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

[AKronblad]

Still no changes to AI's tendency to vassalize versus annex/take provinces in peace deals?

As mentioned on numerous occasions, AI vassalized much more frequently in 1.12.2, but since 1.13 hardly not at all.*


* This is admittedly based on observations made in a mod after migration from 1.12.2 to 1.13. However, consistent observations, since number of vassals at any given point in time in 1.13 was a tiny fraction of 1.12.2's, observed by modders and player alike.

 

[RobRoy3]

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, it's new with patch 1.13.2. You can't remember not being able to do it before, because it was a feature before yesterday. Now, it seems to be badwrongfun or an "exploit" that offended someone's sense of how the game should be played.

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.

Indeed, I can confirm that it is now the situation in 1.13.2

As with any (INEXCUSABLE) stealth change, we're left wondering if it was really intentional or an "oops" caused by some other change. Unfortunately, if past is predictor, we may never get confirmation as to whether the change was intended, much less any kind of rationalization.

As for the merits of the change (assuming it was intended), I guess I could see arguments either way. I'm sure there are also many situations where the feature could be exploited, and I guess "so what" is not considered an acceptable response to exploits. This one, though, hardly strikes me as particularly egregious. More importantly, there are often quite legitimate scenarios where you'd like to engage in a separate war with the common enemy. Now, apparently, the game is considered better if your choices are limited to breaking the alliance or being your ally's lackey.

Not sure how such a questionable change would rate such a priority for hot-fixing, though. Personally, my pet peeve is the looooong standing issue with irritating exile situations that your armies, already engaged in hostilities, can encounter with stray wardecs and peace treaties on the other side of the world.

 

[Wizzington]

Updated changelog with a couple things I missed putting in there.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So this patch has similar AE to the beta patch, best I can tell. I'm not sure how that qualifies for "slightly" increased AE, but I hope everyone is ready to dust off their truce-cycling.

 

[doktorstick]

Yeah... adjusting AE this late in the cycle is garbage. It's something so fundamental to the game that you have to readjust how you have been playing. I expect that for major patches, but these swings in maintenance releases is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[happymix91]

Yeah... adjusting AE this late in the cycle is garbage. It's something so fundamental to the game that you have to readjust how you have been playing. I expect that for major patches, but these swings in maintenance releases is complete and utter nonsense.

I think that AE changing has been tested internally with 1.14 and AE is so fundamental but nearly broken at 1.13, so they updated it before 1.14.

It is 2 months from 1.13. Updating AE isn't weird for me.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think that AE changing has been tested internally with 1.14 and AE is so fundamental but nearly broken at 1.13, so they updated it before 1.14.

It is 2 months from 1.13. Updating AE isn't weird for me.

AE is around where it was in 1.13.0 beta, they've changed it numerous times including 1.13.0 beta release, and now 1.13.2 beta.

AE is not and was not "broken". "Broken" are mechanics that don't do what they say they do in the game, or more relevant to this thread, the patch notes. The patch not for AE is misleading but at least there's a warning there, as opposed to them actively telling the player something that isn't true.

Balance changes are usually not "hot fix" material. After using language in the previous hotfix along the lines of "won't be another one until 1.14 unless something is high priority", it's awkward that some of the things written in the patch notes are asserted as high priority. Now we're back to truce manipulation and workarounds + abusing coalition against AI, as if that's somehow better.

 

[happymix91]

AE is around where it was in 1.13.0 beta, they've changed it numerous times including 1.13.0 beta release, and now 1.13.2 beta.

AE is not and was not "broken". "Broken" are mechanics that don't do what they say they do in the game, or more relevant to this thread, the patch notes. The patch not for AE is misleading but at least there's a warning there, as opposed to them actively telling the player something that isn't true.

Balance changes are usually not "hot fix" material. After using language in the previous hotfix along the lines of "won't be another one until 1.14 unless something is high priority", it's awkward that some of the things written in the patch notes are asserted as high priority. Now we're back to truce manipulation and workarounds + abusing coalition against AI, as if that's somehow better.

You wrote as if you are a project lead. What has high priority or not is totally on developer's hand, and there was a thread which demands more minor patches between major patches. And now you blame for Devs to not do as they said, but I think that there is no reason to blame them. The only thing I don't like is this patch can make 1.14 released later. But as a customer, further support for major patch which is tied with DLC can't be bad. Final version of each major patch is also a playable old version. If developers feel like something goes bad and fix it, it should always be complimented.

And so I said 'nearly' broken. People always think in different ways, so I don't say it definetely broken. Yes, it may not be even nearly, but as devs make new patch, they might think that AE level at 1.13 is very bad.

Repeatedly, it is 2 months from last major patch. No weird for AE changing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You wrote as if you are a project lead.

No lol, I wrote as if I didn't agree with the choices made.

And now you blame for Devs to not do as they said, but I think that there is no reason to blame them

The last 3 patch note lists in a row wrongly describe the functionality of a mechanic listed in the patch the referenced mechanic was implemented...unless it was stealth-fixed in 1.13.2. Because there have been at least a half dozen but probably more than a dozen unlisted changes of significance in the past year, that is a legitimate possibility, if unlikely.

The reason to "blame" that is relevant to this thread is that this isn't the first, second, third, or fourth (I could continue, but let's not) time patch notes on release have either lacked multiple important changes that were made or listed changes that function differently in the game. There are more reasons I won't discuss because they're off topic, but will discuss with you elsewhere. Nevertheless, that I can't read a patch note list and have reasonable confidence that the game won't blindside me with a mechanic nobody mentioned that was clearly an intentional change or that the list I read accurately represents the game mechanics isn't something laudable...and yes reasonable confidence is not indicated when the pattern is that you can't trust the patch notes in that regard.

It also makes bug reports problematic. Wiz mentioned that this thread isn't for "pet issues", but part of the problem with undocumented changes is that it isn't always obvious whether the change was intentional or unintentional. Nations can go to animist without bankrupting, but not other pagans except norse? Events got removed from idea groups with nary a mention (intentional? the NIs not changing wasn't). Was the Linux de-sync bug that was created in 1.6 ever fixed so people can play cross-platform MP as advertised? What about size scaling in peace deals, how did that progress? Why does declaring on a protectorate created after a war with its overlord break truce, and which patch was that again?

Which of these are bugs, which are intentional? Is the patch note description just wrong, or is the in-game implementation bugged? When something changes significantly, it can be either, and I've been surprised at the answer in both directions. That's not the problem though, the problem is that the change is a surprise in the first place and that there's credible reason to doubt, and that starts with threads like this one.

Repeatedly, it is 2 months from last major patch. No weird for AE changing.

This is not a major patch.

 

[ChildeR]

So this patch has similar AE to the beta patch, best I can tell. I'm not sure how that qualifies for "slightly" increased AE, but I hope everyone is ready to dust off their truce-cycling.

I haven't played a lot, but in my experience so far:

• Outright conquest&core is roughly similar to how the beta was. Probably less limiting, but hard to tell yet.
• Vassalizing and expanding through their cores is buffed in comparison, likewise PU CBs.
• Coalitions seem somewhat more forgiving in that it is easier to get a small coalition rather than no->huge.

 

[Wizzington]

This thread is here to inform, not for ego slapfights. Closing it.