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

[Squirrelloid]

The really ridiculous thing is that it's possible to gain more than +5 yearly static prestige gain - which will max you out passively. So apparently building a monument, some trade shenanigans, and some idea groups are far more important to prestige than actually winning battles, because the prestige implications of battles are now abysmally low.

Similarly AT. I know it used to be the case to passively be at 100 AT forever with the right idea groups as some nations. Passive AT gain seems to be the only way to actually gain any real AT in 1.11.

I suppose at least this will mean that most lucky nations will have craptastic generals now, because they'll be sitting at sub-20 AT just like everyone else.

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.

Used to be 1 per successful siege. Was very helpful in keeping AT up before. Now its pretty much the only way to get it outside passive gain.

 

[Duke of Britain]

The really ridiculous thing is that it's possible to gain more than +5 yearly static prestige gain - which will max you out passively. So apparently building a monument and some idea groups are far more important to prestige than actually winning battles, because the prestige implications of battles are now abysmally low.

Arts and culture were vital for a State's prestige at the time. I'll agree that the static gain for some Ideas are too strong, though.

Similarly AT. I know it used to be the case to passively be at 100 AT forever with the right idea groups as some nations. Passive AT gain seems to be the only way to actually gain any real AT in 1.11.

I suppose at least this will mean that most lucky nations will have craptastic generals now, because they'll be sitting at sub-20 AT just like everyone else.



Used to be 1 per successful siege. Was very helpful in keeping AT up before. Now its pretty much the only way to get it outside passive gain.

That's a good point, actually. AT is too easy to gain with certain NIs, I can imagine that Prussia will be terrific now... more so than in the previous patches.

 

[Squirrelloid]

Arts and culture were vital for a State's prestige at the time. I'll agree that the static gain for some Ideas are too strong, though.

Sure. But so was actually winning battles. It doesn't matter how cultured a nation is if there army never wins a battle and it loses every war it fights, its prestige is going to be low. Except in EUIV 1.11.

That's a good point, actually. AT is too easy to gain with certain NIs, I can imagine that Prussia will be terrific now... more so than in the previous patches.

Err... maybe. But the real problem is that its now too hard to gain AT from *actually fighting*.

Its easy to say 'these other bonuses must be too high', but the current prestige / AT rewards for fighting battles are abysmally low, and make it next-to-impossible to outpace annual decay so you actually make any longterm gains.

(Complaining that people were sitting at maximum before is a problem with having a maximum value at all coupled with a fixed decay rate, because over 400 years, any ability to exceed the decay rate will result in you hitting the maximum in less than 100 years, but not being able to exceed the decay rate will make the mechanic feel pointless. People reaching maximum in such a system is not and cannot be seen as a problem).

 

[dm99]

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.

Forced to disappoint you. This is battle of completely ready armies. Almost fully staffed, with morale raised to a maximum. But before we talk about that finishing off demoralized army should not bring military traditions, you may try to break the French army at the battle and then finish it to zero .

 

[hauptman]

In my screenshot, that was the forth battle (i think). None of the battles gave me any miltrad. England only got miltrad on the stackwipe. The previouse battles (even when we all had full stacks) were all 0.0

I just didnt take a picture of those until the final wipe, that still said zero. Hopefully the hotfix changed it.

 

[dm99]

Wiping the enemy stack leads to a lot of losses to your stack?

Sorry, it's my bad english :blush: Should read as follows: winner of the battle received much more the military tradition than loser, especially in cases of complete wiping of the stack.

First, it's not a decision: It is a mission.

You right it's mission.

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.

Tell me, why do you multiply entities beyond necessity. Very simple expression "military tradition", the value can be found in the dictionary and it will be close to what it means in game. Little morality, its a little faster recovery, a little faster recovery of manpower and a little faster siege. And military leaders .

And for your military reforms have a clear line in the game: military technology and ideas. Only they can dramatically change your army, after which it will be able to win. A tradition that's just a bonus, a small but nice.

And now the answer to your question - in the game world is simple, no one survives. All died. Sad but true .

 

[dm99]

Exact the same battle that in the first post, but after a new patch. Word "tweak" perfectly reflects what is happening. Dear Paradox, may be you stop tweaking, but just fix it or return as it was. How did it all bothered :blink:.

 

[Wizzington]

Exact the same battle that in the first post, but after a new patch. Word "tweak" perfectly reflects what is happening. Dear Paradox, may be you stop tweaking, but just fix it or return as it was. How did it all bothered :blink:.

View attachment 125536

You're not supposed to gain more than a little tradition from an absolute massacre like that.

 

[lolada]

Well its better, you got now 0,3 AT, before it was 0. Other things as 3 prestige (which is quite ok) and warscore are the same, loser still earns the same amount.

With few of these battles and sieges after there will be some AT gained. +AT and -AT decay ideas are now more important.

Innovative, Religion, Offensive and Naval have prestige boosts. There is unique building and policies also.
Maritime, Aristocracy and Defensive have tradition boosting ideas. There is unique building and policies also.
Nations that have these bonuses have some advantage. Events and missions are more important.

Overall looks better, its probably fine now.

 

[Ilightmaster]

This is a buff of ideas with +1.0 tradition. Whereas a little more tradition would be just fine

 

[dm99]

You're not supposed to gain more than a little tradition from an absolute massacre like that.

Well, something starts to clear up. Thank U.

Since nobody wants to say how exactly things have changed, we have to guess yourself. Here are the exact same battle with another result. I get even less military traditions. The truth and the loser got much less. But still in many times more.

1.

2.

Than the worse the winner conducted the battle, those the smaller it gets. But than the worse the loser conducted the battle, those more it gets. Strangely it all.

And now a couple of questions. What conditions must be met to winner got more? And if these conditions no longer exists, why we continue to receive military traditions from the winning of siege but not from loss? This may be better correspond to the concept of loser tradition.

I ask you properly to understand my questions. I am ready to accept any rules that you offer, because this is your game. But for this such rules need to be understood. Pre-existing concept has changed very much, but it's really not clear how or why.

If the maximum number of military traditions, what you can receive in the battle is 0.3, so be it, this is acceptable. But why the .... loser gets 2.3?

 

[unmerged(243999)]

You're not supposed to gain more than a little tradition from an absolute massacre like that.

I actually don't mind the tiny Tradition gain from the massacre, because that's sensible, but can you look at the fact that the enemy somehow got 2.3 tradition from their army being destroyed/captured/routed?

Unless Military Tradition is supposed to represent the ability of soldiers to lose, they shouldn't be getting 2.3 tradition from getting mauled like that. It doesn't bother me when the loser of a major fight gets a little more tradition, but we're talking about a delta of 2.0 tradition for being the victim of an 'absolute massacre'.

I'd honestly not feel like the tradition I get for winning fights is too small, if the tradition that the loser gets wasn't so huge.

 

[Yxklyx]

I had one game where my nation was sitting at 100 prestige with no decay. I think it might have been a Thirteen Colonies to USA game. Some of the ideas/decisions give a bit too much. Didn't think much of it at the time because prestige was so easy to get but now this setup is a bit OP.

 

[lolada]

@dm99 I suppose we will need to test it more to see whats happening exactly.

- Prestige is not that much of a problem, for example in my Theodoro game i have +Prestige advisor and Religious ideas which is +2 prestige every year. Theo also has - AT decay in ideas and i picked up Aristocracy

Some events are tho very bad, like the one that gives -33 prestige or -stability i think. They could be toned down now a bit.

 

[Sir Tornado]

I hope I don't sound like a fanboi, but I think these changes are good. Here's how I see things

1) Prestige: In my opinion, prestige should not come out of winning battles... it should come out of winning wars. Earlier we had a stage wherein we could win 1 battle within a month of start of hostilities and gain ~10 prestige; the same amount of prestige which we would gain for the "Concede defeat" CB where your military superiority is basically affirmed by the other party... this was insane.

2) Military Tradition: IMO, one sided battles should not receive high MT. One sided battles basically means you had the opponents' number and everything went absolutely smoothly for your side. When this happens, there is not much learning... on the other hand, battles which are closely fought and where both the armies suffer casualties should be the ones where winner gets MT because he is actually learning something.

3) Warscore: Does not matter beyond a point as there is a cap at 40. One change I would like to see here is in the claim superiority ticking war score condition which says: "Win 75% of the battles". It should say "Have a warscore of 30 from battles".

 

[dm99]

@dm99 I suppose we will need to test it more to see whats happening exactly.

It is clear. I tried an "easier way": ask directly from the Paradox of what they did. Looks like I was wrong. Though the 0.3 instead of 0 is not bad result.

 

[CemXen]

The Janissaries
Can only fire once
Trigger:

Country is Ottomans
90 army tradition



What about Janissary event ?
I've been kicking butts all around with my Ottomans game. I am barely above 20 AT. I will never be able to trigger the Janissaries. It is 'odd'.
Maybe the trigger has to be adapted if AT becomes so hard to gain.

 

[illapa]

Warscore is bigger when the stack you killed is a bigger part of their overall forcelimits. Killing Albania's tiny army is killing 100% of their army in one battle thus 20% warscore.

Traditions is simply learning from your mistakes. I seem to only get tradition from losing, winning sieges, or really close battles. Perhaps casualties is what matters here with a favor towards the defender.

Prestige seems to have been nerfed period.

 

[hwoosh]

The Janissaries
Can only fire once
Trigger:

Country is Ottomans
90 army tradition



What about Janissary event ?
I've been kicking butts all around with my Ottomans game. I am barely above 20 AT. I will never be able to trigger the Janissaries. It is 'odd'.
Maybe the trigger has to be adapted if AT becomes so hard to gain.

Have you been carpet-sieging your enemies to 100%? It should be fairly simple to rocket to 100 AT by like 1475 if you're aggressive and tenacious enough. You especially want to make a habit of doing this no matter who you're playing as now, since it's the only way to loot.

Also, as the Ottomans, if you conquer one Christian province in Anatolia at a time, you can take the "Convert the Infidel" mission multiple times for 30 AT a pop. Very overpowered now. Off the top of my head I think Trebizond, Chios, Rhodes, and Sinope are the provinces you can use.

 

[Dibujante]

You're not supposed to gain more than a little tradition from an absolute massacre like that.

Look, I just completely wiped out my enemy with no effective losses

All the examples in this thread are of countries with an overwhelming military advantage. And the problem is that their advantage is not growing even further? It sounds like giving military tradition to the losers is necessary to break a feedback loop that causes winners to become invincible.