Paradox, what you did with result of battles in patch 1.11?

[dm99]

It's about the result of battles. As result we obtain prestige, military traditions and warscore.

From 1.11 patch notes:
- Tradition and prestige gains from battles have been reworked to scale better to number of men involved in the battle.

And now one of my successful battles after the patch. It began with 39k:29k and ended as 37k:0. Military technologies 20:19. We can say that this is the key battle, because it was the last of the enemy army. And I got 3 prestige, 8.1 (!) warscore and 0 military traditions. The loser got -1.5 prestige and 2 (!) military traditions.



What the hell is going?

I can understand that the prestige gained in earlier battles was too big. And the changes acceptable. But what happen with military tradition and warscore?

Warscore 8.1. I've never seen such a thing before. The maximum what I saw was about 6 and there was a naval battle of the 400 or 500 ships. But here is 8. And this is not to show superiority, it's the simple conquer.

Judging by the warscore this was more than a significant battle. And well, where's my military tradition. What necessary to comply with the new conditions, to get at least something. Or is there just the only one condition - to lose all and as much as possible disgraceful. So maybe we should stop calling them military traditions and call them loser traditions.

Until the last patch, getting the military tradition in the battle was not easy but possible. But now... in the last dozen battles I got zero military traditions. And I absolutely do not understand why .

Remained only hope that someone from the Paradox read this and reply how in their game one can get military tradition by winning the battle, not losing. Sad but this hope is illusory.

 

[Krajzen]

Well, I occasionally get like ~20 warscore from some incredible battles like 100k vs 100k (or smaller but with 'bigger impact') so that's not strange part here.

The crazy party here is that you, super winner, got 0 tradition and hopelessly defeated enemy got 2

 

[grommile]

The crazy party here is that you, super winner, got 0 tradition and hopelessly defeated enemy got 2

Defeat holds more lessons than victory. Army Tradition from battles has always favoured the loser of the battle in EU4, and it was much the same in EU3.

Besides, if you're winning wars, you can expect to get plenty of Army Tradition from occupations, and shouldn't need any from battles.

 

[Tacticus101]

Army tradition is low because it was not a close or interesting battle from which lessons can be learnt. One Army completely routed the other with almost no casualties.

Prestige is low because it is not an impressive victory or terrible defeat, apparently that outcome was almost guaranteed.

Warscore is high because you just won the war.

Makes complete sense.

Edit: hasn't it always been the case that defenders got more tradition?

 

[f1nalstand17]

Well, I occasionally get like ~20 warscore from some incredible battles like 100k vs 100k (or smaller but with 'bigger impact') so that's not strange part here.

The crazy party here is that you, super winner, got 0 tradition and hopelessly defeated enemy got 2

Yes, but he's not the only one experiencing these problems. I have had the same problem playing Byzantium, and every single time I defeat a Serbian or Otto army, only they gained tradition. Whatever the devs have done has made it that you are punished for winning early-game battles tradition wise as only your opponents gain valuable tradition.

 

[f1nalstand17]

Army tradition is low because it was not a close or interesting battle from which lessons can be learnt. One Army completely routed the other with almost no casualties.

So you're saying that an army (and general) that just now won a crushing battle against an enemy learns absolutely nothing from that battle and the army's morale should not be larger(morale is tied to tradition)?

 

[HansBaer]

The AT and battle prestige are stupid snowballing mechanics and need to go or be reworked since launch.
Now the winner gets AT from sieges and the loser from losing, which is an improvement somehow.
IMHO, AT should come from events, ideas and investments exclusively. Prestige is redundant since PP was introduced and can go for all i care.

 

[Darsara]

Getting just a little power projection from major battles could be interesting. Why is it that you can only "project power" by fighting rivals? Isn't kicking the snot out of people usually considered a power thing? This could particularly help with some nations; as Vijayanagar, by 1490 my only valid rivals were Persia and Ming, so my PP tanked even as I constantly fought Juanipur, Gujarat and Bengal for dominance over India.

 

[Tacticus101]

So you're saying that an army (and general) that just now won a crushing battle against an enemy learns absolutely nothing from that battle and the army's morale should not be larger(morale is tied to tradition)?

Moral is a separate issue. There is no complex mechanic to simulate an army being demoralised or high moral from outside factors.

But no, considering that looks like the wipe of an already low moral army by an army led by a god-general, a battle that provided no challenge, I think it is unlikely he learnt much other than what 30k dead bodies in Lithuanian colours looks like.

 

[hauptman]

I just ping-ponged Bavarias stack... 3 battles it took to kill. each battle was worth less than 1 prestige (.34 on the final stackwipe). His 31k vs my 30k.

Of course it's borked, We all know Paradox dont test their shxt.

 

[hauptman]

66% of my army vs 100% of england's, stack wipe.

It's not like I'm floating at max miltrad... so I should get something. And that prestige hit... ohh how the world trembles. This is even WITH the rival bonus.

 

[DicRoNero]

Yeah, it's really weird now.

 

[StatikShocker]

Load up as Ottomans. Kill albanian army. get 20 war score.

um

 

[blackchoas]

they made it harder to gain mil tradition and prestige from battles and everyone complains that they made it harder to gain mil tradition and prestige from battles

prestige and military tradition are such win more mechanics in the first place, thank god they reigned them in a bit, I keep winning wars because I have high military tradition and I have high military tradition because I keep winning wars, its a positive feed back loop, military tradition gives you better generals to fight your wars, better moral to fight with and better man power to fight more and for longer, its kinda silly.

 

[hauptman]

they made it harder to gain mil tradition and prestige from battles and everyone complains that they made it harder to gain mil tradition and prestige from battles

prestige and military tradition are such win more mechanics in the first place, thank god they reigned them in a bit, I keep winning wars because I have high military tradition and I have high military tradition because I keep winning wars, its a positive feed back loop, military tradition gives you better generals to fight your wars, better moral to fight with and better man power to fight more and for longer, its kinda silly.

Wait what?

We have a stat, that shows how good your army is, that is to say, why it's better than someone else's, But now you WANT the stat that shows your generals learned how to fight to not actually gain anything from fighting? Instead you prefer that the only thing that improve it be from Ideas?

Hey I got another idea, tax base... we should like totally like make that number go down as you take more land because well, if you use yout tax wealth to afford a bigger army and take someone else's land, then your using tax base to increase your tax base.

Seriously, where are you people getting this nonsense?

 

[lolada]

I can accept it that defender has learned more (tho some never learn eh..) and got more AT but winner should get some, 0.0 is stupid. If there are 10 or 20% of force limits involved in battle you should get something, at least 0,1 AT, 0,2 AT if not even more. Introduce minimum gained cap for these cases..?

 

[Squirrelloid]

Yay, more reasons to never update past 1.9.2!

I don't know, prestige gain wasn't *that* out of control before. Halving prestige gain might have been okay. But it looks like its somewhere near 10% of previous, and that's just silly.

And AT has always been dumb. Way to gain lots of AT? Reinforce your vassal/ally who has fewer troops than you. Used to be pretty much guaranteed 5 AT - not sure what it is in 1.11, but the battle determines AT gain for a *side* based on the first nation whose troops go in, which means if your little vassal starts the fight with all their units, you're looking at significant AT gain. This is of course a terrible model of anything, but the ridiculously low AT when large nation fight battles was also a terrible model of anything.

idk, I gain most of my AT from sieging provinces. At 1 per province sieged, it adds up.

Warscore occasionally felt really depressingly low for battles in the past, but most of the time it was okay, and once you hit +40 it caps anyway. The rate of battle warscore gain wasn't the problem - the low cap was. Cranking warscore gain up to 11 doesn't solve anything if the cap is still only 40. (Should vary by CB, and be somewhere in the 50-75 range).

 

[myrsl0ken]

I like it. Y'all are just conservative.

 

[oblio-]

Army tradition needs to go up with battles since it decays quickly.

Reducing prestige gain? Awesome. Being constantly at 100 prestige from 1550 was just silly and it made prestige irrelevant as resource. And all the ideas, bonuses and rewards involving it were useless as a result.

 

[lolada]

They just need to strike the right balance. Its good if they had increased warscore from battles, that was too low before - there was too much emphasis on sieging and too little on battles. I didn't play enough yet to see if this new balance is actually working well.