I'll rejoice when it's fixed. Hard to believe that particular bug wasn't found before launch. Considering the DLC is all about colonization.
Open Beta v1.4.1.2 - Checksum: 0a0f
- Thread starter Besuchov
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
Here are few things I noticed in a quick Scotland game yesterday. There were a few bugs that carried over from the last beta:
- Ulm still lacks proper regency.
- Ending the Union between two countries in a peace deal still results in duplicate rulers.
- Loading from in-game menu still removes all options from recruitment screen. Reload a second time fixes it. Reloading from the Main Menu avoids the issue.
- All buildings still claim to give manpower in their tooltips. They don't and shouldn't.
- Rebels still lack proper differentiated COA. Also, hovering my mouse over a rebel stack, it tells me, "You haven't discovered Rebels yet!" Not sure if this is related, or just an oversight, since obviously, Rebels don't OWN any provinces.
--
I'm not sure if the rest of these are bugs, but they seemed odd. Mostly the AI abusing CB's:
- Sweden declared independence pretty quickly from Denmark, and were crushed in the Independence War. In addition to restoring the union, Denmark seized half of Sweden's provinces, and apparently got no aggressive expansion for it.
- A Royal Marriage was made with Sweden as it was fighting an independence war, but they lost. The marriage remains even though they are once again a subject country.
- Austria was hyper-aggressive and frequently abuses the Imperial Liberation CB. It started with Bohemia. They diplo-annexed Silesia, giving Austria the CB. Then they lost a war and were forced to release it. Austria retained the Liberation CB even though they had nothing that could be liberated. Austria used it to take half of Bohemia. Later, they took most of Bavaria the same way. By 1470, they had most of Bohemia, Bavaria, had gotten the Burgundian inheritance, and were starting to take provinces from a united France. They had also had a terrifying Navy, and had just allied with England, pretty much ending my hopes of further expansion.
- Embargo/Trade War CB abuse. This was an issue last beta too. The AI using embargos more often often means suicide for smaller nations. Example: Byzantium almost always embargoes the Ottomans on day one. This leads to an immediate Trade War, in which the Ottomans pretty much instantly goggle them up. Smaller nations should be more hesitant about embargoing powerful neighbors.
This was only one game, but in general, the AI seemed much more aggressive and eager to take provinces at any opportunity, compared with the last patch, leading to some pretty extreme blobbing. It seemed like there were a lot more militarist rulers than previously, which might have something to do with it. I can't say if this was just bad luck, or the new normal though.
Lots of improvements though. The AI seems like it's finally annexing it's vassals. Poland, France, and Denmark ate theirs without any problems. I like that the AI feeds it's allies and vassals sometimes in peace deals.
- Ulm still lacks proper regency.
- Ending the Union between two countries in a peace deal still results in duplicate rulers.
- Loading from in-game menu still removes all options from recruitment screen. Reload a second time fixes it. Reloading from the Main Menu avoids the issue.
- All buildings still claim to give manpower in their tooltips. They don't and shouldn't.
- Rebels still lack proper differentiated COA. Also, hovering my mouse over a rebel stack, it tells me, "You haven't discovered Rebels yet!" Not sure if this is related, or just an oversight, since obviously, Rebels don't OWN any provinces.
--
I'm not sure if the rest of these are bugs, but they seemed odd. Mostly the AI abusing CB's:
- Sweden declared independence pretty quickly from Denmark, and were crushed in the Independence War. In addition to restoring the union, Denmark seized half of Sweden's provinces, and apparently got no aggressive expansion for it.
- A Royal Marriage was made with Sweden as it was fighting an independence war, but they lost. The marriage remains even though they are once again a subject country.
- Austria was hyper-aggressive and frequently abuses the Imperial Liberation CB. It started with Bohemia. They diplo-annexed Silesia, giving Austria the CB. Then they lost a war and were forced to release it. Austria retained the Liberation CB even though they had nothing that could be liberated. Austria used it to take half of Bohemia. Later, they took most of Bavaria the same way. By 1470, they had most of Bohemia, Bavaria, had gotten the Burgundian inheritance, and were starting to take provinces from a united France. They had also had a terrifying Navy, and had just allied with England, pretty much ending my hopes of further expansion.
- Embargo/Trade War CB abuse. This was an issue last beta too. The AI using embargos more often often means suicide for smaller nations. Example: Byzantium almost always embargoes the Ottomans on day one. This leads to an immediate Trade War, in which the Ottomans pretty much instantly goggle them up. Smaller nations should be more hesitant about embargoing powerful neighbors.
This was only one game, but in general, the AI seemed much more aggressive and eager to take provinces at any opportunity, compared with the last patch, leading to some pretty extreme blobbing. It seemed like there were a lot more militarist rulers than previously, which might have something to do with it. I can't say if this was just bad luck, or the new normal though.
Lots of improvements though. The AI seems like it's finally annexing it's vassals. Poland, France, and Denmark ate theirs without any problems. I like that the AI feeds it's allies and vassals sometimes in peace deals.
That bug was only in the beta. This wasn't the case in the patch that came out with the DLC.
I love this patch. The AI finally feels like its playing with an aggression level comparable to a human. This is a very welcome change in my book
I think I've found a bug. As France I take 4 provinces from the Aztecs, hoping to avoid forming a colonial nation right away. 5 years later I figure what the heck, let's grab some more land and have a French colonial nation in Mexico. Two things happen that need looked at:
1. I grab 4 more provinces from the Aztecs, meaning I now have 8 in that colonial region. But a colonial nation does not form. I am sitting at 128% overextension because I was planning on the nation forming.
2. The Aztecs had joined a coalition against me. Milan, Alsace, and Utrecht were the others in it. Those other 3 all have +60 or better opinions of me and little or no OE. But they won't drop their coalition. And the fact that the Aztecs can join that buggy coalition is annoying. Didn't really hurt me much because I could take out all 4 at once. But all those things were annoying.
The colonial nation thing is the worst though. Might be a bug. I thought they were supposed to form after you had 5 provinces in a region?
1. I grab 4 more provinces from the Aztecs, meaning I now have 8 in that colonial region. But a colonial nation does not form. I am sitting at 128% overextension because I was planning on the nation forming.
2. The Aztecs had joined a coalition against me. Milan, Alsace, and Utrecht were the others in it. Those other 3 all have +60 or better opinions of me and little or no OE. But they won't drop their coalition. And the fact that the Aztecs can join that buggy coalition is annoying. Didn't really hurt me much because I could take out all 4 at once. But all those things were annoying.
The colonial nation thing is the worst though. Might be a bug. I thought they were supposed to form after you had 5 provinces in a region?
They certainly are. Can you put the game into Colonial Region mapmode and post a screenshot showing your provinces there?
You're not playing with any mods, right? You have checksum 0A0F?
I noticed the same thing, in both the Mexico and 13 Colonies regions. Both times, the Colonial Nation formed as soon as I had five CORES in the region. I didn't keep a save; I just assumed it was a change I had missed in the patch-notes.
Ah wow OK. I am nearly certain that that's a change from 1.4.1 and 1.4.1.1. And it very much sounds like a bug, because that would be a big change and I definitely don't recall seeing a patch note reference to it being deliberate.
Colonies auto-core, so your own colonies would always be a core and would always trigger a new CN.
I'm almost certain that in 1.4.1, you could also start your CN by annexing an Indian nation. I remember people saying "when a CN forms, it automatically gets cores on all provinces that it forms with"; this point was made because that auto-coring for the CN only happened when the CN was first created. So for example - starting with no provinces in the Americas, if you then annexed a five-province Native Tribe, whose provinces were all within a single Colonial Region, you'd get a five-province CN who had cores on all their stating provinces. Then if you later annexed a two-province Tribe in the same region, although those two provinces would join the CN they wouldn't be cored because you didn't have cores on the Tribe provinces and the automatic coring for your CN only applied when the CN first formed.
All of this indicates that any five provinces would form the CN, regardless of whether you the overlord had cored them or not.
I have a strong suspicion that this bug is as a result of this change in the 1.4.1.2 patch log:
- Cores are assigned before ownersip change when forming colonies, so buildings should no longer be destroyed.
I bet that making that change has caused cores not to be created at all in cases where you, the overlord, doesn't have cores on those provinces.
I will do a before-and-after comparison on 1.4.1.1 vs 1.4.1.2 and raise a new bug report as appropriate.
So naval combat is totally FUBAR now. Is it WAD that every naval engagement ends within a week with a complete wipe of one side or the other and virtually no casualties for the other side?
I've had a few naval battles so far that went as normal ( winning side taking some losses depending on makeup/leader with defenders losing some ships and still had a few up ) one bug I have noticed tho is starting a new game attempting to play a CN ( 13 colonies) picking any date that isn't a bookmark doesn't have a colony its still controlled by the mother country. Sometimes flipping back to a bookmarked date will even remove the CNs from the map ( and I know this wasn't present in the last beta since I would play 13 colonies on the very earliest date there in the game).
Note that there's a very old bug that means you can't go backwards in time on the date/bookmark select screen. Or at least you can't use the date selector arrows in reverse. So if you select, say, 1579, then scroll the arrows back in time to 1578, 1577, 1576 .. 1570 or whatever, you will get a very broken game with relationships all messed up and people with huge At War penalties when they've never actually been at war etc. I'm not sure if this also happens if you select a later bookmark then an earlier one, but to be safe it's best to avoid it.
Click New Game, select the bookmark you want, click Start. If you find yourself clicking around bookmarks and/or dates, then find the date you want and then hit Back to go to the main menu, then do New Game again and go straight to that date, only going forward in time to reach it. E.g. if you want 1570, don't select 1579 and go backwards in time; select the next earliest bookmark - 1508 - and go forward to 1570.
I think that might be related to the second thing you said, "flipping back to a boomark will remove CNs".
Regarding the no CNs - that does sound like a new issue. I thought I saw in a change log something about history files setting nations as Colonials at the start of the game, but I can't find it now. Not sure what I saw or where.
So are you saying that if you click on the 1579 bookmark, then advance one year to 1580, the game doesn't start with Portuguese Brazil and New Spain and the other CNs that are there in 1579? Surely those CNs should auto appear though on day 1 or 2 of the game, simply because Spain and Portugal must have five colonies in those regions? Though actually if they don't have cores on those provinces, then as per the bug mentioned by others in posts above yours, that might not trigger the CN at all which would be a different bug..
Part of the update was preventing sending subsidies to any subject nation, to prevent a money exploit.
Please re-consider the block on subsidies to subjects; fix exploit another way.
I'm disappointed about this and have raised a feature change request : [1.4.1.2] Change Request: Allow subsidies to subjects; fix money exploit directly
I feel the wrong fix has been made; a useful feature has been disabled to avoid an exploit that could be very simply fixed directly.
This is like mending a broken arm by amputating it
Of course I realise I can still send regular gifts. But that's tedious micro-management. And it also highlights the illogicality of blocking subsidies: if I can manually gift a subject X gold a month, why am I blocked from using an automation feature that already exists in the game? Gifts don't count towards vassal income and don't create a money-exploit. While I realise subsidies and gifts are different kinds of income, I can't immediately see why it's not as simple as subtracting the monthly Subsidy figure from the overlord payment calculation.
Easy, alternative fix to the money exploit
It would be much better if the exploit was closed by making subsidies not count for income passed to the overlord:
That prevents all exploits while still allowing for further interesting and strategic use of subsidies.
Why this is a problem - the new subsidies systems has excellent potential uses with subject nations
The other subsidies changes in this patch are great: now general purpose not just for war; available for much longer periods; and correctly applying variable opinion boosts with no "0/month for +15 opinion" exploit.
These are really useful improvements which make subsidies much more strategically interesting, so it's a real shame that all subjects are now hard-excluded from these advances.
There are at least two interesting use-cases for sending subsidies to a subject:
Subsidies to subjects would be a perfect exemplification of EU's increased focus on decentralised expansion - that is the use of dependencies of multiple types to further one's goals. Expansion via multiple subjects managed via the new Subjects screen - "painting the world in a rainbow not monochrome" - is one of the things that makes EU4 so varied and interesting. I think this focus should be facilitated and encouraged wherever possible. Certainly it should not be actively hampered, especially when such an easy alternative exists.
It really feels like this problem has been solved the wrong way around - rather than fixing the actual problem of subsidies counting as income and thus generating money-from-nothing for the overlord, a useful feature has been blocked wholesale. I can't imagine that it can be that difficult to simply make a subtraction of any subsidies amount from the calculation of overlord payment.
Please reconsider this blanket ban and fix the money exploit directly. The only limitation I can see making sense for subjects is not applying the subsidies relationship boosts when giving subsidies to one's own subject.
I'm disappointed about this and have raised a feature change request : [1.4.1.2] Change Request: Allow subsidies to subjects; fix money exploit directly
I feel the wrong fix has been made; a useful feature has been disabled to avoid an exploit that could be very simply fixed directly.
This is like mending a broken arm by amputating it
Of course I realise I can still send regular gifts. But that's tedious micro-management. And it also highlights the illogicality of blocking subsidies: if I can manually gift a subject X gold a month, why am I blocked from using an automation feature that already exists in the game? Gifts don't count towards vassal income and don't create a money-exploit. While I realise subsidies and gifts are different kinds of income, I can't immediately see why it's not as simple as subtracting the monthly Subsidy figure from the overlord payment calculation.
Easy, alternative fix to the money exploit
It would be much better if the exploit was closed by making subsidies not count for income passed to the overlord:
- [*=1]Assess all vassal income except subsidies, and pass the appropriate % of that amount to the overlord[*=1]Then at the end, add any subsidy amounts to the subject's remaining income.[*=1]So if a vassal has 80 income of its own, and is receiving 15 in subsidies:
- [*=1]pay 40 to its overlord (50%)[*=1]vassal has 40 remaining; then add the 15 subsidy to this[*=1]giving the vassal a total 55 income.[*=1] The overlord's income remains at 40: it is unchanged by subsidies and he cannot exploit them to make more money for himself, or for anyone else.
That prevents all exploits while still allowing for further interesting and strategic use of subsidies.
Why this is a problem - the new subsidies systems has excellent potential uses with subject nations
The other subsidies changes in this patch are great: now general purpose not just for war; available for much longer periods; and correctly applying variable opinion boosts with no "0/month for +15 opinion" exploit.
These are really useful improvements which make subsidies much more strategically interesting, so it's a real shame that all subjects are now hard-excluded from these advances.
There are at least two interesting use-cases for sending subsidies to a subject:
- As part of Supporting Independence of another overlord's subject.
- Support them, and also fund them via subsidies: now they can also raise a bigger army and are thus more likely to declare Independence (relative Military Power modifier to Independence decision.)
- As a way of financing and assisting one's own subjects for their benefit and for yours.
- For example to facilitate colonisation and Trade building creation for Colonials; to fund the creation of bigger and better armies for vassals you will use in war; to fund buildings for any subject you expect to later integrate.
Subsidies to subjects would be a perfect exemplification of EU's increased focus on decentralised expansion - that is the use of dependencies of multiple types to further one's goals. Expansion via multiple subjects managed via the new Subjects screen - "painting the world in a rainbow not monochrome" - is one of the things that makes EU4 so varied and interesting. I think this focus should be facilitated and encouraged wherever possible. Certainly it should not be actively hampered, especially when such an easy alternative exists.
It really feels like this problem has been solved the wrong way around - rather than fixing the actual problem of subsidies counting as income and thus generating money-from-nothing for the overlord, a useful feature has been blocked wholesale. I can't imagine that it can be that difficult to simply make a subtraction of any subsidies amount from the calculation of overlord payment.
Please reconsider this blanket ban and fix the money exploit directly. The only limitation I can see making sense for subjects is not applying the subsidies relationship boosts when giving subsidies to one's own subject.
Last edited:
Played a few more short games as Ramazan, Bavaria, and Provence. So far no new bugs noticed, except that Haasa also doesn't have a proper starting regency. I do have a bit more experience with how the AI is behaving.
- Compared to the recent patch, it the AI seems MUCH more aggressive. Blobbing is the now the name of the game. By 1500 in my Scotland game, only six nations occupied India. Southeast Asia was united under Pegu, and Austria had eaten roughly half the HRE. Japan looked like the only place that seemed to be toned down. Usually the Daimyo's get stomped in pretty short order.
- I can no longer tell any major discernible difference in behavior between AI personalities. Diplomats and Administrators seem just as inclined to forge claims and conquer provinces as Militarists, and just as likely to take provinces they don't have claims on, in wars they didn't start.
- I payed particularly close attention to Austria, as it seemed to be the worst influenced. They used every CB under the sun to take provinces for themselves, seemingly regardless of claims or culture. Imperial Liberation, Revoke Electorate. If they are in a regency and get called in the defense of Pomerania against the Teutonic Order, they'll annex half of Hungary.
- In only one game did a coalition form against them, but by then it was too late. They were fighting a war of conquest against France at the time, but managed to swat down the coalition without missing a beat. They never lost an election either.
- On a side note, Austria seems obsessed with granting electorates to Italians, particularly Tuscany. This is something they've been doing ever since the game was launched. Perhaps they should be encouraged to favor non-republics of their own culture group?
- The AI seems to have a hard time judging when to declare independence from a PU. Sweden seems dead set on declaring independence within the first few years, but sometimes they badly misjudge Denmark's strength. If Denmark doesn't have any strong allies or is involved in a nasty war, Sweden can break free fairly easily. If Denmark is allied with Poland-Lithuania, God help them.
- Another old issue. Sometimes the AI declares wars they don't seem to have a CB for. For instance, France declares the "French Reconquest of Holland" against Burgundy. Does France have a core there? No. They don't even have a claim. They have a core on Picardie, which could explain the CB, but why is the wargoal Holland?
Overall, it's a significant improvement from the last beta and recent patches, but I feel like the AI is way too aggressive. I don't mind Militarist 6/6/6 god-kings conquering everything in sight, but other ruler personalities, especially Regency Councils should have more restraint.
- Compared to the recent patch, it the AI seems MUCH more aggressive. Blobbing is the now the name of the game. By 1500 in my Scotland game, only six nations occupied India. Southeast Asia was united under Pegu, and Austria had eaten roughly half the HRE. Japan looked like the only place that seemed to be toned down. Usually the Daimyo's get stomped in pretty short order.
- I can no longer tell any major discernible difference in behavior between AI personalities. Diplomats and Administrators seem just as inclined to forge claims and conquer provinces as Militarists, and just as likely to take provinces they don't have claims on, in wars they didn't start.
- I payed particularly close attention to Austria, as it seemed to be the worst influenced. They used every CB under the sun to take provinces for themselves, seemingly regardless of claims or culture. Imperial Liberation, Revoke Electorate. If they are in a regency and get called in the defense of Pomerania against the Teutonic Order, they'll annex half of Hungary.
- In only one game did a coalition form against them, but by then it was too late. They were fighting a war of conquest against France at the time, but managed to swat down the coalition without missing a beat. They never lost an election either.
- On a side note, Austria seems obsessed with granting electorates to Italians, particularly Tuscany. This is something they've been doing ever since the game was launched. Perhaps they should be encouraged to favor non-republics of their own culture group?
- The AI seems to have a hard time judging when to declare independence from a PU. Sweden seems dead set on declaring independence within the first few years, but sometimes they badly misjudge Denmark's strength. If Denmark doesn't have any strong allies or is involved in a nasty war, Sweden can break free fairly easily. If Denmark is allied with Poland-Lithuania, God help them.
- Another old issue. Sometimes the AI declares wars they don't seem to have a CB for. For instance, France declares the "French Reconquest of Holland" against Burgundy. Does France have a core there? No. They don't even have a claim. They have a core on Picardie, which could explain the CB, but why is the wargoal Holland?
Overall, it's a significant improvement from the last beta and recent patches, but I feel like the AI is way too aggressive. I don't mind Militarist 6/6/6 god-kings conquering everything in sight, but other ruler personalities, especially Regency Councils should have more restraint.
Guys (and gals). Anyone continuing playing the same game started with 1.4.1.1 and now with 1.4.1.2?
I am not spending any DIP points in peace deals for taking provinces from the enemy. Anyone else experiencing this?
I am not spending any DIP points in peace deals for taking provinces from the enemy. Anyone else experiencing this?
Still no tribal modifer for native council with that awful Nomad icon! Fix that, PLEASE! D:
I am continuing a 1.4.1.1 game in 1.4.1.2 and noticed two (probably related) things:
1) In a defensive war, I did not spend any DIP points in a peace deal (war had started in 1.4.1.1, only one observation).
2) In other wars, I am being told it'll cost zero DIP points, but DIP points are deducted anyway (and in ways that don't add up, seem a bit higher, actually)
Definitely new, but no idea if it's a 1.4.1.2 bug, a display bug, an anomaly associated with going from a 1.4.1.1 save to 1.4.1.2, or even WAD in part (no DIP points for defensive wars sounds right to me, frankly, if that's intentional).
No, it was an offensive war in my case.
Are you sure that points were deducted? I reloaded to make sure, and none were deducted for taking provinces, though points were deducted for returning provinces to one of my vassals in a later war.
- Status