Patch 1.13.2 - Checksum 04fe (NOT for problem reports)

[TheMeInTeam]

Is not being able to declare war on a target with a pending call-to-arms new? I can't for the life of me remember not being able to do that.

Yes, if that is in 1.13.2 it is new. Patches not listing significant changes and/or listing inaccurate data is, unfortunately, not new.

 

[2dme]

Yes, if that is in 1.13.2 it is new. Patches not listing significant changes and/or listing inaccurate data is, unfortunately, not new.

I don't know, it all adds to the mystery and sense of discovery (and then frustration when you realise you can't do something you could before)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't know, it all adds to the mystery and sense of discovery (and then frustration when you realise you can't do something you could before)

If you want that you can opt to avoid reading the patch notes though.

What happens if someone wants patch notes that consistently document the changes made and accurately reflect the game experience? I'm always a bit perplexed when misleading language is accepted as the norm, especially in a strategy title.

When you see something confirmed inaccurate lasting in patch notes for months on end, and then get multiple confirmations of mechanic changes that didn't make it into the patch notes, the conclusion is that the patch notes are neither a credible nor reliable source, based on the evidence presented (and 1.13 is not new in this regard).

Even if the changes are reasonable, they're still rule changes, and knowing the rules changed can and will alter how one plans for their games. Maybe you break that alliance or declare war sooner to avoid this issue...except you have no reason to believe it exists. In ironman or MP, this can be a significant screwjob, applied needlessly. The core issue I harped on is the same boat. If you read that patch note, you will (wrongly) conclude that you can vassal a nation on the same continent and take a province from the would-be vassal, because in doing so you could core that province *instantly*. Nope.

This isn't a bug report thread, but then what I'm complaining about is the thread content itself, not strictly in-game bugs.

 

[User4035]

The base number was increased by about 25-50% but some other factors in code tweaked as well so it shouldn't be as much as that.

Well what are these other factors that cause a 50% increase?

Is Taking stuff with claims from a rival still the same AE?


And no fix for 'enable scuttage?' ...when I vassalize Venice, Genoa, hansa, or Netherlands I want me ducats!!!;

 

[2dme]

If you want that you can opt to avoid reading the patch notes though.

What happens if someone wants patch notes that consistently document the changes made and accurately reflect the game experience? I'm always a bit perplexed when misleading language is accepted as the norm, especially in a strategy title.

When you see something confirmed inaccurate lasting in patch notes for months on end, and then get multiple confirmations of mechanic changes that didn't make it into the patch notes, the conclusion is that the patch notes are neither a credible nor reliable source, based on the evidence presented (and 1.13 is not new in this regard).

Even if the changes are reasonable, they're still rule changes, and knowing the rules changed can and will alter how one plans for their games. Maybe you break that alliance or declare war sooner to avoid this issue...except you have no reason to believe it exists. In ironman or MP, this can be a significant screwjob, applied needlessly. The core issue I harped on is the same boat. If you read that patch note, you will (wrongly) conclude that you can vassal a nation on the same continent and take a province from the would-be vassal, because in doing so you could core that province *instantly*. Nope.

This isn't a bug report thread, but then what I'm complaining about is the thread content itself, not strictly in-game bugs.

I agree with you, just making light of it.

 

[tfjs]

AE increase:
Random example from taking 6 provinces a roughly equivalently sized rival (well they used to be) all with claims and at 66 development total - this patch gives a 20 Ae point increase (to the loosing side and their neighbouring ally).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

AE increase:
Random example from taking 6 provinces a roughly equivalently sized rival (well they used to be) all with claims and at 66 development total - this patch gives a 20 Ae point increase (to the loosing side and their neighbouring ally).

That doesn't sound too bad in a vacuum, though there are factors going into that which aren't being stated it's at least not egregious like the beta levels where you pretty much resigned to just being in coalition range all the time after a small opening phase.

 

[tfjs]

to add a bit more there was a:
47% increase for the target (similar size)
52% increase to target's ally (smaller)
44% increase to my participant ally (they're bigger)
63% increase to other rival (bigger) (edit perhaps the emperor is actually smaller than me even though he has v large army, would make sense with the other figures)
57% increase to my union subject (smaller)
36% increase to other big neutral nation bordering me
81% increase to threatened (by me) nation nearby (smaller)

it was quite a big take at about 80 oe

edit: looks like a 50% scaled to much more developed you/they are

 

[TheMeInTeam]

to add a bit more there was a:
47% increase for the target (similar size)
52% increase to target's ally (smaller)
44% increase to my participant ally (they're bigger)
63% increase to other rival (bigger)
57% increase to my union subject (smaller)
36% increase to other big neutral nation bordering me
81% increase to threatened (by me) nation nearby (smaller)


it was quite a big take at about 80 oe

Thanks, that is helpful perspective. This is pre or post admin efficiency? Admin efficiency is a big modifier itself.

 

[tfjs]

pre.
Aragon gotta take out Castile while France is still bff
It's quite early and my 2nd war against Castile, only took a little the first time - 4 claimed adjacent provinces
(I won't be save scumming to pre peace deal that's for sure)

 

[mate0815]

am i right, that the mp-problems with hidden events are not fixed with that patch?

 

[lymond]

AE goes way up..AE goes way down. AE too much...AE too little. You'd think at this point in the life of this game that something as integral to the game as AE would be stabilized by now.

 

[aragonFTW]

Thanks for fixing dancing army bug that ruined a war in my current MP game, loaded that save and the AI ally started helping again.

 

[mayaknife]

AE goes way up..AE goes way down. AE too much...AE too little. You'd think at this point in the life of this game that something as integral to the game as AE would be stabilized by now.

It probably was, but AE does not exist in a vacuum. As other elements of the game change it's not surprising that AE is affected as well.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It probably was, but AE does not exist in a vacuum. As other elements of the game change it's not surprising that AE is affected as well.

Other elements...like bugfixes for crashes in a hotfix ?

Edit: Seriously, what I quoted was wrong by default, given what just happened in the thread you're posting in. Slam that disagree button down all you like , but it won't change that it's a really weird thing to include in a hotfix, or that leaving demonstrably false patch notes across multiple iterations of the list is strange.

 

[Peachrocks]

AE goes way up..AE goes way down. AE too much...AE too little. You'd think at this point in the life of this game that something as integral to the game as AE would be stabilized by now.

AE will never be fixed. Notice how complaints about the game are significantly less when AE isn't a thing. Until coalitions are properly dealt with and are actually a working mechanic, AE will never feel 'right'.

 

[happymix91]

I've never felt that AE is totally too high or low. Even it was buffed significantly, there is some instances when AE isn't matched with what was in real history, and even it was nurfed, there is some instances vice versa. War and peace sysyem in EU4 is applied to whole world and whole era in same way. Most importantly, every system of EU4 is primarily done for 'game', not for history simulator. Don't think that it can satisfy everyone in every gameplay. Every AE changing has its flaw.

I, personally think that AE at 1.13 beta was the most satisfying level in recent patches, but others may think in different way.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

- Zoroastrian and Jewish Missionaries will no longer look like Cranes.

Oh, my sides

 

[rzz41]

Hi Wiz thanks to the team for working so hard on hotfixes.

Was just wondering if the "deny_annex/allow_annex" issue in wargoals file is on the to-do list? as it stands, the humiliate cb should deny annex of provinces but fail to do this

 

[ChildeR]

AE goes way up..AE goes way down. AE too much...AE too little. You'd think at this point in the life of this game that something as integral to the game as AE would be stabilized by now.

The same could be said about every core mechanic, but it doesn't really work like that. If they are to make major changes to the game, then necessarily core mechanics will need balance changes.

(When and by how much to change it is another matter.)