Aggressive Expansion is what AE stands for.
The AE mechanic gets changed every patch. And tends to be bugged so there were many posts about it. Thus the need to shorten it to AE.
Patch 1.13.1 - Checksum 13a0 - NOT for problem reports
- Thread starter Wizzington
- 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
The AE mechanic gets changed every patch. And tends to be bugged so there were many posts about it. Thus the need to shorten it to AE.
your feeding the trolls wiz!!!!
Once they get a taste they come back for more. And in greater numbers.
- 5
- 1
Ahem... We Eu4 players know what happens after feeding though right? Starts with an A and ends with nnexation.
- 5
Then how is it that nobody noticed the broken ae while testing? Something that anyone who played eu4 a couple of hours would have noticed pretty much immediately.
- 1
AE was low but it wasn't 'you get no AE at all' low, plenty of people thought it was just fine. Combine with the fact that we HAD lowered AE, QA would have no reason to assume the new values were outside the intended bounds. I actually played a campaign myself, but I wasn't in an area where AE mattered that much so I didn't notice either. You'll notice everyone on the forums also assumed the new values were intentional, the only one who could really say any different was me.
- 9
- 3
Thanks, Wiz: makes sense. Could I ask you whether in your view annexation and province demands in peace deals have become cheaper versus vassalisations since 1.12.2?
Vassalisation in one of my mods (Twelve Vultures) was intentionally plentiful, using the right CB'S and all in 1.12.2, but now in 1.13 annexation and province demands are the dominant outcomes, even for CB's and wargoals that don't have any po_demand_provinces...
Last edited:
AE is often assumed intention or not since it's changed pretty drastically patch to patch over the past year. The variance is high enough that a perception of "intention" vs "unintended" wouldn't be rationally distinguishable unless the mechanic is completely nonsensical.
I find confirmed errors like the coring description in 1.13beta making it into 1.13 more concerning. That's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of knowing the mechanic functions differently from the tooltip and deciding (for one reason or another) that it's okay to leave an inaccurate tooltip + patch note concerning the mechanic in the official release, creating a situation whereby players anticipate being able to take land using colonial range to extend cores then can't do it.
QA said it was intended that you can't do it. If that's the case, however, why does the description still say that you can?
Then you have the switch to animist stuff or Ming x2 unrest from mandate of heaven lost that don't make it in, along with other things across earlier patches. The unfortunate result is that people experienced with the patch note history wind up using them as "preliminary information", not reliable...and much worse, that unreliability extends to the in-game interface. Even now, the peace deal screen *still* has instances where it claims you'll either spend DIP or not, with the opposite being the case, in deals a player routinely makes.
It would be nice to be able to read this list and have confidence that it is complete and accurate, but the evidence to date suggests that players should not do so and instead rely on checking the in-game files or using trial and error to learn mechanic function. To me, that's a longstanding issue more harmful than the AE seesaw.
I find confirmed errors like the coring description in 1.13beta making it into 1.13 more concerning. That's not a matter of testing, it's a matter of knowing the mechanic functions differently from the tooltip and deciding (for one reason or another) that it's okay to leave an inaccurate tooltip + patch note concerning the mechanic in the official release, creating a situation whereby players anticipate being able to take land using colonial range to extend cores then can't do it.
QA said it was intended that you can't do it. If that's the case, however, why does the description still say that you can?
Then you have the switch to animist stuff or Ming x2 unrest from mandate of heaven lost that don't make it in, along with other things across earlier patches. The unfortunate result is that people experienced with the patch note history wind up using them as "preliminary information", not reliable...and much worse, that unreliability extends to the in-game interface. Even now, the peace deal screen *still* has instances where it claims you'll either spend DIP or not, with the opposite being the case, in deals a player routinely makes.
It would be nice to be able to read this list and have confidence that it is complete and accurate, but the evidence to date suggests that players should not do so and instead rely on checking the in-game files or using trial and error to learn mechanic function. To me, that's a longstanding issue more harmful than the AE seesaw.
Thanks Wiz. I thought it was a little hard to swallow, given the length of time the Beta was around, but your explanation makes sense. I admit I was a little surprised not to arouse a coalition against me in my Sweden->Scandinavia game, when I also annexed almost all of the Teutonic Order... but I figured it was 'cos I was Sweden! ;-)
hm Genoa seems to by 'serene republic' once more (thus getting +1 diplo and -5y on national focus) not seeing it in pathc notes, guess was just bug/mistake?
You know I was a bit too casual in giving you a response there, sorry. So I did not really answer your question as to costs of annexation to vassalisation from 1.12.2 to 1.13. Rather I made a comment that generally in vanilla that it was cheaper in dip points to annex that to take a vassal due to war goals as it is generally an unjustified demand to vassal.
- 1
Wiz, do be sure to take a look in the bug reports forum about the ideas and traditions bug. I know we're not supposed to post here about bugs, but if you have an administrative idea (only) and try to tag switch to a new nation, you do not get that new nation's ideas and traditions. Only once your ideas change to diplomatic or military, do you get the new ideas. A temporary work around is to take two idea sets, one administrative and one other, and you get the new ideas and traditions.
Just a polite heads up.
Just a polite heads up.
Can you make Cuba and Hispaniola be seperate colonial nations? It would be more historical and they were the most valuable island colonies in the Caribbean (if you exclude Barbados), especially Havana in Cuba being a key port to go to before heading back to Spain.
Also, the Colombia CN should end at Panama (Veraguas in game province is where it ends) but it is pushed up all the way into Costa Rican coastline. The name should also be Nueva Granada for Spain instead of Colombia; Colombia was the name adopted later on.
Also, the Colombia CN should end at Panama (Veraguas in game province is where it ends) but it is pushed up all the way into Costa Rican coastline. The name should also be Nueva Granada for Spain instead of Colombia; Colombia was the name adopted later on.
What gameplay value do you get from such small CNs?
Spain's colony in Colombia is usually called New Granada already.
Spain's colony in Colombia is usually called New Granada already.
Ports, some income, and trade influence. Above all, more realism and historical-correctness always helps.
How exactly would that be much different from having a single CN there?
I honestly don't see the point of 6-7 province CNs.
I could see the difference in having more CN in Americas, with more conflicts between colonial powers and colonial nations making it reflect more like Europe with more "nations" there. However I see some issues that should be handled then. CN should be created and gets benefits sooner, like when you reach the third colony. And greater options should be available so you could decide whether to keep it as a single stronger CN, which in part could be subject of rebels becoming independent from them and they should have greater ability to allying themselves with each other, even across colonial powers since smaller CN would be weaker compared to a larger.
There were 3 types of colonies in the new world: trade depots, plantations (extraction), and immigration settlements. We should be able to choose what type of colony we want it to be. The option to change this every 10-20 years?
Trade Depot colonies will give you more trade power and trade steering. They will not seek to expand in their CN as they only need key ports which they already have. Maybe this option should only be available for Islands?
Plantations will give you a lot more production money and will extract silver and gold at high capacity. Permission to settle other provinces within the CN will be asked of you (through concessions and grants).
Immigration Settlements will give you more income and will grow in population and seek to expand beyond its borders within the same CN of course (they may also stir up troubles with natives). However you will have a harder time regulating the religion and the desires of the people after a while.
For instance then, we'd have Cuba as a trade depot along with Hispaniola. Barbados would be a plantation just like Mexico, and the Thirteen Colonies would be Immigration Settlements. However we can choose to do what we want.
Now that they are introducing regions, perhaps we could keep large CN's, however they would have regions as vassal CN's with their own governors? So the leader of the CN would be a Viceroy and the vassal leader of the regional CN's would be governors. To have a Viceroy, we would need at least 2 regional CN's under our control thus giving us the option to group them under a Viceroy with the name we want. In theory then we could have the Viceroy of the Antilles where he owns Cuba, but Hispaniola and other islands may be his vassal.
Trade Depot colonies will give you more trade power and trade steering. They will not seek to expand in their CN as they only need key ports which they already have. Maybe this option should only be available for Islands?
Plantations will give you a lot more production money and will extract silver and gold at high capacity. Permission to settle other provinces within the CN will be asked of you (through concessions and grants).
Immigration Settlements will give you more income and will grow in population and seek to expand beyond its borders within the same CN of course (they may also stir up troubles with natives). However you will have a harder time regulating the religion and the desires of the people after a while.
For instance then, we'd have Cuba as a trade depot along with Hispaniola. Barbados would be a plantation just like Mexico, and the Thirteen Colonies would be Immigration Settlements. However we can choose to do what we want.
Now that they are introducing regions, perhaps we could keep large CN's, however they would have regions as vassal CN's with their own governors? So the leader of the CN would be a Viceroy and the vassal leader of the regional CN's would be governors. To have a Viceroy, we would need at least 2 regional CN's under our control thus giving us the option to group them under a Viceroy with the name we want. In theory then we could have the Viceroy of the Antilles where he owns Cuba, but Hispaniola and other islands may be his vassal.
Repost. However I'd like to restate that Cuba and Hispaniola shouldn't be clumped together administratively.
- 2
- Status