/dev trade and the former opening available-to-all overseas coring 1 ADM/dev.

These two combine to drastically reduce the late-game point cost of acquiring territory, even though the early game cost is significantly higher. For a 1-tag goal, the amount of land you can put cores on in the last 100 years is staggering, probably around 10000 development in theory.

I do not consider the AE to be significant; for truce breakers or just "on-end" war chainers who were roling late game it's a marginal difference. Maybe it makes your early snowball somewhat easier?

Of course, if you're willing to settle for greyskin I'd argue that earlier versions were more 1-tag friendly due to the fast revoke and overwhelming amount of points-free territory you could pick up with feeding tricks.

 

[tableandchair]

Late game sieges are slower than pre 1.12 mass assaults. Much, much, much, slower. I could consistently occupy the entirety of France in 2 years or less if I was rolling late game in 1.11.

You can avoid late game seiges to an extend if you have acess to their capital and use show superiority. Win enough battles, take the capital and you can ask for all the fortified provinces as long as there is a land connection to the capital.The ai also seems reluctant to upgrade their capital if you force them to move so it can often be a lv 1 fort.But yea they are definetly slower than before in the late game , seiging someone like ming with level 8 forts is pretty gruelling.

Getting admin efficiency of 20% in the 1620s is also a pretty huge change.This means you can start coring overseas land for minimun cost far earlier than before.

 

[trojan1234]

buildings provide substantial manpower modifiers now rather than a base increase and there are buildings increasing force limits.

I am kinda opposite to this. My first impression in 1.12 /CS was ugh, those op military buildings are gone. Before 1.12, spending 60 mil points and ducats for max level building will net you 3k manpower and 4 forcelimit per province iirc. The results are well-discussed low manpower problem for all countries post 1.12, which makes ai weaker, in other words, game becomes alot easier.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yeah 50% or 100% manpower efficiency is pretty weak sauce. It is ok in heavily developed provinces down military but pretty lackluster otherwise. The old setup stacked better with quantity too which caused some lulzy outcomes. 1.13 is merc city for a big chunk of the game.

 

[alpaca]

Late game sieges are slower than pre 1.12 mass assaults. Much, much, much, slower. I could consistently occupy the entirety of France in 2 years or less if I was rolling late game in 1.11.

But a major offset you didn't mention that makes 1.13 1-tag friendly is that administrative efficiency now applies to both core and diploannex cost, the latter creating a consistent 1 DIP/dev trade and the former opening available-to-all overseas coring 1 ADM/dev.

These two combine to drastically reduce the late-game point cost of acquiring territory, even though the early game cost is significantly higher. For a 1-tag goal, the amount of land you can put cores on in the last 100 years is staggering, probably around 10000 development in theory.

I do not consider the AE to be significant; for truce breakers or just "on-end" war chainers who were roling late game it's a marginal difference. Maybe it makes your early snowball somewhat easier?

Of course, if you're willing to settle for greyskin I'd argue that earlier versions were more 1-tag friendly due to the fast revoke and overwhelming amount of points-free territory you could pick up with feeding tricks.

Good point about the admin efficiency, I have a tendency of forgetting when changes are introduced.

Late game sieges are slower, but first, not all forts will be level 8 even when the tech level is so high, until level 6 or so it's a toss up between the old system and the new one, and second, the time you save during the castle period seriously feeds into your snowballing, and later you can carpet siege the high level forts. Not being able to assault is a drag, that's true. I don't know, maybe you're right, maybe the snowball effect is more relevant, or maybe it's a tie. It seems hard to quantify.

AE is significant in the early game, especially raising the coalition cap to 50 makes taking big chunks out of, say, Catholic Europe much easier. I'm perhaps a bit jaded because playing the 1.13 beta for a month, which may colour my memories, but AE hardly seems a relevant detriment in 1.13, which is kinda the point. In the 1.13b it was a significant limitation in the early game, which forced you to often take suboptimal peace deals, wasting time.

Forming the HRE is not a one-tag, though. I guess you could do a one tag by revoking and manually annexing HRE members, but I ran the numbers for the modifiers once, and the HRE needs to go down to 25 member states or so for that.

I am kinda opposite to this. My first impression in 1.12 /CS was ugh, those op military buildings are gone. Before 1.12, spending 60 mil points and ducats for max level building will net you 3k manpower and 4 forcelimit per province iirc. The results are well-discussed low manpower problem for all countries post 1.12, which makes ai weaker, in other words, game becomes alot easier.

Good point.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Forming the HRE is not a one-tag, though. I guess you could do a one tag by revoking and manually annexing HRE members, but I ran the numbers for the modifiers once, and the HRE needs to go down to 25 member states or so for that.

How do you figure? Especially if you beat down the colonizers and take the CNs yourself prior, the only difference is that the tag in question is that awful "Holy Roman Empire" grey spew all over the map. But you can definitely make it the only non-CN tag in existence. Why wouldn't that count?

I don't know, maybe you're right, maybe the snowball effect is more relevant, or maybe it's a tie. It seems hard to quantify.

To gives some perspective, in 1.11 as Tarascan during co-op LP I was manually assaulting provinces in China just after 1600. By late game, however, I could pull an occupation rate of roughly province/month in assaults alone even on high level forts. For low-tier stuff in Russia for example it was actually faster to assault a 1.11 fort than it is to occupy a non-fort province in 1.13 . Rather than a ~25-30 day siege phase occupation you'd get a 1-4 day assault and move on.

I'm not convinced early wars are much faster on average either. Stack wipe --> carpet ended most wars inside 5 years if you were strong. Between alliances screwing with "length of war" and needing you to go get that ally out of the war or wait in practice 1.13 isn't much faster best I can tell. In situations where an opposing fort actually blocks you, you can't get wipes and it winds up being slower. If it weren't for length of war nonsense (that really needs an overhaul and a competent replacement modifier) 1.13 would probably be a bit faster early on.

 

[Path]

But a major offset you didn't mention that makes 1.13 1-tag friendly is that administrative efficiency now applies to both core and diploannex cost, the latter creating a consistent 1 DIP/dev trade and the former opening available-to-all overseas coring 1 ADM/dev.

I've been running some tests on this, and I just can't get the numbers to add up like that. Coring certainly works like you'd expect it, but diplo-annexations seem off. A 1000 dev vassal with full efficiency, influence and the policy active should cost 1000 bird mana to integrate, and that's what the UI claims it will. When I initiate it, however, the cost jumps to over 1700--a huge discrepancy. I'm getting similar results with other tags, and while provinces with increased coring cost might affect the numbers a bit, the discrepancy is just too much to explain with the odd exception. Have you actually managed to get 1 bird mana/dev during annexations in 1.13.1, and if so how?

 

[tableandchair]

I've been running some tests on this, and I just can't get the numbers to add up like that. Coring certainly works like you'd expect it, but diplo-annexations seem off. A 1000 dev vassal with full efficiency, influence and the policy active should cost 1000 bird mana to integrate, and that's what the UI claims it will. When I initiate it, however, the cost jumps to over 1700--a huge discrepancy. I'm getting similar results with other tags, and while provinces with increased coring cost might affect the numbers a bit, the discrepancy is just too much to explain with the odd exception. Have you actually managed to get 1 bird mana/dev during annexations in 1.13.1, and if so how?

Ye, I've noticed the same thing.The minimum cost seems to be around 1.75 ish dip per dev rather than 1.Not sure why,maybe something to do with how diffirient modifiers are applied. Admin efficiency lv 1 and influence idea seems to reduce the cost by 50% rather than 45% as well.

 

[alpaca]

How do you figure? Especially if you beat down the colonizers and take the CNs yourself prior, the only difference is that the tag in question is that awful "Holy Roman Empire" grey spew all over the map. But you can definitely make it the only non-CN tag in existence. Why wouldn't that count?



To gives some perspective, in 1.11 as Tarascan during co-op LP I was manually assaulting provinces in China just after 1600. By late game, however, I could pull an occupation rate of roughly province/month in assaults alone even on high level forts. For low-tier stuff in Russia for example it was actually faster to assault a 1.11 fort than it is to occupy a non-fort province in 1.13 . Rather than a ~25-30 day siege phase occupation you'd get a 1-4 day assault and move on.

I'm not convinced early wars are much faster on average either. Stack wipe --> carpet ended most wars inside 5 years if you were strong. Between alliances screwing with "length of war" and needing you to go get that ally out of the war or wait in practice 1.13 isn't much faster best I can tell. In situations where an opposing fort actually blocks you, you can't get wipes and it winds up being slower. If it weren't for length of war nonsense (that really needs an overhaul and a competent replacement modifier) 1.13 would probably be a bit faster early on.

I don't really know if there's a generally accepted definition, but to me one-tag always meant that you don't switch tags or have any (non-CN) subjects left, otherwise it's more like a two-tag The tag-changing decisions often allow you free one-click integration, especially the HRE, so I was working under the assumption that they should be excluded. So let's say, I consider WC that use free integration of PU members or vassals to be 2nd class, no matter whether you call them one tag or not

I've been running some tests on this, and I just can't get the numbers to add up like that. Coring certainly works like you'd expect it, but diplo-annexations seem off. A 1000 dev vassal with full efficiency, influence and the policy active should cost 1000 bird mana to integrate, and that's what the UI claims it will. When I initiate it, however, the cost jumps to over 1700--a huge discrepancy. I'm getting similar results with other tags, and while provinces with increased coring cost might affect the numbers a bit, the discrepancy is just too much to explain with the odd exception. Have you actually managed to get 1 bird mana/dev during annexations in 1.13.1, and if so how?

Ye, I've noticed the same thing.The minimum cost seems to be around 1.75 ish dip per dev rather than 1.Not sure why,maybe something to do with how diffirient modifiers are applied. Admin efficiency lv 1 and influence idea seems to reduce the cost by 50% rather than 45% as well.

Admin efficiency is multiplicative for diplo annexation. The cost is also rounded on a per province, per dev base as far as I can tell, so the dip = 1*dev is for 60% admin efficiency using vassal integration act for 0.4 * 0.55 * 8 = 1.76, which is rounded down to 1 before adding everything up. If your vassal has provinces with local coring cost modifiers, this doesn't work out, as they are added to the cost, but I'm not sure if they are additive to the normal coring cost modifiers or another multiplier, and so far have been too lazy to test. It should be possible to get dip = dev in 1.13.1, which you can easily verify by cheating at the game start with Burgundy or someone else who starts with vassals. It was definitely possible in 1.13

Edit: just checked, and still applies.

 

[Path]

Admin efficiency is multiplicative for diplo annexation. The cost is also rounded on a per province, per dev base as far as I can tell, so the dip = 1*dev is for 60% admin efficiency using vassal integration act for 0.4 * 0.55 * 8 = 1.76, which is rounded down to 1 before adding everything up. If your vassal has provinces with local coring cost modifiers, this doesn't work out, as they are added to the cost, but I'm not sure if they are additive to the normal coring cost modifiers or another multiplier, and so far have been too lazy to test. It should be possible to get dip = dev in 1.13.1, which you can easily verify by cheating at the game start with Burgundy or someone else who starts with vassals. It was definitely possible in 1.13

That's what I thought, but I'm still seeing much higher costs for integration. The diplomacy UI tells me that it'll be 1 bird mana/dev, but the actual cost ends up being much higher. It's as if it rounds down at the UI screen and then keeps the full value for the actual integration (1760 is exactly what my 1000 dev test vassal cost, so that seems plausible).

 

[trojan1234]

If your vassal has provinces with local coring cost modifiers, this doesn't work out, as they are added to the cost, but I'm not sure if they are additive to the normal coring cost modifiers or another multiplier, and so far have been too lazy to test.

I've tested when 1.13 released. Georgia costs around 7 per dev with adm+inf policy. It seems like another multipliers.

 

[alpaca]

That's what I thought, but I'm still seeing much higher costs for integration. The diplomacy UI tells me that it'll be 1 bird mana/dev, but the actual cost ends up being much higher. It's as if it rounds down at the UI screen and then keeps the full value for the actual integration (1760 is exactly what my 1000 dev test vassal cost, so that seems plausible).

Ah, I see what you mean now. I was going by what the UI says, but you're right that I shouldn't rely on that. Let me check.

 

[Path]

I've tested when 1.13 released. Georgia costs around 7 per dev with adm+inf policy. It seems like another multipliers.

Georgia has increased coring costs, though, so I'd expect that tag to be more expensive.

 

[trojan1234]

Georgia has increased coring costs, though, so I'd expect that tag to be more expensive.

Alpasa asked the local coring cost increase case, Georgia is one of them. If it is additive, it would be 105% with 45% off so would cost bit more than 8/dev. However it seems like around 7/dev (not exact can't remember) so 8*1.5*55%= 6.6 seems the current mechanics.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I've been running some tests on this, and I just can't get the numbers to add up like that. Coring certainly works like you'd expect it, but diplo-annexations seem off. A 1000 dev vassal with full efficiency, influence and the policy active should cost 1000 bird mana to integrate, and that's what the UI claims it will. When I initiate it, however, the cost jumps to over 1700--a huge discrepancy. I'm getting similar results with other tags, and while provinces with increased coring cost might affect the numbers a bit, the discrepancy is just too much to explain with the odd exception. Have you actually managed to get 1 bird mana/dev during annexations in 1.13.1, and if so how?

Thought I had, but I haven't checked in a while for certain. It's a pretty significant/annoying bug if that's what's happening though. A 90% reduction of 8000 is not 1700, maybe it's applying it multiplicatively in this case, and not actually rounding like alpaca says.

 

[Path]

Alpasa asked the local coring cost increase case, Georgia is one of them. If it is additive, it would be 105% with 45% off so would cost bit more than 8/dev. However it seems like around 7/dev (not exact can't remember) so 8*1.5*55%= 6.6 seems the current mechanics.

Yeah, I realized that after posting. Go me.

Thought I had, but I haven't checked in a while for certain. It's a pretty significant/annoying bug if that's what's happening though. A 90% reduction of 8000 is not 1700, maybe it's applying it multiplicatively in this case, and not actually rounding like alpaca says.

So it'd seem, since his numbers add up sans the rounding part (1.76 bird mana per dev).

 

[alpaca]

Ok, so I gave it a whirl and @Path is correct that for the actual integration cost, the rounding is done after adding, not before as the tooltip implies. @trojan1234 is also correct that local coring cost is another multiplier. The formula that seems to hold is

dip = floor( sum(8 * (1 - admin efficiency) * (1 + vassal annexation cost modifiers) * (1 + local coring cost modifiers) * dev)), example: Albania has 173 dev, 39 of which are from Wallachia with +50% coring cost. I have 60% admin efficiency, as well as influence and vassal integration act, so I get 135*1.76 + 39*2.64 = 338.8, rounded down to 338

@TheMeInTeam: Once again your adage of never trusting the UI seems to apply.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I should have known better than to trust the UI, but that's kind of sad unto itself :/.

 

[Path]

I should have known better than to trust the UI, but that's kind of sad unto itself :/.

The sky is blue, water is wet, and the EU IV UI lies. Some things never change