I like the change to prestige but without concede defeat it makes it that much harder to get stubborn distant enemy allies out of completely lost wars.
Paradox, what you did with result of battles in patch 1.11?
- Thread starter dm99
- 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.
The screenshots in this thread are stackwipes. Those aren't real battles, (usually) just wiping out an already defeated force, and I don't think they should give any AT.
Not sure about the changes in general, though I support efforts to make it so that prestige isn't permanently at 90+ after the first decade or so.
Not sure about the changes in general, though I support efforts to make it so that prestige isn't permanently at 90+ after the first decade or so.
Really people? You guys think Napoleon learned more at Jena than Prussia did?
That said, I'm fine with the changes myself. AT does work in a dumb way, but that's because Paradox has no good system to represent an army reforming itself, which generally happened after defeats and not victories, like some people here seem to believe.
That said, I'm fine with the changes myself. AT does work in a dumb way, but that's because Paradox has no good system to represent an army reforming itself, which generally happened after defeats and not victories, like some people here seem to believe.
But it's not only stack wipes. Playing as Byzantium, I won several battles agaisnt the Ottos which not only hurt his army, butine as well. If the casualties are the same, shouldn't my army at least learn something other than 0.0?
I've noticed the reduction as well. But here's a question that I haven't asked, or seen answered: Does the tradition scale with length of battle, rather than casualties? That would explain the low MT gain from stackwipes.
I think armies with lesser AT should earn more AT when defeating an army with much higher AT. This way if Prussia (high AT) attacks Russia (low AT) and Russia is able to overcome Prussian armies, then Russians should gain some AT instead of 0.0.
Paradox has again gone to far with these changes.
In my current game as Spain, trying to get Spain is the Emperor and Imperio español, it is 1580 and i own entire France, Iberian peninsula and almost entire British isles, and i have 10 prestige and 20 army tradition.
While all my neighbours have -50 or even less prestige, except Austria since they are HRE. Ridiculous.
In my current game as Spain, trying to get Spain is the Emperor and Imperio español, it is 1580 and i own entire France, Iberian peninsula and almost entire British isles, and i have 10 prestige and 20 army tradition.
While all my neighbours have -50 or even less prestige, except Austria since they are HRE. Ridiculous.
and to think that players break game but dam paradox still breaks it the best and most.
i'm taking break from EU4 for 1-2 patches(aka expansions)
i'm taking break from EU4 for 1-2 patches(aka expansions)
I wish I could get _2_ prestige from a battle. Had a massive victory against a Russian 6/6/4 general as Dai Viet. My 120K Chinese troops against his 80K Eastern troops. No stack wipe - just a major battle and I got a measly .57 prestige.
I'm not sure about the exact numbers Paradox used while tweaking for this patch, they might be too low.
But if this is really a problem for your empire, I'm sure there are idea idea groups and policies that help both with the prestige problem and with the army tradition one.
Later on there are even buildings that help
Yes, skewed way too far with the nerfs to prestige from battle and tradition gains.
Whatever happened to MODERATION?
Now it will take *countless* battles to boost prestige above 50 ... which means that mission of ">50 prestige = +1 stability" significantly more difficult to complete, and AIs struggling even more to hold PUs if they get pounded via events.
I think prestige from battles is in a nice place, since there are a lot of ideas that improve it, and other ways to get/lose the number. Tradition though... I simply can not keep it up. If i am not running both plus tradition and minus decay, it just never rises above 45, and usually drops to the mid 30s or 20s before truces finish. I would think that being at war whenever truces allow would get me to at least 60 tradition. This is with full defensive ideas, playing as muscovy.
Until the base decay is reduced from -3% (to account for the nerf in gains), and unless Paradox wants to mandate the Aristocracy idea group ... it will be very difficult for anyone to achieve 90%+ in both Army and Naval tradition, if they have not yet accomplished that achievement.
1. For changing the amount of prestige. You can discuss that it's too sharply, but the direction is acceptable. Prior to this patch I got in one battle 10-12 prestige points and I did not care about the number of prestige I would obtain as a result of the peace. Now everything has changed. And it's not bad.
2. About warscore.
Show superiority before last patch:
Show superiority partialy after patch:
Conquest after patch:
The number of warscore has changed significantly. At first glance, two times more than would be necessary. What good would be with this warscore, when high enthusiasm will not allow to make acceptable peace.
There is even a crazy theory that because of trivial errors number of military tradition was simply added to the warscore, so the traditions are zero, but wascore are too high. Notice that in the patch notes is not a word about the change of the warscore.
2. About warscore.
Show superiority before last patch:
Show superiority partialy after patch:
Conquest after patch:
The number of warscore has changed significantly. At first glance, two times more than would be necessary. What good would be with this warscore, when high enthusiasm will not allow to make acceptable peace.
There is even a crazy theory that because of trivial errors number of military tradition was simply added to the warscore, so the traditions are zero, but wascore are too high. Notice that in the patch notes is not a word about the change of the warscore.
I for one really like the almost CK2-nature of Warscore where a ton of WS is earned when you eliminate major enemy armies, allowing you to make small wars for important provinces possible without being required systematically carpet siege the entire enemy empire.
That being said, it is /really/ quite hard to keep Military Tradition up now. I wouldn't mind seeing that brought to say, half of the value that it was the patch before this one.
That being said, it is /really/ quite hard to keep Military Tradition up now. I wouldn't mind seeing that brought to say, half of the value that it was the patch before this one.
Perhaps, but your screenshots do not show how much. AFAIK, battle warscore has always been relative to the enemy's total troops.
And now for the military traditions. After reading the some comments above I'm in shock. There is a significant number of people who believe that everything is correct. Therefore, a couple of words.
1. I am delighted with the reasoning that the loser learns from mistakes and therefore gets more traditions. Sorry, in what kind of the world you live? In order to the loser could get some experience he must stay alive.
About what kind of military traditions we can talk if the army is completely destroyed. In the context of the game the military traditions is a tactic, not a strategy. And there is no one who can tell about a wrong tactic - all died.
Obviously, if you lose to a superior force, but destroyed most of the enemy forces and has retained much of your army, then yes. You must receive more military tradition. But not when you stupidly pissed away all that you can.
2. In wiki there is page where described military tradition, as well as how they can be obtained. That's what it was before the latest patch. It was a logical system: receiving of military tradition depended on the ratio of losses. Perhaps there were some shortcomings, but it worked. And I saw with my own eyes that winner can get a lot more losers, especially when wipe enemy stack.
3. And what we have now. Zero tradition from battles. 1 from a siege, and 5 (!) from the decision related to the construction of the fortress. According to your logic, by the construction of the fortress your army more greatly prepares for the upcoming war than by winning the battle?
4. If you carefully read the patch notes, you will notice that it supposed to be only an adjustment. Recently there was the debate on what is that not good when the destruction of one unit gives so much prestige and tradition. And so they heard us. Thank you, Paradox.
1. I am delighted with the reasoning that the loser learns from mistakes and therefore gets more traditions. Sorry, in what kind of the world you live? In order to the loser could get some experience he must stay alive.
About what kind of military traditions we can talk if the army is completely destroyed. In the context of the game the military traditions is a tactic, not a strategy. And there is no one who can tell about a wrong tactic - all died.
Obviously, if you lose to a superior force, but destroyed most of the enemy forces and has retained much of your army, then yes. You must receive more military tradition. But not when you stupidly pissed away all that you can.
2. In wiki there is page where described military tradition, as well as how they can be obtained. That's what it was before the latest patch. It was a logical system: receiving of military tradition depended on the ratio of losses. Perhaps there were some shortcomings, but it worked. And I saw with my own eyes that winner can get a lot more losers, especially when wipe enemy stack.
3. And what we have now. Zero tradition from battles. 1 from a siege, and 5 (!) from the decision related to the construction of the fortress. According to your logic, by the construction of the fortress your army more greatly prepares for the upcoming war than by winning the battle?
4. If you carefully read the patch notes, you will notice that it supposed to be only an adjustment. Recently there was the debate on what is that not good when the destruction of one unit gives so much prestige and tradition. And so they heard us
. Thank you, Paradox.
You're right. But I can not bring in the screenshot the entire length of the chain. They sorted by warscore. If you look closely, on the first screenshot the variation of warscore is 3.5 - 4.5. In the second, battle on top where 26:11 gave 6 points (this is after the patch). On the third you can see still larger values, although usually the battle with conquer given much less points than one with superiority.
Wait, what? In what kind of world do you live that no one survives a battle? There are many who are wounded, captured or simply deserted. EUIV is really simplified in what regards wars.
That said, you do not need your army to survive a battle to know that it needs reform.
Finally: is your claim about Military Tradition what you think it is or what Paradox thinks it is? Because, as far as I know, Paradox has never mentioned that Military Tradition is simply a "tactic" and that this "tactic" has nothing to do with everything else related to the military. In fact, we possess that very important modifier called "Military Tactics", which affects discipline, not AT.
Wiping the enemy stack leads to a lot of losses to your stack? I don't compute. Stackwipes are generally instantaneous or happen in extremely one-sided battles, at least according to my own experience.
First, it's not a decision: It is a mission. Second, I don't really understand the mission at all, if it was my choice it'd be removed or better explained.
4. If you carefully read the patch notes, you will notice that it supposed to be only an adjustment. Recently there was the debate on what is that not good when the destruction of one unit gives so much prestige and tradition. And so they heard us
Yes, it is supposed to be an adjustment. I will agree that before the quickfix it was too small of a bonus during battles, but I don't understand when some people - like you - claim that an army that has won time and time again is bound to get even more powerful (???) rather than an army that lost and knows it needs to reform. The Prussians, before Jena, believed they were invencible because they had won several wars against Austria (A much more powerful state than Prussia) some years ago, losing changed that and we can see the results on the post-Napoleonic Prussian army.
Losing certainly does not guarantee that an army will reform for the best, or that it will reform at all, but I think that the AT gain being higher for the losing side works fine enough for now.
Sieging still seems to create a lot of MT. I just noticed I was at 96 after a war with Russia and I wasn't even really trying. I wasn't carpet sieging them but captured maybe 20 or more provinces.